And from a point of view of efficacy, a one term pledge is disastrous. McCain would be a lame duck the day he took office, since his star and his party's wouldn't be aligned looking to the future. Of course, from a liberal point of view, an ineffective McCain presidency may be superior to an effective McCain presidency.

So, imagine the Dems retain control of both houses of Congress (maybe even leave Lieberman behind in the Senate), and McCain does this.  We've got a lame duck President with a hostile Congress, starting for another 2 at least, and maybe 4 years.   A dumber recipe for effective governance is hard to imagine.

But on the bright side: we have a real need to make Iraq's government look functional, and this might just do that.

Hey there, seventy percent of Americans, if you like our imperial president now, you're going to love Bomb-Bomb-Iran McCain in office without any concern about being reelected in four years!

I think that favourable press coverage could be short lived. As we know, the press oscillates; those glowing stores of self sacrifice would be followed by concern over his ability to govern as a one term president and historical comparisons with the likes of Blair, who killed his last few years in office by exactly the same promise.

Also, note how Murdoch lambasted Blair for exactly this mistake. Would the New York Post and FOX praise McCain for it? I don't think so. And what about the VP? He/she would effectively be a shadow government in the wings.  

It's complete madness and a sign of how desperate they are.

hmmm... interesting use of the future tense instead of the conditional, as if it's a done deal. Do you have more evidence you're not disclosing?

I think it would/will help McCain, by giving comfort to that silent plurality of Dems and Independents who don't really want another GOP president now but are -- quietly, covertly -- appalled at the thought of a newbie in the WH during the sh*tstorm that we will face for the next several years. This allows those millions of silent suburbanites enough mental and moral space to say to themselves, "I'm not keeping Obama out of the WH for good, just delaying his accession until he's less green and the stakes are less terrifying."

"Making this pledge will just lead to a whole slew of stories about his age, which may cause people to think twice about giving him even a single term"

My thoughts exactly Issac before I even got to your sentence above.  Besides, why would I want to waste my vote on a guy who takes his oval office experience, if successful, and leaves after four years because he said he would?  Give me a successful candidate that leverage that experience for another four years.  

Skipper, good point about the instant lame duck status.

If I were Obama, I would start hammering away at the idea that our problems are not prone to quick fixes; that they are long-term and require persistence, patience, cool-headedness, and above all SERIOUSNESS.

And so if anything, a one-term pledge by McCain is the HEIGHT of political expediency. He's not in it for the long-haul, he just wants to measure the curtains in the Lincoln Bedroom before he retires once and for all. He'll be a lame duck and won't be able to accomplish much. And what little he is able to start, he will most certainly not have the chance to guide nor finish. He's just not serious about the presidency.

I think this narrative writes itself:

Barack Obama talks Iraq. John McCain lies about Obama and the troops.

Barack Obama talks gas prices. John McCain lies about tire gauges.

Barack Obama talks energy. John McCain talks Britney and Paris.

Barack Obama is with America for the long haul. John McCain wants to cop out after four years.

John McCain. Just. Not. Serious.

McCain's campaign will be able to use a variation on Hillary's theme: Lame Duck on Day One.

This would be a slam-dunk for Obama, which is why it probably will never happen. After a day or two of adulatory press for McCain's "selflessness," the harsh reality would set in: McCain is all but admitting that he doesn't have the energy or stamina for two terms. And if he doesn't have that, people will wonder (rightfully so) if he only has it for another year or two.

Tep thinks the future shitstorm the country will face won't be trusted to a "newbie," but I think most voters will conclude that the shitstorm is going to demand many years of dedicated service by an energetic full-timer -- not a four year fly-by.

Obama could start comparing McCain to those CEOs who go into a company, screw it up for a few years, and then leave with a big severance because that's all they were there for in the first place.

A one term pledge will intensify scrutiny of McCain's running mate, as that person would immediately be perceived as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2012. That focus would also, however subtly, bring to voters' minds the possibility that McCain might not be able to serve out a full term. There would be less questions raised about the fitness for the presidency of Obama's veep choice, because it would be presumed that such person could possibly reach the presidency only in the remote future (2012). With McCain's running mate, the more questions that are asked about that person's qualifications for the presidency in the foreseeable future, the more voters would think about McCain's age and health problems and the possibility that they would be deliberating on two presidents running on the Republican ticket.

It is with some regret that I learned this past weekend that cockfighting will henceforth be illegal in Louisiana, the last state in which one could legally intentionally set one rooster upon another. For the sake of the animals, I think the ban is a great thing (knowing that illegal cockfights will still persist in the shadows). However, I am sorry to see cockfighting as a metaphor for Presidential elections begin to slide into oblivion.

Presidential candidates are purpose-bred bird-brained beasts we employ to perform things we for some reason are incapable or unwilling to perform ourselves. We elevate the winning temporary employee--the President of the United States--to mythical status when in fact they are little more than power-hungry slimebags. What amuses me to no end are the self-professed believers in one or the other Judeo-Christian tradition who have no qualms worshipping these false idols in designer suits. I can only conclude, therefore, that, if incarcerated, tens of millions of Americans would willingly bend over in their prison showers whether or not they dropped the soap, just begging to be turned into somebody's punk.

Those of you who think it silly to elect a self-defined one-term president, allegedly a lame-duck president with a hostile Congress, do not understand the deep, broad and, IMHO, highly justified antipathy that a large segment of the electorate have toward government in general and federal government specifically.

Government takes my money and then spends it poorly, forces me to accept multiple unnecessary services and irrational restrictions to my life that I can well live without, has helped to create and maintain a society of dependent babies, has saddled me with significant debt I neither agreed to nor deserve, has been largely complicit in the destruction of the Earth's ecosystem while paying lip service to environmental stewardship, could give a shit about my poor brothers and sisters in this country or elsewhere, has no qualms about bombing the living hell out of foreigners while selling the idea as any number of versions of poppycock to the U.S. citizenry, and generally pushes me around like the unbridled rapacious monopoly it mostly is.

Like millions of voters, I do not trust either John McCain or Barack Obama or any of their minions, acolytes, surrogates, or operatives (in or out of the media). Anything that we out-and-proud haters perceive as a means to reduce their power and effectiveness while in office is likely a good thing. Thus if McCain (or anyone else) is stupid enough or idealistic enough (six of one, half-dozen of the other, in my book) to cut four years' worth of his Administration's nuts out, I'm more than willing to entertain the idea.

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Yard. Or any of us, I suspect. Nice post.

Big mistake for McCain's people to even go anywhere near here, better just to say "Let's first get elected and then worry about a second term." And repeat that everytime a reporter asks the question.

Obviously he is a one termer. The thought of a 78, 79, then 80 year old guiding America is insane (provided he lives that long). But leave it as a tacit understanding, now they opened this can of worms.

Besides, will he say "read my lips, I will only serve one term."?

Because of this I can't see how the pledge helps him at all. One, people can say he is lying, that once he gets there he will think mortality doesn't apply to him, and two people can also say it is obvious he will be a one termer because he is so old. Lastly, it means he is running as a placeholder.

"Vote for McCain, lets put the future on hold for 4 years"

This a gimmick now and would only be a more transparent gimmick if a pledge was made. They need now is clear, they can't get attention with Barack on vacation and they're looking at a few more dark weeks until the GOP Convention.  

But the danger now and any diminishing returns the initial buzz may create are clear. The last thing McCain needs is a hint that age, health, stamina or any reference to the viability of a 72 year old.  They'd squander any advantage they've whipped up by focusing on Obama's youth and Johnny's experience. This gossip is already at odds with those claims. As soon as McCain says he's not up to more than four years voters will wonder "Hmm, what does he know that we don't?"  He might as well give the nomination to his VP and say he'll tutor him (her) until McCain can slip off.

Let them float this and get all the great news, do it and find out that after the initial sensation they'll face a September and October with deep regret. The undercurrent of worry about his faculties is real and they probably have data to support it. They may even have evidence that a timetable will quell some fears. But people have yet to hear all the negatives after the pledge is official. They will have sown doubt which they won't be able to undo.

There is only one reason for this ploy and it's because too many voters don't know how long he'll last. It will lead to more confidence if he's asking to be taken out of the game before it begins. "I'm only good for a couple of innings coach but I'm all you've got. It's OK if you pull me when they hit my stuff." No, that isn't lingo for the POTUS.

I don't think it's too smart, myself, but I see most people on here don't agree.

I think it's incredibly selfish to run at all if you think you're only good enough for one term. Wouldn't other people think so too, given the state of the economy right now?

I'm afriadn I'm missing something.  Perhaps one of you can fill me in.

WHY pledge only one term?

Because he's too old?  Then why give him ONE term?

Because he won't be partisan and can make "tough decisions"?  What tough decisions would those be, exactly, and if they're going to be so unpopular as to guarantee one term, I'd like to know what they are NOW, thank you very much.

Because he can't see potential problems or issues that require a horizon longer than four years?

Because his Veep choice will make such an excellent President?  The why the hell didn't the guy (or gal) run this time?  Because he/she was unelectable?  Um . . .

Please, McCain.  Pledge just one term.  Please.  Make my day.

Why nominate him in the first place if he can barely serve one term?

It goes beyond partisan politics; I mean, American's are getting one and a half candidates to choose from. It's absurd that there's only two parties in the first place - one, if you consider that they're practically the same on key FP area's like I/P, Cuba and so on - which makes this further democratic limitation, almost...insulting.

Maybe, some commentators are right, maybe the primary system is broken and smoke filled rooms would be better.

This whole...gimmack, as it's rightly called, reminded me of a great Newsweek article on the problems of South Korean five year presidential terms: www.newsweek.com/.../145807

Obviously there are differences between a once off one term McCain admin and a whole series of one term excecutives, but McCain will be thinking of his "legacy" from day one, as the article points out:"it has also rendered the presidency perpetually unstable, turning governance into a sprint, not a marathon." Hardly, a dedication to good governance.

This isn't a selfless act by McCain, it's actually quite selfish. Why did he take the nomination if he knew he could only serve one term? That's putting personal ambition ahead of party interest.

If I was a Republican, I'd be rightly p*ssed off that my candidate will barely make 4 years.  

"Because he won't be partisan and can make "tough decisions"? "

Yes. It should be obvious to everyone now that the energy discussion is also a national security discussion. We need an energy security policy, not Nancy "Save the Planet" Pelosi's stunts. A POTUS who's focused on energy security and who has no need to worry about the next election is in a good position to get the nation focused on a rational compromise that serves the national interest. The Dems have ignored the energy security argument; the Repubs have gamed the  issue as well. Only an experienced leader who's not in hock to either policy can move us forward, and fast.

Does the Constitution still permit McCain to run with a running mate. If so, if McCain won, Obama would become Vice President and get the on-the job training he needs to take command if and when. Far fetched I know. Just an academic exercise.

Excuse me I meant to ask if the Constitution permits McCain to run "without" a running mate, not "with" a running mate.

Williamyard, I think you've misread the mood of the country right now. People are looking for solutions -- not an excuse to kick the can down the street another four years. The Obama phenomenon, if you will, is due to this hunger for some leadership and vision. If McCain is short-sighted enough to squander the opportunities an eight year presidency provides, then I think the vast majority of voters will conclude that he is unprepared for the "shitstorm" (to recycle Tep's phrase) that lies ahead -- and rightfully so.

This is a brilliant stroke of genius by the McCain campaign.

Never mind that McCain's maverick suit of armor is rusty and falling apart. Or that while lame ducks tend to get impeached or watch their party lose control of Congress, they don't really get things done. And that the Dems are likely to increase their margins in Congress, both in the Senate and in that awful Pelosi woman's chamber, and have more power to brandish in McCain's direction. (Hey, Republican voters: Elect me as a lame duck while the Dems increase their clout!) Forget that it's a tacit admission from John McCain - not a scurrilous charge from his opponents and detractors, but from his supporters, his campaign and the man himself - that he is very, very, very old that he will be too feeble to run for re-election. Forget that you'll have a young, charismatic guy who will be in his late 50s in eight years - hell, didn't he say he wanted to serve for 10 years? - onstage with a man who is white-haired, wrinkly and has already acknowledged that he's not up to a day more than 1,460 in the White House.

No, it's a brilliant stroke of genius. Now, if this is a trial balloon or some other ploy and McCain doesn't go the one-term route, that will be a brilliant stroke of genius, too. Because that's what the McCain campaign does: brilliant strokes of genius.

yard: Your post makes some sense, and in theory it makes a lot of sense, but there's a reason those "elect me to this political office so I can abolish it" candidates are regulated to the Libertarian Party and nine percent of the vote.

Sounds like another Hail Mary to me, just like the gas tax holiday.

If it's such a great idea, why not save it until the last week in October to maximize the impact and limit Obama's ability to mitigate the damage?

It's only August.  If the McCain camp is already this desperate now,  they might just implode before November.

There's a big difference between being able to make tough decisions and, with a hostile Congress who knows you're only a temp, being able to execute said tough decisions.  Plus I suspect there are plenty of folks in Congress who hate McCain's guts (on both sides of the aisle, mind you) to present a fairly serious obstacle to any kind of agenda McCain might care to present.  

But tep, what would McCain DO with his one term "non-partisan" (note the scare quotes) focus on energy policy?  If his energy policies are good ideas (like, um, the "gas tax holiday"), don't the voters deserve to know?  And if they are good policies, why one term?  Or are we going back to "secret plans" (Nixon) or "just trust me" (Carter)?  Surely, for the "one term non-partisan focus" thing to work, McCain would have to announce that AFTER the election.  "I believe so strongly in the policies I've announced that I will serve only one term to ensure their enactement."  Which, now that I think of it, is REALLY stupid, because anyone opposed to those policies will just try to run out the clock on a lame duck.

I repeat: the only conclusion one can draw from a "one term pledge" is either a) he's too old, or b) he has plans he won't reveal.  And I would hope that no one will vote for anyone on that basis.

"Only an experienced leader who's not in hock to either policy can move us forward, and fast."

Well, too bad neither party has nominated an experienced leader.

But the moral message of such a pledge is outrageous. It would only make sense if one were to assume that McCain himself could not control his own urges to do harm to the common welfare if he had to think about reelection. It's not the job of a leader to take necessary action against the will of the people; it is the job of a leader to persuade the public to align its will with what is necessary. After seven years of George W. Bush talking about "tough decisions," if John McCain really does come before the American people and suggest that he is not capable of making "tough decisions" unless he doesn't have to run for reelection, then I swear, I'm liable to shoot the TV. Perhaps if the man had ever in his life attempted to practice political leadership, he would know better than to tell us that we can't trust him to act in his country's best interests _within_ the electoral system.

Now, if McCain wanted to lay out an agenda for his first term, and promise not to run for reelection if he has not achieved certain goals, then that would be great. Or if, like a modern James K. Polk, McCain were to announce a several-point agenda and pledge that if he can accomplish it in four years, he would consider his job to the country done and not seek another term, that would be great. But to suggest that the work of the president cannot be done unless the president removes himself from accountability to the public is not a slippery slope; it is a deliberate leap into the realm of Putinism.

My two cents:

1. A one-term pledge will help McCain with a lot of moderates, especially former Hillary women who are on the ledge. They'll think, "Well, worst case scenario, it's only another four years, not eight.  Plus, it's a lot less likely for Court openings in the next four years than in the next eight."  I know a number of people who will be drawn to McCain because of this, unfortunately.

2. It makes his veep pick much more important.  It basically gives him the chance to handpick the GOP presidential nominee in 2012.

"McCain: New and Improved!!! Now With 50% Less McCain!!!"

"McCain: New and Improved!!! Now With 50% Less McCain!!!"

"outrageous", Rhube? C'mon , he's an old dude who delights in tweaking partisans on both sides. We're facing a four-year period of tremendous challenges on every front, challenges that n many cases (health care excepted), one-party gov't will likely make worse. For this man at this time, a one-term pledge makes a lot of sense. Hardly "a outrage."

"what wd McCain DO with his one term "non-partisan" (note the scare quotes) focus on energy policy?"

I think it's become pretty obvious to sensible people that we need a full-court press, alt fuels + nukes + drilling on US territories/cont'l shelf.

"All of the above," if you need a bumper sticker slogan. That's the true energy security policy.

"...those millions of silent suburbanites..."

Q: If a soccer mom worries about Obama in the suburbs and there's no one there to hear her, does she make a sound?

A: Yes, but only because teplukhin2you is here to tell us what she and the millions like her are thinking.

"We're facing a four-year period of tremendous challenges on every front, challenges that n many cases (health care excepted), one-party gov't will likely make worse."

Tep, this is one of the more deranged of your recent statements, worthy of jacobt.  The lack of conviction with which you uttered it leads me to question whether you yourself are beginning to feel you've painted yourself into a corner.