One Term Pledge?
March 11th, 2008 at 05:17pm Geoff
In the April 2, 2007 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in the interest of the McCain campaign that the Senator should pledge to serve only one term as President if elected. By doing this, he writes, “McCain would implicitly be placing himself on the right side of the divide between those politicians who run to be someone and those who run to do something…that ’something’ would be to see America through an especially dangerous phase of the war on terrorism and, secondly, to address the nation’s looming fiscal wreck.”
I have to agree that a one-term pledge would be beneficial. It would enhance his image and reputation as an unconventional politician, especially among independents, who have had it with Washington and the poisoned politics that have come to fester therein.
I think it would also assuage some conservatives’ concerns that Sen. McCain is trying to remake the Republican Party anew, especially if he were to pick a young and enterprising conservative who would, presumably, run in his own right in 2012.
Finally, it will define him as the statesman in this race; not a messiah or someone solely interested in his own political advancement, but one solely interested in serving his country and helping it resolve some of its most pressing challenges and issues. He commonly says on the stump and in his victory speeches that he owes everything to his country, is proud to have served it for decades, and asks only to serve it a little while longer. Pledging to serve only one term as President would only confirm and enhance that sentiment, and I think it would be rewarded by the American voter.
Entry Filed under: John McCain
10 Comments
1. NJ McCain | March 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
A one term pledge out of the gate makes President McCain a lame duck the minute he enters the White House. He needs to be able to wield authority on many matters (specifically military), and that involves bi-partisan outreach and compromise. Congress won’t act on certain things if they know he’s just there for four years, they’ll just bide their time. If he doesn’t have the potential of a second term, he becomes a place holder president with little authority. That’s certainly not what this country needs.
2. Geoff | March 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
It isn’t the prospect of being up for re-election that gives a President power, but his popularity with the American people.
3. Almiranta | March 11th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I find it so offensive to have “popularity” be the defining characteristic of an American leader, but for some reason this shallow approach to evaluating the success of our presidents has taken over the mindset of too many Americans.
While I agree that a one-term commitment would have some good aspects, prior presidents have said that it took them most of their first terms to really get a grip on the job.
4. Matt DiBari (Mattpat11) | March 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I think the Democratic Congress would just wait him out.
5. Geoff | March 12th, 2008 at 2:34 am
I would encourage you guys to read Mr. Ponnuru’s article if you can. He addresses that concern.
While it’s certainly a possibility that a Democratic Congress would wait him out in such an instance, if Sen. McCain were in a position of political strength as president they could not do so without paying a political price, just as they did for waiting out on the Department of Homeland Security and judicial nominations in President Bush’s first term.
6. forrestal | March 12th, 2008 at 2:39 am
I like the idea of McCain saying on the stump, “Hey, chose me as your president, and if you like what I do, then we’ll talk about another term.” That way he basically says, “put me in the hotseat.” But I’m ambivalent at best about the wisdom of this one-term pledge. That’s National Review for you though — getting the philosophical question started…now if they just would’ve endorsed the right guy. My, that must be embarassing for some there still, don’t you think?
7. Geoff | March 12th, 2008 at 3:16 am
I definitely agree that NATIONAL REVIEW can always be counted on to catalyze philosophical and intellectual on the Right. Not sure how much of an embarrassment their original endorsement of Gov. Romney is though, however much I disagreed with it.
8. Kurt Diekelman | March 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Bob Dole did a 1 term pledge. It was stupid beyond belief, and it shows weakness. Why make himself a lame duck?
9. Geoff | March 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Sen. Dole, with all due respect to him and his service to this country, was a weak candidate irrespective of his one term pledge.
10. Sarah | March 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Turns out no one can predict the future.