Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Atlantic: McCain almost made a one-term pledge last year

The Atlantic: McCain almost made a one-term pledge last year

posted at 4:17 pm on June 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

The source is impeccable: Mark Salter, McCain’s chief speechwriter, on the record.

[L]ess than a day before he was set to speak in New Hampshire on April 25 [of last year], McCain ordered his aides to excise the paragraphs describing the pledge.

“Lots of ideas get raised with the candidate. He made a decision and we didn’t do it,” Salter said in a brief telephone interview this afternoon. He said that “no speech is final until the candidate signs off.”…

Campaign advisers said that, as they discussed the merits of the pledge, the drawbacks were obvious: it might tie McCain’s hand with Congress. It would certainly raise the profile of his heir apparent and vice presidential nominee, who would be treated as a de-facto presidential candidate for McCain’s entire term. And it would draw attention to his age.

But at the time, the benefits were judged to be equally as powerful: his finance team loved it; it would call more attention to the political opportunism of his opponents, Republicans and Democrats. It would free him from having to spend the last two years of his presidency running for re-election; it would send an unmistakable message that McCain intended to be a different kind of president. One Republican close to the campaign said: “It would have been the most selfless act in modern American politics.”

Yeah, and the fact that millions of voters are now going to hear that he wouldn’t go through with it will leave the impression that he’s not so different or selfless after all. He made the right decision for the reasons Ambinder gives, particularly given that he’ll be facing a deep blue Congress that would have every incentive to gridlock him if they knew he was on the clock, and admittedly it’s not like Obama’s in a position to taunt him on this, but why on earth would the campaign confirm it? I don’t get it. Exit question: Any possibility of the pledge returning later this summer as a buzzworthy stunt if Maverick starts to fall too far behind? The only way he’d do it is if his VP pick was exceedingly popular. Hmmmm.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

A one term pledge, with a Dem congress, equals instant lame duck. Suicide.

It is like saying please-oh-please-oh-please pick me.

Limerick on June 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Very Interesting.

ChrisM on June 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM

It’s just too …Mavericky… for me to wrap my mind around.

RushBaby on June 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Palin 2012!

ChrisM on June 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Make the pledge, in writing, and I’m on board.

james23 on June 2, 2008 at 4:24 PM

he’s not so different or selfless after all.

He’s not different at all. His positions on big government are equal to that of Obama and Clinton. He’s as into this for his own ego as anything else. He flirted with changing parties after 2000 because his feelings were hurt.

He’s not different. He thinks government (under him) knows better than everybody and should have more control over everything. He said he’d likely serve one term. . . imagine that. . . he lied just like saying he’d ’secure the border’ first before talking about ‘comprehensive immigration’ any more. That ‘promise’ lasted about 3 months.

Of course, he’s been in DC for 25 years. 3 months is more than enough time for a ‘promise’. I just wish he weren’t so similar to the disasters of Obama and Clinton. He’s more egotistical than any of them and will tell you anything you want to hear.

ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM

His positions on big government are equal to that of Obama and Clinton.

so McCain is for “universal healthcare” and other middle class welfare programs?

jp on June 2, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Don’t do it, Mac. Ask TR how that worked out for him.

Spirit of 1776 on June 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM

jp on June 2, 2008 at 4:30 PM

He believes illegal aliens are US citizens that deserve medicaid and welfare. . . not all of them work. . . but ALL of them have to be cared for in the emergency room. That’s pretty ‘universal’.

He’s for big government ‘cap and trade’ that will essentially TAX every energy company in AMERICA out of existence while neglecting to do anything about polluters in Mexico, Canada, China, India. He will use the government to hurt AMERICAN businesses specifically.

He’s against drilling in the US for more oil as a PART of a solution to end our dependence on ME oil. You know we are financing countries who hate us because we refuse to use our own resources – under the protection of the government (McCain). It doesn’t make us more secure internationally.

so the answer is ‘yes’ to your question. . . just like Obama and Hillary.

ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM

It also sets him up for a GHW Bush “read my lips” assault if there was some major national security crisis that would make it a lot smarter to have the same POTUS in January 2013….

McCAIN DOESN’T LIKE UNIONS
McCain: Unions Have Played ‘Important Role’ But Have ‘Serious Excesses.’ When asked if unions are good for America, McCain responded, “I think the unions have played a very important role in the history of this country to improve the plight and conditions of laboring Americans. I think that like many other monopolies, in some cases they have then serious excesses.” [GOP Dearborn Debate, MSNBC, 10/9/07]

McCain: Teachers’ Unions Serve Unions’ Interest, NOT Children’s Interest. McCain has repeatedly attacked teachers’ unions. “It’s time to break the grip of the education monopoly that serves the union bosses at the expense of our children,” he said. [The New York Times, 2/11/00]
McCain Says Government Workers Are ‘Crippled’ by Union Contracts. In his speech to the Oklahoma State Legislature, McCain said, “We must streamline our workforce, demand high standards of behavior, promote excellence at every level based on merit and accountability, and not let good workers be crippled by the fine print of the latest union contract…. The civil service has strayed from its reformist roots and has mutated into a no-accountability zone, where employment is treated as an entitlement, good performance as an option, and accountability as someone else’s problem.” [Address to the Oklahoma State Legislature, 5/21/07]

Yep. Identical to “Patriotic Corporation Act” Obama in every single way. You betcha.

Funny how the AFL-CIO seems to understand that not to be the case.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_wrights.cfm

funky chicken on June 2, 2008 at 4:37 PM

McCAIN WANTS TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY
Bush: Fix Social Security Through Private Accounts. “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers, and the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” [President Bush’s State of the Union Address, 1/28/08]

McCain: Only Solution to Fix Social Security Is Private Accounts. “There is only one solution if Social Security commitments are to be honored without breaking the backs of the next generation: bold reform— genuine reform—that allows workers to invest some of their Social Security savings, privately, in higher-yielding accounts.” [Cato Institute]

McCain Voted for Bush’s Social Security Privatization Plan. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The GOP proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that will be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote# 68, 3/16/06]

And we all know McCain is a huge proponent of partial-birth abortion too.

Yep, a real Obama clone there.

However, despite the media misrepresentation, McCain has not strayed too far from President George Bush’s line, especially on issues important to working families. McCain is not running for a term of his own; he is running on an extension of the agenda laid out by Bush in his fi rst two terms: tax cuts for the rich, privatizing Social Security and outsourcing jobs.

McCAIN VOTES WITH BUSH
McCain Voted with the Bush Administration 89 Percent of the Time. Since President Bush took office, McCain has supported Bush’s positions 89 percent of the time. McCain’s support of Bush’s policies reached as high as 95 percent in 2007. [Congressional Quarterly Voting Study, 110th Congress]

What a liberal!

funky chicken on June 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM

one can only hope.

redrock on June 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM

McCain Opposed Extending Federal Unemployment Insurance Benefits for Jobless Workers.

McCain voted against extending the expiring Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation program for another six months, with an additional 13 weeks of benefits for workers who exhaust their federal benefits while looking for a new job. The amendment also called for unemployment benefits for low-wage workers and workers seeking part-time employment. At the time the program was due to expire, more than 1 million long-term jobless workers were nearing the end of their state benefits. [S. 1054, Vote #152, 5/15/03]

JOB CREATION
McCain Voted Against 2004 and 2005 Highway Bills.

McCain voted against the 2004 $318 billion highway and transportation bill that would create about 5 million jobs over six years in new highway and transit construction projects, although Bush said he would only approve up to $256 billion in funding. The legislation contained Davis–Bacon prevailing wage protections. McCain also voted in 2005 against a six-year, $286 billion reauthorization of the federal highway and transit construction program. The infrastructure modernization bill would create 1 million family-supporting jobs, protected by Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards. [S. 1072, Vote #14, 2/12/04; H.R. 3, Vote #220, 7/29/05]

He would have vetoed those porkfests and sent them back to the GOP controlled congress with instructions to cut the pork out of them.

funky chicken on June 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM

The only way he’d do it is if his VP pick was exceedingly popular. Hmmmm.

The weather on earth is in keeping with seasonable patterns, with rising barometric pressure affecting tides in the Canadian Maritimes.

mymanpotsandpans on June 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Palin v Clinton in 2012?

Connie on June 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM

What a liberal!

funky chicken on June 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM

Well, given the growth of government in the past 8 years, yes, “What a liberal,” which I’m sure you meant in sarcasm, is exactly how I would portray the Bush administration. Liberal and conservative is defined not by what you waste money on, but how much money you waste on it. Social Security, Welfare, all that junk, so how about this:

Conservative government: Securing the border, repelling invaders and preventing invasions and attacks against the citizenry, providing a free and open market, and protecting and maximizing the infrastructure.
Liberal government: Everything else.

So what a liberal, indeed. And I know, I’ve indicted essentially all of Washington as being a stinking pack of liberals. But there it is just the same.

Spc Steve on June 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM

particularly given that he’ll be facing a deep blue Congress that would have every incentive to gridlock him if they knew he was on the clock

Huh.

Why would they want to “gridlock” him? They agree with him on most things, Iraq being the notable exception.

MB4 on June 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM

If McCain does say he will only run for one term then I will vote for him espically if his VP is either Sarah or S.C. Governor, or Bobby.

BroncosRock on June 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM

but why on earth would the campaign confirm it? I don’t get it.

Yes to the exit question. Convention.

Entelechy on June 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM

He’s more egotistical than any of them and will tell you anything you want to hear.

ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Those are his principles as he has stated. If you don’t like them, well … … … he’s got others.
- Groucho

MB4 on June 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Unprincipled:

Most – Obama
Second most – Hillary
Third most – McCain

We’re scroomed either way – pick your degree of principles.

Entelechy on June 2, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Found this comment at the DUmp of all places, kind of appropriate to how this thread is going.

The candidates are nothing more than Corporate Red and Corporate Blue. No one here who fawns over Obama has done a shred of research on his advisers, his policies (”I will work to get all non-combat troops out of Iraq” – gee, guess that means we’ll still have a presence there, eh?), his contributors (anyone realize that Obama is #3 on the Exxon-Mobil list of who gets their contributions), his laughable “no lobbyist money” pledge (read the fine print, there’s a hole big enough to drive a bus through),etc.

No need to even discuss Clinton – hell, Obama is E.V. Debs compared to her.

Some folks here will try and run that bullshit that if YOU vote for someone other than the party-approved pre-determined savior then YOU are at the root of the downfall of democracy, as if they (by doing everything in their power to marginalize true outside the mainstream progressive candidates) aren’t leading the demolition team. Some here still cling to the tired “it’s the Supreme Court, stupid” line, as if either side will give up its meal ticket (this just in: Bush had 8 years to kill Roe v. Wade. He didn’t even bring a test case up. Even he isn’t stupid enough to kill the mother of all wedge issues).

You’re not wrong, and they won’t listen. They don’t have to. As long as they have passionate followers who still believe that one side is Satin and one side is Shit we will get nowhere. We’ll change the curtains in the living room and everyone will think the house is just like new.

Of course the house is still falling down and the contractors are taking kickbacks and pocketing the money, but what the hell.

Let’s just stare at the curtains and pretend.

windansea on June 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM

he’ll be facing a deep blue Congress that would have every incentive to gridlock him if they knew he was on the clock,

He’s got 4 yrs. They got 2.

mred on June 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM

A McCain “pledge” isn’t worth the air it travels through.

Valiant on June 2, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Was that before or after he wanted to be John Kerry’s Veep?

coffee260 on June 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Make the pledge, in writing, and I’m on board. – James

I’d like that written in BLOOD, please.

Tony737 on June 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM

one term = lamedick

The Race Card on June 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM

TRC, can you say that in fewer words? :)

Entelechy on June 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM

This one term pledge talk is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. What possible incentive is there for McCain to do it? It is wishful thinking from conservatives who are unhappy with him, and doesn’t make a damn bit of sense from his point of view. Why would he shoot himself in the foot like that?

Did IQs just drop sharply since I’ve been away?

JohnW on June 2, 2008 at 8:33 PM

I don’t see why this should bite McCain on the ass.

He could have made the pledge–but chose not to.

He didn’t make the pledge. He didn’t take the oath. How can you hold someone to an oath he didn’t take?

It’s not like he almost took the oath of allegiance to Satan.

daryl_herbert on June 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM

It is wishful thinking from conservatives who are unhappy with him, and doesn’t make a damn bit of sense from his point of view. Why would he shoot himself in the foot like that?

Did IQs just drop sharply since I’ve been away?

JohnW on June 2, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Nobody asked McCain to take this stance. He himself SAID that he would probably only want one term. I guarantee you that he’ll run for as long as he can. He’s been in DC for 25 years, and is a prime example of why we need term limits now that the posts aren’t appointed by state governors.

It doesn’t matter to me if he pledges to be a one term guy or a two term guy (provided people like big government and DC control due to their infinite wisdom on EVERYTHING).

HE brought this up. HE makes an issue of it. Now HE is making an issue that he will run for 2 terms. Nobody else is bringing it up. But anyway it doesn’t matter. McCain is just like the Democrats on everything except the War. . . and that is possibly a bad idea because of the cost – at least it was poorly executed by the people in DC. It doesn’t matter though because it is just bigger government for McCain (the conservative) to lord over the little people who vote.

It seems to me that as long as it costs more money, and the government controls it, McCain likes it. How is that different than the Democrats?

ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Comment pages:

You must be logged in to post a comment.