Mac Wants to be Back Again
I’d been assuming that John McCain wouldn’t run for Senate again in 2010. For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position). For another thing, he’s really old — if he gets re-elected in 2010, he’ll be eighty by the time the term ends. On top of which, he has a really great life — eight houses, thirteen cars, all the rest. Why not enjoy it?
Lurking in the background as the obvious challenger is Arizona governor Janet Napolitano who got re-elected in 2006 and is broadly popular in the state. Of course, McCain’s popular, too. It’d be an interesting matchup to watch. Despite his long service in congress, the 2008 presidential election was the first time in his life that he faced a competitive race against a Democrat (he had a tough primary to get into the House, and of course noteworthy primary campaigns in 2000 and 2008). It didn’t go very well. 2010 would be a second bite at the apple.
53 Responses to “Mac Wants to be Back Again”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Is it just me, or is John McCain an excellent candidate for a moustache?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Is this based on a statement that he will be running in 2010, (link?) or pure speculation?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Popular as in got 53.5% of the vote in his own state for President?
M. Sweeney: Terry O’Quinn?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Can’t be maverick out there on your own. He still has a lot mavericking to do.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Wouldn’t it be funny if there was some carpetbagger waiting in the wings for him to step down?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
And considering how much GOP likes their RINO losers, plus Mccain probably wanting to go back to bipartisan showboating, i expect a primary from the right.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
That picture is distractingly hideous.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Is this based on a statement that he will be running in 2010, (link?) or pure speculation?
It was in Roll Call.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Kerry’s done alright for himself since 2004. He spear-headed the legislation to end the HIV Travel Ban, for one thing. And on a totally trivial note, his Democratic Convention speech in Denver was dynamite.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Eeh, I’m sure he’ll reconsider after sufficiently hamstringing the eventual nominee’s fundraising capability.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Sigh. I guess I’m doomed to keep reminding 20-something bloggers of this: People are no longer “really old” in their early 70s. They could have 10-20 physically and mentally sound years ahead of them. McCain, 72, is six years younger than Warren Buffett, eight years younger than T. Boone Pickens, nine years younger than Paul Volcker — and only 2½ years older than Nancy Pelosi.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
They could have 10-20 physically and mentally sound years ahead of them.
Exactly. So why would he commit six of those years to arguing about budget reconcilations with John Kerry, when he knows he’s never going to be president?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Here’s the Daily Kos-sponsored Research 2000 Poll pitting Mac vs. Janet:
10/28-30. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?
McCain (R) 45
Napolitano (D) 53
November 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
He looks like he wants to shake my hand, give me some chips to get me started, and tell me I’ve gotta try the buffet.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
@allbetsareoff — I’m sorry to break this to you sir, but 70 is OLD…. very, very, very old. Seriously, if having only 20 years or so left on your life isn’t “old” then when, in your opinion, is a person old? 90? come on… wear your age with dignity… old people who go around saying that old=young are just making fools of themselves in the eyes of well… everyone.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Has anyone mentioned that Napolitano is term-limited and that she will be ending her term in 2010…It just seems like perfect timing.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
With regard to @allbetsareoff and dan… 70 may be “younger” than it was a couple of decades ago–but 78 ain’t younger when you spent 5 years being tortured.. that tends to make you actually “older” than your age..
November 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Wow, bitchy much?
I’d love it if you could back this up:
“For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position).”
You can’t, of course, because you’ve been spun silly by Hillary’s people who are trying to clear the way for her as Secretary of State — a job Kerry of course wanted, and was and is more qualified for.
But if Kerry doesn’t leave the Senate, is he going to be unhappy? I don’t think so. Kerry becomes the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, because the current Chair — Joe Biden — is moving on to…where was it again?
Given that Obama’s going to be in office four years, and Biden and Kerry get along very well, and Kerry’s safe for six years, and the Senate is not going to flip before Obama’s first term is up, the way is clear for Kerry to take a very prominent role in shaping and implementing U.S. foreign policy.
But that’s too complicated for a brain like yours, isn’t it? Better to just stick with the bitchy gossip and show your homies how down you are with the latest flak.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position).
Barry Goldwater spent another eighteen years in the Senate after 1964…
November 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Speak of the gavel:
More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry is widely expected to be named the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position that will give him enormous influence over international relations.
The pending announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which congressional aides said could come as early as today, would elevate Kerry to the top of the foreign policy establishment and give him a major role in shaping President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy priorities.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_expected.html
I get the Kerry isn’t a ruthless political killer, so he doesn’t get you all hot and bothered. But let’s look at his track record over the past four years.
In 2004 he defeats the antiwar/Dean movement and legitimizes the Democratic party on issues of national security and foreign policy at the height of a disastrous war. He lays out a platform that is almost exactly the platform that Obama runs on in 2008, he gives Obama the keynote address at the convention, and he makes arguments on the pressing issues of the day — national security, energy, pretty much everything — that are not simply relevant, they are right. As a consequence, even though he is defeated, the Democratic brand needs to do no soul-searching or retrenching in the aftermath of his loss.
In 2006, Kerry uses his 3-million-strong email list to help Democrats take both houses of Congress. This becomes part of the Web 2.0 template the Obama campaign follows in 2008. Kerry campaigns tirelessly, donates money, raises money, and does more for the Democratic party than any other person in that cycle, including Hillary Clinton — who, along with John McCain, stabs Kerry in the back after his botched joke. Still, candidates who are strong on foreign policy and national defense (Jim Webb, etc.) play a prominent role in the Republican fall in Congress, which, in turn, precludes a Republican Congress from stage-crafting McCain-led policy solutions going into the 2008 cycle.
In 2008, after Obama’s defeat by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, John Kerry was the first prominent Democrat off the sidelines on Obama’s behalf. In one move he made it clear that the Democratic party did not belong to the Clintons, and legitimized other supporters who subsequently came forward, including fellow Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
In sum, over the past four years, no Democrat has done more to put the Democrats in control of Congress, and Kerry was also a critical player in Obama’s rise to the White House. On the heels of the previous commenters reference to Goldwater, it’s only a matter of time before Kerry’s failed candidacy in 2004 is looked at in the same way that Goldwater’s failed candidacy in ‘64 is seen as the moment the Republicans rallied to a cause.
But enough about all that. I’m sure you’ve got more conventional wisdom to spew.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
If I had to hazard a guess, the Republicans are in such disarray that McCain feels he’s the only candidate who can beat Janet Napolitano – or at least will be able to when the electorate presumably becomes disenchanted with the Democrats a year and a half from now.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Phantom – Everything you wrote is true. Actually, it’s pretty fucking beautiful.
Kerry doesn’t get the respect he’s due. This is our fault, not his. No, he isn’t perfect. Nobody is. But Yglesias of all people could do more to recognize that Kerry was and is a great leader.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Nancy Pelosi is not “2 1/2 years” younger than John McCain. He was born in 1936, she was born in 1940.
Republicans and math . . .
November 20th, 2008 at 1:29 am
According to CNN, Obama may have picked Napolitano for Homeland Security; wonder if he and McCain talked about this, and so McCain decided to run again knowing she’d be otherwise engaged.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/transition.wrap/index.html
November 20th, 2008 at 1:33 am
This may sound a little crazy but is this what the Obama-McCain meeting was about? What if Obama told McCain that he didn’t have to worry about reelection because he was bringing Napolitano into his cabinet (which he did today) – as long as McCain helped to get his agenda passed in the senate?
It might sound a little crazy but who knows.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Another Kerry fan here. Anyone who saw his 2008 convention speech knows this man has the courage of convictions, just as Al Gore does. He is, however, crippled by a plodding, monotonous speaking style. Which may be a “sin” in a presidential candidate, but certainly isn’t for SecState.
And Phantom duly points out that since the 2004 convention, Kerry has been of great value in getting Obama to the White House.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I don’t put a ton of stock in what McCain says right now. He can’t very well be like “in 2 years I’ll be decrepit. Ain’tcha glad ya didn’t elect me to a 4-year term?”
I expect that the press will run to him less in the next 2 years, and he’ll think senatoring is less fun when you’re not being verbally fellated 24/7 and retire.
Looking back over the post (take a cue from that, Matt) it’s also possible that McCain has spent the past 9 months lying constantly and it’ll take time to get back to being halfway frank.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Doesn’t he look a lot like a sober WC Fields now?
November 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“Senate” comes from the Latin word for “elder”. Senators, on balance, are supposed to be older. I see no one complaining about the senators (and there are several distinguished ones) who are older than McCain, nor about the Supreme Court justices who are older as well. Whatever happened to respecting age because it brings wisdom?
I’m also not crazy about the implication that being a U.S. Senator is somehow lesser-than. Aside from the presidency (unfortunately) and maybe SCOTUS, I hold the Senate to be the most powerful part of our government.
Whatever. Since Napolitano’s been tapped for Homeland Security anyway, this post has been somewhat superseded anyway.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Kerry hampered his own electoral prospects the same way that Al Gore did: he let himself be “handled” to within an inch of his life, in the service of some phony marketer’s idea of what the American people want in a president. His campaign emphasized his service in the Vietnam war, not his activism against that war when he got home. I would have done just the opposite. If you watch “Going Up River,” the documentary about Kerry’s youth, you start to get a strange feeling: you experience visceral admiration for Kerry … John Kerry becomes downright inspiring.
That John Kerry, the one who fought against the war, is much more compelling than the neutered version of John Kerry we saw throughout the campaign.
Still, homeboy came very close to unseating an incumbent in a time of war and a decent economy. It’s just frustrating because he was so close, I think he actually could have won it.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
You can feel free to take Kerry’s flaws and failures on as your fault but don’t drop them on the rest of us. The Presidency is as much a job of appearance and persuasion as anything else. If Kerry is 1/10th as awesome, accomplished and smart as you describe and he STILL couldn’t persuade people he deserved the job over an incompetent who was too fascist for the left and fiscally irresponsible for conservatives then that is KERRY’S fault and no one else’s.
You can similarly blame things on handlers and focus groups but the candidate makes his or her decisions about what to say when s/he stands at the podium. Unless there’s a secret magic marionette device that allows the Roves of the world to have 100% control over their candidate’s actions – and there is not – candidates have to take responsibility for the choices and direction of their campaign.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
There’s an ugly strain in left-wing politics which says if only a candidate is smart enough and true enough and courageous enough they will win any election, no matter waht the odds. (This is the same ideological strain that is currently destroying the Republican party from the right.)
Well, you can monday morning quarterback Kerry all you want but you should also include relevant facts, like the New York Times witholding its domestic wiretapping story until after the election, or even the influence of 9/11 on the first election after that national tragedy. Remember Karl Rove ordering the warning lights from yellow to orange to red every time the Democrats got too much press coverage? And what about the press — do they get a free pass for ignorning Bush’s abuses, while piling on Kerry and implicitly supporting the swiftboating lies?
Barack Obama won, Kerry lost. But Barack Obama didn’t have to face a sitting war president, he had an economic collapse in his favor, and his opponent turned out to be an idiot in maverick clothing. Given what Kerry faced, and the degree to which he had to rebuild the Democratic brand in the middle of two wars and in the face of a presidency determined to subvert the Constitution, I’m more impressed with Kerry’s loss than I am with Obama’s victory.
Despite what people said during the race, Obama seems not to have created any real swell of new voters. Rather, he simply gained the swing voters that Bush and Rove kept in check with abusive anti-gay-marriage amendments and nationalistic threats about terrorism revisiting our shores. In the 2008 context, how hard was that really?
Still, you get to view history the way you want to. If you need John Kerry, candidate in 2004, to be a coward and a wimp so you can get your steely abs out of bed in the morning, go for it. There’s nothing like tearing someone down to make a body feel so good about being ideologically pure.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Though I don’t disagree with your analysis on McCain, the parenthetical on Kerry was completely uncalled for and IMO, inaccurate. See comments above for Kerry’s accomplishments.
As one who has watched his activities over the last 4 years closely, I can say that he contributes so much to this nation for which most pundits and bloggers fail to give him proper credit. His support of Democratic candidates in 2006 was unmatched. His efforts on behalf of veterans, the environment, and small business are never the stuff of headlines but make a real difference in the lives of so many every-day, middle class people. His support of Obama in the face of withering criticism from Clinton supporters in his own state during a re-election year demonstrated his commitment to doing what he thought was best for the country.
And I haven’t even dug back into the Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations which laid the ground-work for how al Qaeda and its ilk should be dismembered now.
Don’t spout the CW on Kerry, Matt. In this case, it’s not true. And it just makes you look irrelevant.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Don, childish much?
Is this a fair parallel? That no matter how right you may be on the merits of something, if you don’t convince me, no matter how facile/obtuse/immature/ignorant I may be….this is still your fault? Because that’s what I’m reading from your comment.
This also relates to my principal fear about Obama. His candidacty relies to much on “inspiration” and not enough on “this is the right thing to do.” The former fades and is pretty much just selfish. The latter is what we should be building upon.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
It is good site,i will visit it alot!
wholesale jewelry
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Normally I don’t leave a reply, but I really enjoyed your post. Well done!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Thanks!!!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra