Almost

Apparently key members of John McCain's staff were urging him to take a one-term pledge back in April of 2007 and the candidate was on board to the extent that such a pledge "was set to be the central thread of his presidential campaign, and Mark Salter, McCain's chief speechwriter, crafted an announcement speech around it." But at the last minute, McCain changed his mind.

So I suppose this means that McCain's inner circle thinks he's not up for a second term?

Comments

If he takes a one-term pledge, he's even more toast than he is now. No-one wants to elect a president who's a lame-duck from the get-go.

Posted by SCM | June 3, 2008 9:07 AM

I assume this post is partially tongue in cheek, but it's still a little hack-ish for my taste. It's like something Jonah Goldberg would post on the Corner. A combination of obtuseness and a determination to see every action or position taken by the other side in the most negative possible light.

Posted by Led | June 3, 2008 9:09 AM

More likely they thought he needed a gimmick like that to emerge from a crowded but shitty Republican field. There's no real reason to suspect it was intended to buy him points in the general election.

Posted by phil | June 3, 2008 9:10 AM

I assume this post is partially tongue in cheek, but it's still a little hack-ish for my taste. It's like something Jonah Goldberg would post on the Corner. A combination of obtuseness and a determination to see every action or position taken by the other side in the most negative possible light.

Posted by Led | June 3, 2008 9:13 AM

I assume this post is partially tongue in cheek, but it's still a little hack-ish for my taste. It's like something Jonah Goldberg would post on the Corner. A combination of obtuseness and a determination to see every action or position taken by the other side in the most negative possible light.

Posted by Led | June 3, 2008 9:13 AM

Truth be told McCain likely isn't up for a lot of things; breakfast, Cindy, coherent thought, etc. Watch him during a speech and you can almost hear the gears grind as he misses gear after gear when shifting. There's more life in Robert Byrd's eyes than this glazed over wreck on the intellectual highway. He didn't graduate 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy for lack of access to pen, paper and sufficient light to read by. He was reaching for gray matter that wasn't (and still isn't) there.

Posted by steve duncan | June 3, 2008 9:26 AM

I don't know if McCain ever contemplated such a pledge, but I will say it's a terrifically stupid idea. Aside from the fact that it eliminates a tremendous amount of the power a first-term president has (since it guarantees the president won't be running in another election, and will be an irrelevancy for the last year of his/her only term), it also broadcasts that the candidate isn't up to the job since he/she can't make it through 8 years.

Posted by jimBOB | June 3, 2008 9:27 AM

Ambinder, on one of the McCain camp's supposed reasons for favoring a one-term pledge:

It would free him from having to spend the last two years of his presidency running for re-election...

If they really believed this (that McCain would have a freer hand if he didn't run for reelection), they were seriously miscalculating. Running for reelection INCREASES a President's influence, since every Member of Congress in his party is lining up to run on the ticket underneath him. It's no big secret that McCain doesn't have a whole lot of friends among his Republican colleagues on the Hill--what reason would they have to carry his water if he's not even going to be there to give them some incumbent coattails to ride in 2012?

A one-term pledge simply puts you in second-term lame-duck mode from the get go. And that's not even getting into the difficulty of filling high-level political appointments with such a small amount of time on the clock.

Posted by Jake H. | June 3, 2008 9:30 AM

srsly, what would the point of this have been? Ambinder quotes Anonymous as saying “It would have been the most selfless act in modern American politics" and Ponnuru as saying “It would highlight his devotion to service." By that logic, you know what would be really selfless and highlight his devotion to service? Not running at all. (See Gore, Albert, 2004 et seq.)

If McCain thinks he's the best man for the job in 2008, why not in 2012? If not in 2012, why in 2008? This might make sense if, like James K. Polk, McCain had well-defined goals that he hoped to accomplish in four short years, but his signature issue is the war in Iraq, which he's planning on pursuing for more than one term. (I won't say for twenty-five.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 3, 2008 10:23 AM

Seems like a simple way to rhetorically say you've taken care of the age issue. of course, that makes your vp choice that much more crucial.

Posted by Julene | June 3, 2008 10:26 AM

Let's say he were to make this pledge today. Would ANYONE besides the truly idiotic dead-enders believe it? It would be the most transparent, pandering, "made-to-be-broken" pledge ever.

Posted by Seitz | June 3, 2008 11:38 AM

No, I think it's a really bad idea. First, he's have to constantly defend the idea that he really means it. Second, it underscores the age thing-- he's so old, he CAN'T serve twice. Third...

Well, honestly, after the last four years, do we really want another president who doesn't give a damn what the public thinks because he'll never answer to them again?

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 3, 2008 12:02 PM

mccain appears more uncertain in his public speaking than even bush.

i guess it's kind of difficult to speak with conviction when you haven't got any.

Posted by karen marie | June 3, 2008 5:09 PM