McCain’s temper — a legitimate issue? Update & Bump: Mark Salter calls shenanigans

posted at 7:45 pm on April 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

See Update for response from top McCain aide Mark Salter.
Michael Leahy writes about the much-discussed temperament of John McCain in the Washington Post today, an article which will undoubtedly generate much criticism and comment. McCain has had a reputation for a hothead for decades, one apparently well-earned from childhood onward. While some of its targets feel disturbed by it, McCain’s allies consider it an integral part of his success:

Since the beginning of McCain’s public life, the many witnesses to his temper have had strikingly different reactions to it. Some depict McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, as an erratic hothead incapable of staying cool in the face of what he views as either disloyalty to him or irrational opposition to his ideas. Others praise a firebrand who is resolute against the forces of greed and gutlessness.

“Does he get angry? Yes,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who supports McCain’s presidential bid. “But it’s never been enough to blur his judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made him more effective.”

Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: “His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.”

A spokesman for McCain’s campaign said he would be unavailable for an interview on the subject of his temper. But over the years, no one has written more intimately about McCain’s outbursts than McCain himself. “My temper has often been both a matter of public speculation and personal concern,” he wrote in a 2002 memoir. “I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public’s.”

That temper has followed him throughout his life, McCain acknowledges. He recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury. As the son of a naval officer who was on his way to becoming a four-star admiral, McCain found himself frequently uprooted and enrolled in new schools, where, as an underappreciated outsider, he developed “a little bit of a chip on my shoulder,” as he recalled this month.

Interestingly, most of those targets have turned into supporters. McCain made headlines by calling John Cornyn an unprintable name in 2006, but Cornyn supports McCain’s bid for the presidency. Former Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson got into a shouting match with McCain after McCain called him a liar during a public meeting, but says McCain has mellowed considerably in the last 16 years and now backs him. His Senate colleague Thad Cochran (R-MS) has felt the barb of McCain’s tongue over Cochran’s pork-barrel politics (in 2008, he has the most pork dollars in Congress), but also supports McCain despite McCain’s promise to “make him famous”.

Basically, McCain acts as if he has a chip on his shoulder, something to prove. McCain himself admits this, which may make it somewhat more human even if it really doesn’t address whether that will hinder him as President. It’s not as though other presidents have been meek and mild, however. Lyndon Johnson was rumored to have a terrible temper, and Bill Clinton has shown flashes of it when challenged publicly. Hillary Clinton supposedly had an even worse temper during their White House years.

Hugh Hewitt believes this to be a demonstration of media bias:

Perhaps the ongoing meltdown in the Democratic Party has demoralized the partisans inside the Post, or perhaps it is a just a very slow news cycle for reporters assigned to cover John McCain.

But Michael Leahy’s page 1 “McCain: A Question of Temperament” is going to be an exhibit in the museum of media bias and agenda journalism for a long time. … The sudden appearance of such a story –on page 1 no less when the Obama bitterness hurricane got buried by the Post– is one of the best indicators yet that those confident of an Obama win in November are beginning to understand that the inexperienced and very left-wing three year senator from Illinois is going to need a lot of help.

I don’t recall where the Post ran their coverage of the Crackerquiddick story; if it got buried, then Hugh has a point about relative coverage. However, I disagree that covering the issue of temperament at all is an indication of media bias. It seems to me that temperament is a quality for legitimate analysis when selecting an executive in the private or public sector, and any track record of public eruptions is fair game for reporters.

McCain hasn’t given the media any recent eruptions and has never shown himself as irrational in his anger. Moreover, people understand and relate to anger; voters might respond better to a man who gets angry rather than contain himself in Madison Avenue packaging 24/7. Passion generates many emotions, and expecting complete dispassion from an executive may not be reasonable. Michael Dukakis lost a debate and probably an election by acting dispassionately to a hypothetical on the death penalty involving his wife Kitty, looking like a bloodless bureaucrat rather than a leader.

McCain’s temper is a legitimate area of scrutiny, but if it doesn’t erupt, the Post will only run this article once. Obama, on the other hand, keeps stumbling and revealing his character on the campaign trail with events like Crackerquiddick and his responses to the Wright Stuff, which guarantees a lot more focus and scrutiny on those points than on McCain’s temper.

Update & Bump, 7:44 pm: Top McCain aide Mark Salter insists that not only did Michael Leahy fabricate some of this story, he left out most of Salter’s rebuttals and mischaracterized what he did use. Ramesh Ponnoru posted Salter’s rebuttal:

If one half of it were true, it would give me pause. As it happens, the piece is 99% fiction. [Reporter Michael] Leahy is a nice guy, but the story was one of the more dishonest I’ve read in a while. I talked to him for over two hours. Some of the instances, like the Bob Smith one, he never even raised with me so I could respond. For others, he declined to print my rebuttal. He used my quotes in ways that made them seem as if I were confirming his thesis when I insisted that McCain’s temper is no greater than the average person’s, and that I personally know 20 or 25 Senators with much worse tempers. He argues, sometimes heatedly, with his peers, but he doesn’t hold grudges or pick on people subordinate to him. If you want to tell what members of Congress have ungovernable tempers, you need only look at how rapidly their staffs turnover. As a twenty-year veteran Hill staffer, I can assure you that is the best indicator of which members have bad tempers. McCain’s staff serve tenures well beyond the norm, because they are treated exceedingly well by him.

The story about the Young Republican in 1982 is entirely fictional. The Bob Smith incident is entirely fictional. The Karen Johnson story is entirely fictional. Most of the others are exaggerated beyond recognition. Let me give you two examples of Leahy’s reporting practices that serve to underscore that he had a thesis he wanted to prove and forced facts to make them fit it.

I am quoted regarding the Renzi incident saying something like “no punches were thrown,” making it seem as if i was excusing any incident as evidence of bad temper unless McCain drew blood. In fact, Leahy suggested to me that McCain had thrown a punch (I believe he got this from a defamatory book published recently by a Democratic activist). I responded directly to an accusation. More, I told him that McCain hadn’t lost his temper at all. McCain routinely refers to people and colleagues as “boy.” He does to me, to Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and almost everybody. It’s like saying hey, buddy. He means nothing by it. Renzi was relatively new to Congress, and got upset when McCain refered to him in this completely innocuous way. All McCain told Renzi was that he meant nothing by it, and Renzi should calm down or words to that effect. That was it. And I explained all that to Leahy. None of it made it into the story. That wasn’t only place in the story he declined to quote me fairly or to quote my explanation at all.

When he asked me about Karen Johnson, who says McCain tried to block her from getting a job, I asked for details: what job; who did he call, when did it happen, etc. He said he couldn’t give them to me because he had promised his source he wouldn’t share those kind of details with McCain in advance of publication. Source didn’t ask for her identity to be protected and didn’t put the details off the record.

They all appeared in the story. I explained to Leahy that this was a very unusual form of confidentiality, that an incident that was given to him on the record could not be shared with the subject of the story so that we could provide an informed response. There is only one reason that a source would act for that kind of selectively targeted and temporary confidentiality, to deny us the ability to disprove the story, which we could have done in ten minutes. It’s like telling someone he’s been accused of pedophilia, asking for a response, but declining to identify the incident in question. Mr. Leahy was unpersuaded.

In sum, this is one of the more shoddy examples of journalism I’ve ever encountered. But for the infamous NYT story, I’d say it was the worst smear job on McCain I’d ever seen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Even Sesame Street said it’s ok to get mad sometimes.

Er, that’s vintage Sesame Street. It might not pass PC muster nowadays.

I say Give ‘em Hell, Mack.

silverfox on April 20, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Basically…I’m going to vote for McCain because he is what we Republicans got (still tring ot figure out how) He is the lesser of three evils…

CCRWM on April 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM

You may have good company.

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain.
- Thomas Sowell

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM

You know What’s not a major issue? Clinton’s famous temper tantrums and domestic violence against her husband.

Ciannaky on April 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Who does Bob Smith think he is? McCain’s disqualified but Bambi and Hellbitch are not? I say he’s traitor to the cause who’s serving his own vendetta.

I don’t think that his temper is an issue. If you look at US history, there are more important attributes and personality traits in a President. McCain may have a bad temper, but he’s nonetheless a problem solver and pragmatic thinker who will neither be bullied into altering his position nor find himself incapable of reaching new conclusions as circumstances change.

bayam on April 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM

I’m hoping it’s more of the latter when it comes to the border and listening to his own side.

silverfox on April 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Basically…I’m going to vote for McCain because he is what we Republicans got (still tring ot figure out how) He is the lesser of three evils…

CCRWM on April 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Well, for one…I was pushing for Fred Thompson in the “before time”…and when he jumped in the race, I though it was a given he’d be the nominee. But alas…

In 2000, McCain was my first choice over Dubya. And now…I’m actually glad McCain is the nominee for the GOP.

He’s not “the lesser of three evils”….He will, and mark my words here for posterity and HA history…be a great POTUS.

Conservatives who still don’t care for him, will soon flock to him. Something huge will happen in the near future. Terror attack? Maybe. Most probably.

Mark these words now…McCain will be revered as much as we conservatives revere Ronald Reagan. We’ll be calling for a new “Mt. Rushmore” to be built….Reagan, McCain, and who will follow.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

What about Bill being testy over the Fox interview
in all its finger pointing glory!

canopfor on April 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Come on emby, where did you get this stuff, from the same guy who wrote the bok about Bushisms?

peacenprosperity on April 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM

They are pretty well documented “Quayleisms”, and are all over tarnation.

215,000 hits on google for “quotes dan quayle”.

Speaking of Bushisms, I did happen to see another one of those very recently -

So long as I’m the president, my measure of success is victory and success.
- George Bush (April 17, 2008)

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM

No questioning of the Queen’s temper?

Barry’s mental acuity?

Pluhhlezze.

benrand on April 20, 2008 at 10:06 PM

I don’t think that his temper is an issue. If you look at US history, there are more important attributes and personality traits in a President. McCain may have a bad temper, but he’s nonetheless a problem solver and pragmatic thinker who will neither be bullied into altering his position nor find himself incapable of reaching new conclusions as circumstances change.

bayam on April 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM

I’m hoping more of the latter than the former when it comes to amnesty and listening to our side.

And who does Bob Smith think he is? We should have heard from his pudgy pie hole before McCain clinched the nomination, not now! Walk the plank, ye wretched traitorous dog!

silverfox on April 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM

We’ll be calling for a new “Mt.Rushmore” to be built…
Reagan,McCain,and who will fellow.

JetBoy on April 20,2008 at 10:01PM.

JetBoy: Who will fellow? Thompson and Romney!

canopfor on April 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM

The McCain temper seems to be directed to anyone whom questions his bona fides concerning McCain’s position announced in a debate. That habit tends to make McCain a persona non-grata among the pushers of conspiracy theories. But it does also make him a Leader whom good men will feel safe to follow. Let’s see which reaction to McCain pre-dominates among the Hot Air community.

jimw on April 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM

The hardliners who called George Bush Jorge were not exactly subtle themselves.

Maybe if they had been a tad less strident the Republicans would not have lost the midterms. I would say there was temper displayed on both sides in that debate.

George Bush very mucho earned his nickname Jorge Arbusto and John McCain very mucho earned his nickname Juan McShamnesty.

Maybe if both of those amigos had not partnered up with their mucho good amigo on the matter, Teddy “Swimmer” Kennedy, and had not, each in his own way, given law abiding conservative the finger Republicans would not have lost the midterms.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Mark these words now…McCain will be revered as much as we conservatives revere Ronald Reagan. We’ll be calling for a new “Mt. Rushmore” to be built….Reagan, McCain, and who will follow.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Let’s not get carried away.. Reagan understood that big government was a problem, McCain doesn’t seem to have a problem with a huge, rapidly growing government or in laws restraining our freedom of speech. His attacks on business and free enterprise and his insane approval of the worst lunacies of the Global Warming (re: Marxist) crooks are troublesome, to say the least. They certainly should not be coming out of the mouth of a Republican nominee.
He just needs to get the job done and win. I don’t expect that much afterwards. If he resigns the next day and hands it over to a Sanford or Romney, I’d be much relieved, to tell you the truth.

TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

canopfor on April 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Dear gawd…not Romney. I never liked him. Far too liberal.

Thompson? Who knows what the future holds. I really like Fred. But I like McCain too.

Just wait…please, someone remember me, and what I’ve been saying for soooo long. McCain will not only be the next POTUS, he will be a GREAT POTUS.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Let’s not get carried away.. Reagan understood that big government was a problem, McCain doesn’t seem to have a problem with a huge, rapidly growing government…

TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

How can you say that? If anything, McCain has gone too far in limiting “big government”. Campaign finance? Pork spending? C’mon now…

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM

No questioning of the Queen’s temper?

Barry’s mental acuity?

Pluhhlezze.

benrand on April 20, 2008 at 10:06 PM

I have already shared my preliminary psychoanalytic observations on Hillary with you. Weren’t you paying attention?

I am also treating Barak Obama, and have some prelininary thoughts, so pay attention this time.

Barack Obama is an even more interesting and challenging patient than Hillary. While Hillary’s multiple personalities cross over her many multiple past heroic lives such as her being straight shooting hard drinking Annie Oakley in her most recent past life, Barack has two very distinctive personalties at the same time right now in the present and in my sessions with him he goes back and forth between the two. He doesn’t seem to be able to make up his mind which he wants to be. I have named the one personality Homie Obama and the other Squire Obama.

Homie Obama is an angry Black man who found his soul mate in Michelle the angry hate America Black woman of his dreams and in Jeremiah Wright the God damn America and curse all things whitey firebrand mentor he had been searching for.

Squire Obama on the other hand is an upper class elitist white liberal in the John Kerry mode who really very much wanted to marry a rich white woman and only married Michelle instead as he needed to establish his Black cover and sought out Jeremiah Wright simply to gain his Black credentials or in the vernacular “creds”.

This is making treating him most difficult as it is most vexing to determine if he is coming or going, an upper class elitist white liberal very much in the mode of John Kerry or an angry ghetto Black man. Fortunately I am given to understand that someone who comments on this very board is something of an expert on what I call the Squire Obama persona. I believe his initials are JD, so I will endeavor to concentrate my future efforts on treating Homie Obama and hopefully Doctor JD can concentrate on Squire Obama.

At my advanced age and state of decomposition I can hardly be expected to treat both of Barak’s contradictory personalities and still have enough time to have a reasonable chance of making any significant progress treating Hillary which is pretty much a full time job in and of itself and likely to become even more so unless she wins rather convincingly in Pennsylvania.

Sigy on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM

I wonder if John McCain lets his temper flare when his good buddy Lindsay Graham calls the Conservative voting base BIGOTS? JetBoy.. Go back to the Judges and the Gang of 14(?)…How did that work for YOU back then? Also, letting ILLEGAL Immigrants from any country, work and stay here without legal documentation is Amnesty..and making the working Man pay for it at the expense of their own hard earned income also is the Consequences of Amnesty to the “Legal” Citizen.. The ISSUE isnt going away, and We re not getting fewer every week.. “thank gawd”!

LibsREvilDoers on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM

Dear gawd…not Romney. I never liked him. Far too liberal.

Thompson? Who knows what the future holds. I really like Fred. But I like McCain too.

Just wait…please, someone remember me, and what I’ve been saying for soooo long. McCain will not only be the next POTUS, he will be a GREAT POTUS.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Maybe a great POS. And Romney campaigned to the right of McCain and didn’t foist or try to push that nation-destroying McCain-Kennedy crap on us. Which, by the way, greatly contributed to the Dems taking both houses of Congress.

McCain is a shit. We just need him to keep the 100% pure-blood socialists out of the White House. That’s his only function in life, as far as I’m concerned.
I just only hope that rudderless dumbass doesn’t screw it up..

TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM

Oh, and as oil approaches $117 per barrel this evening (I’m in the biz, and keep my eye on it), let’s remember that Senator Last-in-his-class McCain was the deciding vote to stop us from drilling in ANWR and getting that 10-15 BILLION barrels of good old oil on line and into our refineries, homes and gas tanks.
Nopw that’s what I call patriotism!

Mt. Rushmore ain’t where his face should be residing…

TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM

McCain’s temper is a legitimate issue. Hollaring at other politicans doesn’t concern me a bit. Who wouldn’t want to do that? Excellent! When you have a kid who holds his breath until he passes out, that is a “wait a minute” moment. It’s only important if he doesn’t overcome this very serious problem. Has he? Dunno.
I have known some people who are this angry and don’t comply with social norms. As adults, they are explosive and foolishly reactive. Is McCain like this? Dunno. The childhood episodes are a flag to me, though.

thatcher on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Angry Dumbo on April 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM

All those who are so quick to defend McCain’s temper need to go back to the link in Angry Dumbo’s post and watch the clip showing McCain’s treatment of a POW/MIA family member at a committee hearing. What a mean, small man!! And it raises the question, why WAS McCain so anxious to shut down further inquiries into POW/MIA matters? He joined Senator Kerry in this…..I understand Kerry’s stance, but I can’t for the life of me understand why McCain joined him. McCain didn’t scream at Mrs. Alfond, but his biting, sarcastic remarks are difficult to fathom. McCain had his say, then he stomped out of the hearing.

McCain had better hope that someone doesn’t take a laptop into VFW or American Legion halls and show that YouTube clip to other vets……he might find himself being chased by a bunch of vets.

Just when I had myself convinced that I could control my gag reflex long enough to vote for McCain, I had to watch this clip. Thanks, Angry Dumbo. Now I need to find something to settle my stomach!!

poodlemom on April 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Someone needs to ask ABC what they would fear most, a victorious McCain, or face the angry masses after the Messiah is defeated. I have heard Justice has offered Charlie, and George the opportunity to join the witness protection program.

chief on April 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Maybe a great POS. And Romney campaigned to the right of McCain and didn’t foist or try to push that nation-destroying McCain-Kennedy crap on us. Which, by the way, greatly contributed to the Dems taking both houses of Congress.

McCain is a shit. We just need him to keep the 100% pure-blood socialists out of the White House. That’s his only function in life, as far as I’m concerned.
I just only hope that rudderless dumbass doesn’t screw it up..

TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 PM

OK…Right now, as yuou infer, there’s one of three people who WILL be President next year. I think we can agree…McCain is the best choice.

You feel he’s just the “lesser of two evils”, and I feel he’s much more than that. Time will tell.

He won’t “screw it up”. Just wait…you’ll be pleasantly surprised. John McCain is meant to be in the White House. I, as a conservative Republican, one of the most patriotic, flag-waving people you could ever know, have 100% faith in Mcain.

So do so many real, prominent, Republican conservatives. Fred endorsed him. Mitt endorsed him. And countless others.

I truly believe McCain will be the next Ronald Reagan.

Remember what I say here…

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Chuck Norris wasn’t born. He sprang, full grown, from McCain’s burning rage.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Bob Smith is a huge supporter of Ted Sampley. You can read all about that at

http://www.miafacts.org/mccain.htm

McCain’s Position on US-Vietnam Relations and on the “Live-POW” Question

In the late 1980′s, McCain took the position that the US should move toward normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam in return for their increased cooperation on the MIA issue. Sampley recognized — as does the rest of the “activist” community — that such talk in high places can be disastrous to their efforts to recruit and to raise money. Their recruiting and fund raising pitch is the same: US POWs are still being held, alive, in Vietnam and we need just a few more dollars from you to free them.

As US researchers probe into Vietnamese wartime records, and as US search teams recover remains from crashsites and battlefield gravesites, the number of unaccounted for Americans goes down. More importantly, it is clear from the information collected that no American POWs were retained in captivity after Operation Homecoming. The “activists” do not want this information to become known because they depend on folks falling prey to their claims and then donating money or other support — such as the proliferation of “POW-MIA Remembrance Sites” on the WWW.

McCain refused to be drawn into the live POW battles and he continued to support normal US-Vietnam relations. For a returned POW to take these two positions was more than the “activist” community could stand.

McCain’s Exposure of Frauds

In the closing days of the SSC, a hearing was held that focused on individuals and groups who are raising money on the MIA issue. A friend of mine who was on the SSC staff briefed McCain on the money-raising activities and McCain was incensed that anyone would play on the emotions of families to enrich themselves. McCain wanted to hold a hearing that would expose these activities. There was, however, a problem. McCain’s two main targets were former congressman Billy Hendon and Sampley’s Homecoming II with its vigil booth on the Mall, selling T-shirts and other paraphernalia. Senator Bob Smith, Vice-chair of the SSC, was godfather and protector to Hendon and Sampley. He intervened with SSC Chair John Kerry and watered down the hearings into questionable fund raising so that Hendon and Sampley were not targets.

funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Chuck Norris wasn’t born. He sprang, full grown, from McCain’s burning rage.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM

You arse….I just spit my vino up all over my laptop! heh!

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:38 PM

No poodlemom, most vets and VFW members agree with McCain that Sampley and his ilk are scum. They get these poor family members to harrass people like McCain and George HW Bush for years, and then when they get the expected frustration they try to use it as evidence of some evil troop hating tendency or temper problem.

Here’s Sampley on GHW Bush:

“Shut Up and Sit Down”

For 12 years, the “read my lips” president had promised (eight years as vice president and four as president) that the POW/MIA issue was “the highest national priority” and that there would be no dealings with Vietnam until the POW/MIA issue was properly resolved.

At the 1992 annual convention of The National League of POW/MIA Families, the questions POW/MIA families and veterans had harbored for years about the honesty of Bush’s promises exploded into a nationally reported incident.

Bush, who was the guest speaker at that convention, became the subject of a demonstration when the elderly mother of a MIA stood up and yelled at Bush, “No more lies! Tell us the truth!”

Dozens more of the family members quickly joined in the protest, many holding up pictures of their missing brothers, fathers and sons and chanting, “No more lies!” and “Release all the files!” Bush snapped at the jeering MIA relatives, telling them to “shut up and sit down.”

The protest and uproar continued for over five minutes until the crowd finally let Bush speak again. Bush told them, abandoning his original text, “To suggest that the commander-in-chief that led this country into its most successful recent effort [the Gulf War] would condone for one single day the personal knowledge of a person held against his will . . . is simply, totally unfair.”

Later that year, despite his promise to “never” abandon the POW/MIA issue, Bush bailed out and initiated the beginning process of normalizing trade relations with communist Vietnam.

Really, read the whole thing to see what kind of scum you are supporting here:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm

These people are friends and guests of Alex Jones on his radio show. I’ve called them the Original Troofers, and there are quite a few parallels.

funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM

I truly believe McCain will be the next Ronald Reagan.

Remember what I say here…

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM

I don’t know if I agree here, but only because Reagan has been deified since his time in office. Not to be disrespectful to the man here, in my book he ranks just below Jesus Christ, Martin Luther and President Lincoln [end of disclaimer].

But people tend to overlook the fact that Reagan signed pro-amnesty legislation while president and pro-choice legislation while governor. He appointed liberal justices and did nothing to fix our education system. He wasn’t perfect, he was just the right man at the right time.

I imagine that if blogs existed back when Reagan was running for office, some of the same people busting on McCain here would have been saying some of the same things about Reagan back then.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Hey, but if electing Obama, a man who says he supports drivers licenses for illegals and thinks that anti immigrant sentiment is something only bitter rubes feel is acceptable to people because McCain failed to say how high when they said jump…well you get what you deserve.

Terrye on April 20, 2008 at 9:48 PM

The problem is, I don’t think I deserve having Obama as my POTUS, and I certainly don’t think my husband deserves having him as Commander in Chief.

funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM

As long as the price of arugula doesn’t go up, I don’t care about the man’s temper.

Bishop on April 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM

I don’t know if I agree here, but only because Reagan has been deified since his time in office. Not to be disrespectful to the man here, in my book he ranks just below Jesus Christ, Martin Luther and President Lincoln [end of disclaimer].

But people tend to overlook the fact that Reagan signed pro-amnesty legislation while president and pro-choice legislation while governor. He appointed liberal justices and did nothing to fix our education system. He wasn’t perfect, he was just the right man at the right time.

I imagine that if blogs existed back when Reagan was running for office, some of the same people busting on McCain here would have been saying some of the same things about Reagan back then.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Reagan…”right man, right time”? Totally agreed. For many reasons. “Deified” after his term? During…I say. But after the Carter debacle term, who couldn’t look good? But Reagan took it beyond the next level.

Martin Luther? As a Catholic, I have to disagree there…

Education? No…Reagan wasn’t the best on that…but weigh that against the fall of the Soviet Union…and the economy…and reaffirming the US stance in the world. McCain will follow in Reagan’s footsteps.

And yes…I’ve made the point repeatedly that Reagan granted blanket amnesty to millions of illegals. I agree with McCain. The Illegal situation is not so much a “cut and dry” issue.

And totally agree…if blogs and the interwbz were around during Reagan’s term, they would have been crucifying him.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 11:01 PM

More about Sampley, GHW Bush, Reagan, and McCain:

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm

funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM

The button has already been push. How much more damage can he do in that regard?

ackrite55 on April 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM

I truly believe McCain will be the next Ronald Reagan.

Remember what I say here…

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM

The blogosphere will little note nor long remember the absurd statement that you just made here, but true conservatives can never forget what McCain has done to us. It is for us the true conservatives rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work of Ronald Reagan which he so nobly advanced. It is also for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – Keeping John McCain’s damn dirty paws off Ronald Reagan’s memory!!!

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:09 PM

“True Conservative Bob Smith” in the Reagan administration days:

Summary. In late 1985-early 1986, a “POW rescue” caper developed around claims made by Mark Smith, Major, US Army (retired) that he had a videotape showing several live US POWs. Before this phony story ended, it involved a large group of bad actors and fools, including Smith, Senator (then representative) Bob Smith, Billy Hendon, Ted Sampley and an international criminal, Robin Gregson. This is a long and bizarre story — here it comes.

First, the actors

The main characters in this story are a who’s-who of dumbasses surrounding the MIA issue. They are:

Mark Smith, Major, US Army, (Retired). If you are not familiar with Mark Smith, you can read about him here.
William “Just Call Me Billy” Hendon, former member of Congress.
Senator Bob Smith (R, NH); at the time of this caper Smith was a Representative.
Ted Sampley, publisher of a third-rate “veterans” newspaper; claims to be a former Special Forces trooper.
And others who will pop up in the telling of this story.

http://www.miafacts.org/tapecaper.htm

funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 PM

The blogosphere will little note nor long remember the absurd statement that you just made here, but true conservatives can never forget what McCain has done to us. It is for us the true conservatives rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work of Ronald Reagan which he so nobly advanced. It is also for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – Keeping John McCain’s damn dirty paws off Ronald Reagan’s memory!!!

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Just please…save it somewhere…for when, in a year or two from now, I say “I told you so”, you’ll know I did.

Who am I? A nobody. But, a conservative. A Republican. An American. Active member of Protest Warrior. I idolize Reagan. You should see the framed print of Reagan I have hanging in my TV room. And McCain? Hear me now…he WILL be remembered as “Reagan’s foot soldier.”

Take an honest, truthful look at John McCain. You’ll see. He IS on the track, ready to take the baton.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Take an honest, truthful look at John McCain. You’ll see. He IS on the track, ready to take the baton.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 11:22 PM

I have looked at him and I no longer can stomach what I see.

BTW, I actually supported him back in 2000. I even have some of his McCain in 2000 buttons that I got when I donated to his campaign.

However, I learn from my mistakes.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM

poodlemom, Ms Alfond had called the staffers lazy and duplicitous in a newspaper interview. McCain was upset about that because he saw all the hard work that General Vesey and the others had performed with the best intentions. Unfortunately, Ms Alfond was a victim of the conspiracy nuts whom McCain was trying to debunk.

juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Unfortunately, Ms Alfond was a victim of the conspiracy nuts whom McCain was trying to debunk.

juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM

The “Devil” made him do it? Is that your excuse for him?

Sounds like she was McCain’s victim and that he is a very bad shot if that was not his intention.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM

I feel for you. Having to live with a man you despise as your President must be hard to swallow. Maybe you can develop a hobby or something.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

However, I learn from my mistakes.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Sounds like the talk show callers who always start out by saying…I have always voted republican, but I….
You can bet they never supported a republican, and I can bet you never supported McCain.

right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Martin Luther? As a Catholic, I have to disagree there…

Education? No…Reagan wasn’t the best on that…but weigh that against the fall of the Soviet Union…and the economy…and reaffirming the US stance in the world. McCain will follow in Reagan’s footsteps.

JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Okay… St. Augustine then, I’m easy.

As for the rest… ‘zactly.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 11:38 PM

juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM

lol.

If Ms Alfond was an unintended victim of McCain’s verbal abuse then I guess McCain with his mouth is a lot like Cheney is with a gun.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM

You can bet they never supported a republican, and I can bet you never supported McCain.

right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:36 PM

You can bet all you want but that doesn’t change reality one lick.

P.S. You probably should put all your money in long term CD’s and never carry any more cash than you absolutely need for the day. I’m looking out for you.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM

You can bet they never supported a republican, and I can bet you never supported McCain.

right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 11:36 PM

C’mon here… I don’t always agree with MB4, but I don’t doubt his honesty. I support McCain for president, but after he lost the 2000 nomination he did a lot of things that really pissed me off. For a while there I was sure that he was making all of his decisions just to get back at Bush and the Republicans who had voted against him. And I’m not still not sure now that he wasn’t.

I can see very easily how someone could have been gung-ho for McCain in 2000 and despise him now.

Not that I think you need me to fight for you MB4, but I’ve read your comments for quite a while and had to throw in my two cents. You seem like an honest gent.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM

I feel for you. Having to live with a man you despise as your President must be hard to swallow. Maybe you can develop a hobby or something.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

My current hobby is trying to enlighten you, however it’s like trying to teach a potted plant to be a lawyer..

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Not that I think you need me to fight for you MB4, but I’ve read your comments for quite a while and had to throw in my two cents. You seem like an honest gent.

29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM

And you are a gentleman and a scholar.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Coming up with as many hispanic references to Maverick’s name is not enlightening. Try using logic and reason. I hope Lindsey Graham becoming VP or Secretary of State doesn’t push you over the edge. You still have your health, physical anyway.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Even as a Mav supporter, I have to admit that picture is hilarious.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Coming up with as many hispanic references to Maverick’s name is not enlightening.

It can be if you read between the lines.

Try using logic and reason.

I have tried logic and reason, but that seems to run off you like water off a duck.

I hope Lindsey Graham becoming VP or Secretary of State doesn’t push you over the edge.

And what? It would give you another orgasim?

You still have your health, physical anyway.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Don’t worry about me, heal thyself.

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:57 PM

The “Devil” made him do it? Is that your excuse for him?

Did I say that? No. Have you watched that video? He was pissed because she’d trashed the staffers in a newspaper interview. He didn’t yell at her, but he questioned her closely.

The MIA truthers were victimizing the families. Debunking them was, and is, a difficult endeavor. Have you ever argued with a conspiracy nut? If you have, you know that rational arguments don’t work. You can only ignore them, or marginalize them as best you can. It’s sad, but that’s the way it is. It’s best to ignore them, but if they’re victimizing innocents, as these MIA con-men were, you have take some action.

juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 11:58 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE, watching you try to debate MB4 is like watching a little mouse being run over by a truck. I almost have to close my eyes.

Sandor on April 21, 2008 at 12:04 AM

And Obama lies…

Chakra Hammer on April 21, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain.
- Thomas Sowell

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Thanks for this. I adore it. Love Thomas Sowell. Great economist, great writer, great man. Now, heed his advice. He knows what he writes of.

Sandor, pst…don’t ruin the game for the rest of us. Let it go on, please. I know how it will end.

MB4 will win.
THE CHOSEN ONE will lose cheerfully.

Both have their strengths.

Entelechy on April 21, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Unfortunately, Ms Alfond was a victim of the conspiracy nuts whom McCain was trying to debunk.

juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Fine, I stand corrected. However, if the woman was a victim all the more reason McCain shouldn’t have addressed her as he did.
He shouldn’t have been taking his frustrations out on her. For cryin’ out loud, the man’s a US Senator (who wants to be President); is this the best he could do?

As to the comparison to Reagan, don’t make me laugh. On his best day McCain isn’t even in the same class as Reagan.

Look folks, I haven’t made a secret that McCain isn’t my first choice. Hell, he wasn’t even second or third choice. I AM just like many Republicans though, who won’t be skipping off to the polls with joy in my heart and a song on my lips. s/

I have never NOT voted for the Republican candidate and, there is no way I’d ever vote for Hillary or Obama. This will be the first time in 40+ years of voting that it will be necessary for me to FORCE myself to vote for the GOP candidate. A part of me still wants to take the broken glass and poke it in my eyes.

There isn’t much to be happy about politics in PA these days, but my congressional district has a chance to put a serious contender up against Kanjorski……so sitting out the election isn’t an option.

I WILL grudgingly vote for McCain but it will take serious concentration to control my gag reflex as I do so.

poodlemom on April 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM

My current hobby is trying to enlighten you, however it’s like trying to teach a potted plant to be a lawyer..

MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Err… shouldn’t that be the other way round? :)

OldEnglish on April 21, 2008 at 1:47 AM

Err… shouldn’t that be the other way round? :)

OldEnglish on April 21, 2008 at 1:47 AM

I see your point and I stand corrected.

I should have said like trying to teach a potted plant to be an engineer.

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 2:20 AM

All the anti nausea medication in the nation couldn’t get me to be able to stomach voting for McCain and his McAmnesty plans. I won’t do it. I’ve already donated more than two hundred bucks to the Hillary campaign, and I’m going to donate more. I know, every time I donate, I’m convincing one more person to vote for Hillary instead of McCain.

If you gave me a choice between Joseph Stalin and John McCain. I’d choose Stalin. Sure we’d have a few million dead in the political sweeps, but you know, this is a small price to pay to keep McCain out of office.

If you gave me a choice between McCain and anyone in history, and I’d choose the other person every damn time. I won’t forgive him. I won’t forget the damage he’s done to the nation, and I won’t ever support him.

To those who claim that the worst possible outcome would be a Democratic President, I disagree. Sure, they’re socialist and elitists. They’ll screw up the economy, and destroy national defense. I agree on all of those. However the reverse is also true, so will John McCain.

Snake307 on April 21, 2008 at 2:38 AM

If you gave me a choice between Joseph Stalin and John McCain. I’d choose Stalin. Sure we’d have a few million dead in the political sweeps, but you know, this is a small price to pay to keep McCain out of office.

Snake307 on April 21, 2008 at 2:38 AM

Well, you gotta have priorities, I guess…. Hey, I like your screen name…. where’d ya get it?…

{I’ll keep him distracted, somebody get the net}

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 2:59 AM

True Conservatives want to divide the party up between themselves and the apostates. Then something comes along which forces them to demand a stand from everybody, and then they divide up the truncated true conservative community up again and toss the apostates out of their tortured sight. And again. And again. And again.

You know what this leads to? Limited property rights. Confiscated income. Stagflation. Malaise. Disco. Hell.

What I liked about Reagan was that he combined ideology with perspective. He knew the time to fight it out about ideas with fellow Conservatives and Republicans was in the primaries. Then it was time for the 11th commandment and to shut the he// up. You know, like that fight scene in The Quiet Man, when John Wayne fought it out with his brother-in-law all over the village and got it out of their systems, then they went to the pub.

Heal up your “dukes” until 2 and 4 years from now. Until then, have a Guinness, or whatev.

silverfox on April 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM

If you want to tell what members of Congress have ungovernable tempers, you need only look at how rapidly their staffs turnover.

This begs to be looked into.

- The Cat

MirCat on April 21, 2008 at 3:14 AM

silverfox on April 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Don’t say disco. Don’t do it man, don’t go there.

If I have to spend the next eight years listening to ABBA and wearing rhinestones I’m leaving the country.

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 3:17 AM

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 3:17 AM

Heh… Sorry, man. I had to get harsh.

silverfox on April 21, 2008 at 3:25 AM

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 3:17 AM

Money, Money, Money, … it’s a rich man’s world…

OldEnglish on April 21, 2008 at 4:19 AM

His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.
- Former Republican Senator Bob Smith

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 4:28 AM

When is McCain going to release his wife’s tax returns?

Didn’t even J F’ing Kerry end up releasing his rich wife’s tax returns?

is “Straight Talk” hiding something?

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 4:32 AM

I’ll still make my pick for McCain over the ashtray throwing Fosterizer or Revrum Wright’s disciple.

If the broom pilot succeeds in November Reno’s Waco barbecue will look like a field day. Visualize angry Hillary introducing her Attorney General Ted Kaczyinski, Homeland Security Director Jocelyn (every chow a wanted chow) Elders, Secretary of (alienated) State Bitter Billy Moyers, Ambassador to the UN Jane Fonda, FBI director Hugh Rodham and FCC director Keef Brownshirt Olbermann. You vill not broadcast again without authorized papers. Vere are your papers?

If it’s on-the-job training Obambi after November then the return of disco certainly would be appropriate with the Bee Gee’s theme “Stayin’ alive. Stayin’ alive” in the background as panicking Barack suddenly realizes once friendly but now-attacking-us Hamas was simply preying on Peanut Carter’s arrogant imbecility.

I may have preferred other GOP former candidates to McCain but given my expectations of his current two opponents my typical white person’s instincts for self-preservation easily rule out any desire to support Bubba’s violent doormat or Barry the empty suit.

viking01 on April 21, 2008 at 6:03 AM

His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.
- Former Republican Senator Bob Smith

MB4 on April 21, 2008 at 4:28 AM

That quote is just dumb.
What’s the matter?
No more Mark Twain quotes?

silverfox on April 21, 2008 at 6:49 AM

I’m glad to have a President who’s not afraid to show a little fire in his belly….

CynicalOptimist on April 21, 2008 at 8:14 AM

Was Bush’s drinking a legitimate issue? As long as he stayed on the wagon, no. McCain has no control over his character flaw so it is surely an issue. He has neither the temperament nor character to be CIC.

Valiant on April 21, 2008 at 8:27 AM

Quoting Bob Smith? I suppose you refused to read all those posts above where I showed that Smith was a party to Ted Sampley’s criminal manipulation of military families. Bob Smith is either a moronic dupe of Sampley or is a full co-conspirator.

McCain exposed them for the scum that they are, over many years and at great cost to himself.

Yet you prefer “True Conservative” Bob Smith or “True Conservative” Susie the anti-Semite and queer baiter. Hey, that’s your choice, but it’s quite a strange one.

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:32 AM

I’m not saying McCain = Washington. Interesting nonetheless.

After dealing with Washington’s career, Brookhiser turns to character, the core of the book. He finds Washington’s character compounded of his nature, his morals, and his ideas; and he explains their relationship. His natural good looks and passionate temper forced people to take notice of him, and his ideas (much underestimated by his modern biographers) gave him direction. But his morals, especially his concern for civility and reputation, held him together, connected him with his fellow Americans, and gave power to his ideas.

Washington also had a hot temper, and he took advantage of that, too, by letting it show now and again so that people were afraid of it. As a result even his self-control was impressive and he got credit for both keeping and losing his temper.

Washington’s morals took the form of politeness in doing honor to others and in accepting honors from them. Honor is the spring of monarchy, said Montesquieu, but Washington practiced the honor due among equals or near equals, republican honor.

Actually a great book review/article:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/14/mar96/mansfld.htm

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:36 AM

“True Conservative Bob Smith” in the Reagan administration days:

Summary. In late 1985-early 1986, a “POW rescue” caper developed around claims made by Mark Smith, Major, US Army (retired) that he had a videotape showing several live US POWs. Before this phony story ended, it involved a large group of bad actors and fools, including Smith, Senator (then representative) Bob Smith, Billy Hendon, Ted Sampley and an international criminal, Robin Gregson. This is a long and bizarre story — here it comes.

First, the actors

The main characters in this story are a who’s-who of dumbasses surrounding the MIA issue. They are:

Mark Smith, Major, US Army, (Retired). If you are not familiar with Mark Smith, you can read about him here.
William “Just Call Me Billy” Hendon, former member of Congress.
Senator Bob Smith (R, NH); at the time of this caper Smith was a Representative.
Ted Sampley, publisher of a third-rate “veterans” newspaper; claims to be a former Special Forces trooper.
And others who will pop up in the telling of this story.

http://www.miafacts.org/tapecaper.htm

funky chicken on April 21, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Does Saint Mc have more than a temper problem…?

McCain’s Weak Rebuttal to Damaging Allegations…
http://www.alternet.org/election08/82591/

…scroll down toward the bottom to read more unfounded allegations…?

J_Gocht on April 21, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Righteous Indignation = managed anger

The “silent majority” of Americans are angry about being manipulated and overtaxed, etc.

If McCain can project himself NOT as the whipping boy for progressive liberals to bully for his so-called moderate fake diplomacy (sell-out), but if McCain can project hiS anger as honest disgust towards sell-outs, then the “silent majority” of American voters would feel vindicated. But sadly, that propaganda manipulation would be undeserving, since McCain IS a sell-out.

Hence, chest conservative hands of cards in this election’s game of poker. DON’T give McCain support until McCain signs his name to conservative border security’s NON-LEGALIZATION of illegal aliens. We must have secure borders and the GOVERNMENTAL adherence to our Constitutional Law. That is the role of the Chief Executive, to execute the law! So where is McCain amongst all of the sell-outs? While Obama and Hillary are enjoying their own love-fest, now is the time to get McCain, not for McCain to get you.

quid pro quo

maverick muse on April 21, 2008 at 9:16 AM

My first choice would not be McCain at all. Given the choices we do have, isn’t he the lesser of the three evils? I just hope that McCain will make the commitment to uphold Conservative preceps and not cave to his Liberal cronies…

CynicalOptimist on April 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM

poodlemom, thanks for your response. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “victim” to describe Ms Alfond. By that time, she was spreading lies in the press, and was probably fully complicit with the Sampley gang’s doings. She appears in their videos to this day, so she’s obviously a co-conspirator.

As funky is saying, anyone who’s associated with Ted Sampley is not to be trusted, and that goes especially for former senator Smith. In using these “sources”, the WaPo was either very stupid, or deliberately putting out a deceitful hit piece.

juliesa on April 21, 2008 at 10:10 AM

You know, like that fight scene in The Quiet Man, when John Wayne fought it out with his brother-in-law all over the village and got it out of their systems, then they went to the pub.

Heal up your “dukes” until 2 and 4 years from now. Until then, have a Guinness, or whatev.

silverfox on April 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM

I like your reference very much, but I believe J. Wayne and B. Fitzgerald returned to fighting shortly after their drink. :)

mikeyboss on April 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM

There is a big difference between “passion” and “anger.”

Face it, McCain is a nasty hot head. He lets his anger get the best of him far too often. His declaration that opposition to his brokered amnesty deal was racism by stupid people, for example, is a case where the mean bitter REAL John McCain was in evidence.

There may well be times when McCain’s nasty temper might be productive but I fear that he will reserve his bile and temper tantrums for Republicans instead of going to bat to stop Pelosi, Reid, and all the rest of his friends in Congress.

highhopes on April 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

My first choice would not be McCain at all. Given the choices we do have, isn’t he the lesser of the three evils? I just hope that McCain will make the commitment to uphold Conservative precepts and not cave to his Liberal cronies…

CynicalOptimist on April 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM

That’s my point exactly, with McCain, you hope you’re getting a conservative, while we have no evidence to support that hope. Frankly, you’d be better off believing in Santa Clause than McCain the Conservative. Nothing about the Senator has been Conservative. He voted against Tax Cuts, at the time, claiming we couldn’t afford it. Now, pretending he objected to the rich getting the cuts. Oh, successful people shouldn’t get a fair tax rate too?

He’s opposed every single conservative idea. He claims to be Pro Life, but opposed a Constitutional Amendment, which is along with another landmark Supreme Court case, is the only way to realistically get the abomination of abortion abolished. So he’s pro life, unless it might work, then he’s pro choice? WTF?

McCain as President is sort of like the worst possible means of birth control. It’s frankly the exact same thing. You pull and pray that things work out. No thanks.

I’ll take Hillary, because if I’m going to be fighting the President’s health care initiatives, Amnesty proposals, and tax increase proposals, then frankly, I’d like the Republican Party helping to fight those things, instead of being told we owe it to the Republican party to support the President as he marches in lockstep with the Democrats.

No, I’ll take Hillary, who I honestly believe is more conservative. I’ll take Hillary who will look at focus group and polling data and back away from the more socialist collective ideals. McCain won’t. If everyone is against him, he’ll declare “I’m the Maverick for a reason.” And push for his ideas anyway.

The only selling point on McCain is that he’s really really old. Of course, that point depends on who he chooses for Vice President, and I’m still going to categorize that as a pull and pray move.

Pull and pray is almost never effective, and if I can’t get the team I want to fight with, then I’ll pick the one I’d rather fight against. Go Hillary.

Snake307 on April 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Snake307 on April 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

I can appreciate your point, Snake, if I understand it to basically be that you’d rather know what you’re up against than hopefully depend on an unknown quantity.

I guess I’d rather take a gamble that McCain is going to do what he said he would on those assertions on which I do agree, and believe me there are a number to which I disagree, rather than chance the opporotunity to hand over the reigns to someone I know who wouldn’t have the country in her best interest, but her own desire for power. You must also see that recent history paints the republicans in office as mostly whimps…you’re also coming up against a president who is going to be handed the Supreme Court on a silver platter…

No, it’s not the best scenario, but I still must vote with someone who holds more of those I do stand for than less. I couldn’t vote for someone who I know is not pro-life. Nor could I support someone who is unsupportive of the Defense of Marriage. Someone who has vowed to withdraw troops from a war in which we are doing some good (the Iraquis are doing most of the work… contrary to popular liberal opinion.. I learned from Michael Yawn) cannot get my vote.

CynicalOptimist on April 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM

The fact that people like Stevens and Cornyn, who have shared choice words with McCain, now ‘support’ him is no indication that everything is rosy.

They simply know that with McCain being the presumptive GOP candidate for President, if he gets in he will choose whose butter gets toasted and who doesn’t even get toast.

linlithgow on April 21, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Snake307 on April 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

You say a lot of the same things I’ve been thinking.

I don’t believe McCain is a Republican. I know the GOP will fight a Dem, but as I stated above, if McCain is in power, the GOP will fear his wrath if they oppose him and probably accept things they shouldn’t rather than risk being ostracised.

linlithgow on April 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM

The worst problem with thinking Hillary is acceptable as a candidate is the long term effects of her Supreme Court nominees. The usual grinning RINOs like Grassley and Lugar would readily trade / sell a USSC confirmation vote for more ethanol subsidy loot. If you think Stevens is a relic who has overstayed his USSC welcome your grandchildren are going to love whatever bionically controlled fossils Hillary nominates to promote the notions of Karl Marx for two or three (or more) generations with the slam of a gavel.

If the current wacky machinations of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals happens to appeal to you then Hillary’s your choice.

viking01 on April 21, 2008 at 4:28 PM

I’m not saying Hillary is my choice; I despise both her and Obama, but I don’t trust McCain AT ALL and look at how the GOP has followed lockstep with the President on things like prescription drugs when they should know better?

Instead they bow to political expediency and McCain and his ‘rhetoric’ can be, um… intimidating.

linlithgow on April 21, 2008 at 4:40 PM

RE: linlithgow on April 21, 2008 at 4:40 PM

I’m in agreement with the trust issue of McCain though the bulk of my post is in reference to Snake307′s posting of 11:05AM.

My immediate concern is our survival of the War on Terrorism for which Hillary is useless, Obambi is dangerous and where McCain at least has the basic understanding of military operations and chain of command.

My long term concern remains the further revision of the Constitution towards ACLU Marxist agendas which we’ve already seen with outright hacks like Buzzy Ginsburg alongside regrettable GOP appointees whom have become World Court narcissists like Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Ginsburg and Stevens are already barely running on fumes solely to hold out just until hardcore Lefties can be nominated to replace them. We already know both Dems would readily make USSC nominations to the whacked out far-Left. With McCain that remains somewhat less likely.

viking01 on April 21, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Anger management pisses me off.

Buttercup on April 21, 2008 at 5:27 PM

A clueless, pacifist president can have devastating consequences on America that are felt for decades. Even if he’s only in for four years.

See: Jimmy Carter.

29Victor on April 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM

So we’re down to two arguments to support McCain. The Supreme Court, and the War on Terror. I have stated that I have no faith in McCain on either. The reason is he actually thinks that this Maverick nonsense is a good thing, too many editorials from the NY Times I guess. I think that the Insurgents would launch a series of attacks, and McCain would fold like a house of cards when the Democrats demand he take action to pull our troops out. He would announce that he’s pulling the troops back, with wide bi-partisan support.

The War on Terror would be lost, and we Conservatives would be blamed since McCain would be the President. The Republican Party would be a minority party for the next fifty years. Every time a Republican would run for the Presidency, we’d hear how he supported McCain’s surrender to the Terrorists.

The Court. McCain has said he wants Conservatives, but not Conservatives like Alito, who wears his conservativism on his sleeve. Oh, and probably not like John Roberts, who was too openly Religious in his comments. So we’re going to get nominees that make Harriet Myers look like a good choice? Great. The court shifts to the left, and the Liberals get a great laugh at us and shove the nation to the left anyway. Heck McCain would probably nominate screaming lefties to keep balance on the court or some such nonsense. “We have to keep an open mind, and by keeping the court balanced, we guarantee that the people are better served.”

Tactical means that you fight where you can win. We can’t win with McCain in the White House, we can only lose. Sure McCain is adamant that he’s not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He was just as adamant that he wasn’t going to support a Boarder Fence, then he changed his mind. He was just as Adamant that he wouldn’t try and back door amnesty, and he has tried to back door it.

McCain and adamant go together like peanut butter and jelly. He’s adamant that he doesn’t know anything about the economy, but he’s going to fix it anyway. That’s like letting a guy who watched Discovery Channel perform your heart surgery. McCain is potentially the most dangerous candidate running in this election. Hillary is predictable, she’s going to do what the Clinton’s always do, go after enemies. Which at the moment, is half the Democratic Party. She’s going to rip them to shreds for the first two years of her administration. FBI files and all that sort of thing all over again. She’s going to be doing all the old dirty tricks all over again, and that is how we win.

After two years, conservative principals have the option of coming back. Newt’s Contract with America redux. This time, we tie those proposals to budgets, and we push them through. This time we get Conservative agenda items on the board, and we push until we win. Then in 2012, Romney (Who I like but honestly believe he’ll never win the national election) Or someone like that will be our candidate. Hopefully McCain will have taken his place in Arlington by then, so we don’t have to see him straight talk on the wild side again.

There are some good Conservatives out there, and we have a future as Republicans, unless we throw it all away trying to get a loser like McCain in the White House. By the time the Democrats are done, we’ll be done as a party for the next two generations. They already own McCain. He sold his soul to the lefties many decades ago.

No thanks, I’ll pass on President McCain. I don’t even like Senator McCain. I’d honestly prefer city councilman McCain, where he could do much less damage. Of course, I don’t live in Arizona, so I don’t get a say on the Senator thing. I do have a say, and I’ll say it from now till November, and I’ll vote Hillary. I’ll even cast my ballot for Obama, because he’s such a neophyte that it’ll take him two years to figure out where the oval office is, much less what he can do from there. By then, his negatives will be so high, his power as President will already be lame ducking along on the sidelines.

The only way America wins longterm, is by defeating McCain. The only way the Republican Party survives long term, is defeating McCain. The only way that we can have a future anywhere right of the Soviet Union is by defeating McCain. If we don’t, then we’re screwed truly.

Snake307 on April 22, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Snake307 on April 22, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Absolutely well said.
I have made tried to make essentially the same points many times… since 2000, actually, on a national forum, and even earlier during his Senate runs in Arizona while I lived there.

I have a 33 year history with the guy, starting while we were both in uniform, long before anyone (except perhaps himself) had any idea that he would ever seek high office, much less the highest. And while I admire his courage, there is absolutely nothing else about him with which I feel comfortable.

Frankly, I fear the likely results of a McCain Presidency more than I have feared anything in my life. He is in the unique position to destroy nearly everything I hold right and valuable.

I understand and sympathize with the people who will ‘hold their nose and vote’ for what they consider to be the lesser of three evils. But I can’t imagine the circumstances that I would join that crowd. I can forgive an enemy stranger who seeks to harm me, but I can never forgive someone who is supposed to be an ally who betrays what is supposed to be our common cause.

LegendHasIt on April 22, 2008 at 5:08 AM

Snake307 on April 22, 2008 at 1:57 AM
LegendHasIt on April 22, 2008 at 5:08 AM

I understand, but I think you all are misguided.

It would be better to raise hell with McCain in office than it would be with President Obama.

silverfox on April 22, 2008 at 5:49 AM

silverfox on April 22, 2008 at 5:49 AM

I just don’t see it. How do you raise hell with McCain? Sure, we managed with McAmnesty, but you know, it wasn’t us that did it. It was and it wasn’t. We raised hell with the other senators, sending them bricks and all that, until they told McCain that they couldn’t back him. The voters won’t stand for it.

McCain led the charge in calling us all racists for wanting to have a secure homeland. He was out there every week telling us on Meet the Press and all those face time shows that we were just racists and didn’t understand that this is what the nation needed.

Bricks stacked in offices around Washington convinced the others that we were right, and then McCain said. “If they want a fence, I think they’re wrong, but I’ll build the goddamn fence.” Of course, being John the Maverick McCain he authorized it, and then put the funding of it off until some future date, and of course, had a date to close the funding on it. That’s this year by the way.

So how do we raise hell with McCain with a Democratic Senate and house? Who do we call to put the brakes on McCain? The Senate? They’re Democrats, and they’ll march in lockstep and vote for McAmnesty, the Iraq war de-funding bill, and all those things that McCain says he won’t do. Then McCain will do them, and say it was in the interest of working with the other side that he did it.

The only thing we can really hope for is that McCain picks someone really good as VP. I don’t think he’ll do that. He won’t share the limelight with any republican. We’ll get some yahoo who makes Danny Quail look like a competent political force. If McCain does die in office with that yahoo in as VP, then we’re going to be pulling the trigger on ourselves for the next twelve years.

Also, with McCain being such a Maverick, let’s say he doesn’t die. He screws the court up by shoving thirty year old Liberals in for the two slots we talked about. So they’re in for the next forty years. Soy nuts join ethanol as the law of the land and we’re better off how?

Nope. I feel like Ronald Reagan at the moment. He was once a Democrat you know. He said he hadn’t changed but the Democratic Party had. Well, I’m not changing, conservative principals work, every single time they’re tried. So why would we put a liberal we’re going to be told to support or else in the White House? Liberal Answers haven’t ever worked, not one time they’re tried. Yet, we’re going to use the Liberal answers, and we’re going forward, out of party unity? What Party? The American Communist? The World Workers? Or the Democratic Party?

If We’ve embraced the Democratic Principals, and the Democratic Values, and are now calling them our own. If it’s true that we need to forget Ronald Reagan and all his great acheivements because no one has the guts to walk in his footsteps, then I’m a Democrat. Not because I’ve changed, but because the Republican Party changed.

I’ll work from inside the Democratic Party, and start to bring back the good old days of the DixieCrats and the ballsy moves of President Kennedy. I’ll bring back the staunch determination of Truman, and Scoop Jackson. I’ll try and leave out the communist infiltrators, but it is the Democrats we’re talking about. There’s bound to be ten percent communists involved somewhere.

Perhaps I’ll again try and talk sense to some Libertarians. Tell them to drop the legalize drugs mantra for a while, and see if they can get some people elected. You know, short of that, they do have some interesting ideas. Of course, those interesting ideas are drowned in the sea of “Legalize it.”

There is very little hope left for our nation, and John McCain isn’t that hope. John McCain has pushed us to this cliff, and shoved us until we’re teetering on the edge. Now, he says he can save us. Sorry John, I don’t trust you anymore. As for going along for Party Unity. I’m far more likely to bite ass than kiss it. Down with McCain. If you’ll excuse me, I need to go donate some more money to Hillary.

Snake307 on April 22, 2008 at 8:44 AM

I’m reminded of being in London in the early 1980s where the danger of IRA nut job bombs was very real. Margaret Thatcher had her hands full enough dealing with the Argentine War in the Falklands, de-nationalizing much of the tattered British economy and relying on Ronald Reagan’s alliance as she attempted the equivalent economic salvage operation of Britain as Reagan was doing to repair the foolishness of Peanut Carter here.

How things have changed. Britain now kowtows to the radical Islam to avoid further bomb attacks in London and lurches back towards the reckless Socialism which Thatcher fought to evict. In our own nation some appear worshipful of the very Clintoon legacy of neglect and self-pleasuring which precipitated 9/11 as venue to promulgate some warped, scattershot vengeance upon McCain.

Go ahead and donate to Hillary but be sure to ask her to protect the Second Amendment. When one chooses to re-endorse the same Clintoon lackadaisacal excesses and neglect of national defense throughout the 1990s one had best be ready to fight the War on Terrorism in our streets because there it most assuredly will be fought. The good old days of JFK never were just as the “changed man” days of Bubba never were. Both are merely repackaged Camelot perceptions of two seedy politicians of dubious parentage. Both of whom paled in comparison to a nation of greater self-sufficiency and strength in the Heartland which kept the nation afloat not because of Washington, DC but DESPITE Washington, DC.

Years back National Lampoon had a fake bumper sticker which simply stated: “Don’t Blame Me I Voted for Hitler.” How interesting that it reminds how of those whom get elected can do so out of misguided wishes for vengeance upon others!

Hillary obviously feels the pain of someone here and I’m wise enough not to try to waste further time convincing one commenter in particular that in reality that Hillary’s love for and fidelity to him may not be the case.

viking01 on April 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

The people that think they can influence McCain are incredibly naive; They are clueless about his true character.

Once McCain decides something, no amount of facts to the contrary, no amount of pressure will change his mind…EVER.

If thwarted he will just pretend to have changed his mind, but continue to work for the same goal, covertly, rather than overtly.

While sticking with your convictions can be an admirable trait, and one that seems lacking in most politicians in both major parties, when you are so obviously wrong about so many things, it is not admirable, but dangerous.

LegendHasIt on April 22, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2