McCain’s Hidden Message?

By Chris | May 17, 2008
Filed Under President |

By now many of you have seen the “2013″ ad put out last week by the McCain campaign setting forth a broad set of goals for his administration. Many commentators have scrutinized this ad for the potential policy implications or assessed the attainability of these goals. However, the ad stood out to me not for what was stated in it, but rather for what may have been implied by it.

What struck me was the fact that the McCain campaign highlighted the date of 2013 in this ad. It seems rather unusual to set forth a date by which a future President’s accomplishments should be judged, particularly when that date is at the end of a term of office. That is, unless one considers the possibility that McCain may not run for a second term as President.

While it may not even have been intended, it seems to me that the 2013 ad subtly raises the idea that John McCain could run a James K. Polk-style campaign wherein he sets forth three or four major goals for his administration, and, if completed, rides off into the sunset.

The idea of a one-term Presidency focused on clearing out a few major political briar patches would seem to resonate with those seeking a post-partisan President and it would also help to diffuse the issue of McCain’s age. It would also focus the campaign on the importance of having a President who is ready to hit the ground running and “lead from Day 1.”

While the “2013″ ad is certainly no “Fifty-Four Forty or fight!” I think it certainly hints at something that could be a very effective theme in the campaign, that John McCain is someone who is focused on achieving results, not just holding on to power. While there is no chance of McCain declaring that he will only serve one term, as Polk did, I do think that leaving the possibility out there could be a very smart strategic decision for him.

What do you guys think?

Comments

27 Responses to “McCain’s Hidden Message?”

Story, J., (RET.) on May 18th, 2008 8:32 am

It is what it is–finally coming to the realization that he needs to set a time table or get destroyed in the general election. The war is the major issue. But this won’t help him nor will it excite the base or the independents–unless one sings kumbaya with global warming. McCain has about as much chance of beating Obama as Ron Paul has coming up with a majority of delegates at the national convention.
Stephen Gunter on May 18th, 2008 1:19 pm

Nice attempt to trivialize Ron Paul. Once again, another person who has missed the point in his continuing the campaign.

But that aside, we don’t need a “leader” who is going to “lead from day 1.” We need someone who will follow the constitution and protect our freedoms.

I want to do a little exercise with you guys. Let’s see how well McCain fits in with the Republican party.

Does he believe:

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice?

This may be one area that I believe he will be good in, if he continues to advocate cutting earmarks and business taxes. He understands that it is the taxes driving our businesses overseas. He does however advocate government regulation on CEO salaries, which is not a free market solution.

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society?

Aside from limiting our speech, and engaging in censorship, he may be okay.

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government

Again, he talks tremendously about limiting government spending through the veto of earmarks and crazy budgets.

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations?

Not at all. He supported the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy in 1986+, the Homegrown American Terrorism Prevention Act, and sponsored a bill that aimed at expanding health care in Mexico, just to name a few.

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense?

He still supports our being overseas and engaging in nation building, which is NOT national defense. He disgustingly made a joke about bombing Iran, as if that was something to trivialize.

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation?

He says he is a Christian, but prefers to keep that to himself. He also believes that we are a judeo-Christian nation. But he did joke about bombing Iran.
Brian Kirwin on May 18th, 2008 1:21 pm

“Nice attempt to trivialize Ron Paul.”

The voters did that well enough themselves.
Stephen Gunter on May 18th, 2008 1:25 pm

Not voting for him takes nothing away from him. Behavior of this nature makes you petty.
Brian Kirwin on May 18th, 2008 2:35 pm

But i like Petty.
J.R. on May 18th, 2008 6:16 pm

Stephen, you make great points, but we still are living with a two party system. How does Hillary or Obama match-up on the Republican Creed?

Thanks, but I’ll take my chances with McCain and, hopefully, Republicans in Congress who will fight for conservative principles.
Terri K on May 18th, 2008 9:03 pm

Ummm, JR, last I checked, Hilary and Obama aren’t Republicans. I sort of don’t expect them to act like Republicans. McCain and Republican congressmen, however, I DO expect to act like Republicans and sadly, they often don’t. If the past several years have been any indication…

Seems like you’re hoping for the same empty change Obama’s promising; hoping that the Republicans in congress will suddenly change and fight for conservative principles and hoping that McCain will suddenly change and become more conservative (as every day, he’s pandering to the left).

All I can go on is their record, and with few exceptions, it is abysmal.
Brian Kirwin on May 18th, 2008 9:21 pm

Yeah, like that guy in Congress who won in 1978 campaigning on term limits, and he’s still there.

What’s his name? Ron Paul?

Yeah, the guy who left the Republican Party to run for President in 1988 to garner a whopping 0.5% of the vote.

All I can go on is his record, ya know.
Dan Lyons on May 18th, 2008 11:19 pm

In Soviet Amerika, John McCain gets nominated by YOU!!
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 6:57 am

Dan, your comment says more about you than it does about me. A fine example of what Ron Paul supporters think of our country!
Stephen Gunter on May 19th, 2008 7:28 am

If you want to go on someone’s record, then maybe you should have studied Ron Paul’s. I mean, you are supporting a guy that is friends with Lieberman, and considered running on the Democratic ticket! The Libertarian party is basically the Republican party but they actually believe in the Republican principles, so… Ron Paul left a party that he felt abandoned it’s principles for a party that adheres to the principles touted by the other party. Convoluted, yes, but true nonetheless.

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” - Ronald Reagan
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 7:46 am

Ron Paul, the guy who was first elected in 1978 talking about term limits? That guy?
Terri K on May 19th, 2008 7:49 am

Brian, do principles matter to you at all? Or is it all about the Rs beating the Ds, principles be damned? Do you set any standard for being a good republican?

Why do you throw Ron Paul under the bus for not being perfect but not John McCain? You seem to think it’s inappropriate to point out when someone doesn’t adhere to stated party principles. Can’t you see that the RINOs are killing our party?????

Every Ron Paul supporter I know adores our country but not overbearing Big Government that has its tentacles in our pocketbooks and every aspect of our lives. There is a distinct difference, you know.

I see the “enemy” as Big Government; not the democrats. Republican principles are in line with the foundation of our country and what this great country was built upon. Those principles, once understood, are very popular, and if republicans stick to principles and educate people rather than pandering to the left, we’d do very well and we wouldn’t be in the crisis we are at present.
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 7:54 am

Principles matter to me, and Stephen wanted me to study Ron Paul’s record.

Ron Paul cranks up the federal funding promoting Texas shrimp and then fools you all into thinking he’s “mr small government.”

Dan called our country “soviet” - you call that “love?”

I do thank you for being honest. You don’t see Democrats as the enemy. While Ron Paul supporters scheme to overthrow the GOP convention for their losing candidate, the Democrats could win and have control of the White House, the House and Senate.

Congratulations!
Stephen Gunter on May 19th, 2008 9:21 am

You studied Ron Paul’s record, but could only find negative things? Here’s Ron’s response to the shrimp thing:

“Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better. ”

He represents his people in his district and believes that elected officials can make better use of the money that is going to be spent. That’s the problem you have with him? Wow… And you wonder why we Republicans are losing elections.
Terri K on May 19th, 2008 9:48 am

We can compare records ’till the cows come home but the much larger point is that republican PRINCIPLES have been abandoned at all levels and that is what is causing us to lose elections. In other words, this is less about men who are fallible, and more about PRINCIPLES, tried and true, popular and easy to “sell”. I’ve been on a long-time, one-man mission to change hearts and minds and I have been very successful “selling” our principles.

I’m not the only person noting that there is a problem: Newt Gingrich, Peggy Noonan, Tom Davis and many others are concerned with what’s happening with our party, and beyond that, our country. Sometimes, it’s a really, really good idea to take a good hard, honest look in the mirror to find answers.

Big Governmnet, whether given to us by the hard-core socialist left or or socialist-lite on the right, is still Big Government and a path to Soviet-style control. No thanks!

We can be the orchestra playing while the Titanic sinks or we can take measures to correct the problems. I choose the latter. The only “scheming” I’m doing is to try to influence people to understand, value and follow sound principles.

Those whom we elect work for and are accountable to us. It’s high time we hold their feet to the fire.
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 10:00 am

Stephen, the Ron Paul fiscal candle includes two matches - one for each end.

You fell for it. I didn’t.

Terri, I agree. Hold people we elect accountable. My problem is with those who have a whole lot of fire against moderate Republicans and turn the other cheek to Democrats.
Stephen Gunter on May 19th, 2008 11:05 am

Brian, I have no idea what you mean. Rhetoric doesn’t fly with me. Did you even understand what he was saying? Are you seriously trying to use this as your reason for not voting for him and supporting a guy that almost ran on the Democratic ticket and was ridiculed by the Republican party the last time he ran? Or do you even remember that? I’m sure you don’t because that would mean you probably were right there ridiculing him.

This is what happens when you follow people who do not adhere to the Republican principles. You get candidates that should be in the Democratic party calling themselves Republican, and who is to say otherwise?

Then, if you actually require said representatives to adhere to the principles they are supposed to represent (and if you really would look into RP’s record, you would find a stellar example of a Republican), you get labled fringe by the people who have no principles!
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 2:16 pm

“Are you seriously trying to use this as your reason for not voting for him”

Stephen, relax, breathe and read -he’s not on the ballot.
Stephen Gunter on May 19th, 2008 3:05 pm

Sometimes Brian, I wonder what goes through your head. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Nov 4 election? Did you forget about the primary already? I remember distinctly his being the top one on the list.
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 4:22 pm

In everything except votes.
Stephen Gunter on May 19th, 2008 8:52 pm

Just like most Republican candidates today.
Terri K on May 19th, 2008 9:35 pm

Can you define what a moderate republican is?

I don’t see anyone turning the other cheek to democrats. I certainly am not! I frankly do not care what socialist/marxist/”progressive”/Big Government Nanny State path they wish to follow; it’s all wrong.

But, it’s even more wrong if people who call themselves republicans go down that path and it seems that in the past several years, a whole lot of republicans have hopped aboard the Big Government boat.

The republican brand has been damaged. And it wasn’t democrats that did the damage. As republicans, it’s up to us to clean up our own house, beginning with facing the truth.

With all the varying degrees of conservative candidates we had running in the presidential primary, and yes, I am a Ron Paul fan, it’s a sad state of affairs that we got the most liberal of the whole bunch as our presumptive nominee.
Brian Kirwin on May 19th, 2008 9:56 pm

“Can you define what a moderate republican is?”

One who beats Ron Paul in primaries.
Stephen Gunter on May 20th, 2008 8:47 am

How does one lose all credibility? By never answering a question with a straight answer. You Brian, have lost my respect.
Terri K on May 20th, 2008 11:02 am

Moderate republican = RINO = panders to the left instead of the base = Socialist Lite = no guiding principles = LOSER.

Here, check out all the comments here: a lot of conservatives are very unhappy.

http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400
Brian Kirwin on May 20th, 2008 4:37 pm

Terri, why walk around being unhappy. Life is too grand to be unhappy.

Stephen, sorry I don’t meet your approval. How will I make it through the day?