McCain’s temper — a legitimate issue? Update & Bump: Mark Salter calls shenanigans
posted at 7:45 pm on April 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
Or even desirable.
flipflop on April 20, 2008 at 2:07 PM
The temper of a man who has his finger on the button is not nearly as important as whether that man happens to be wearing a flag lapel pin at the time.
e-pirate on April 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Media bias -what’s new.
One man’s hot temper is another man’s passion for those issues in which he believes. What a non-story! A quick temper never stopped John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman etc…
Still, a sign of desperation in the MSM.
Pax americana on April 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM
McCain is more appealing when he campaigns showing his humor rather than his occasional flashes of snideness or anger. He’s been keeping his cool lately and that’s a good thing.
As for former Senator Bob Smith….well, I’m really not too concerned about his lack of faith in McCain. Smith lost any claim to GOP respect when he bolted from the party after an unsuccessful run at the presidential nomination in ‘04, joined a local NH third party, and then returned to the GOP just so he could claim a Senate committee chairmanship that fell open. It still amazes and disgusts me that Trent Lott let Smith have the spot.
Jill1066 on April 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM
McCain seems like a man fighting the ghosts of his fathers.
He comes across as a man who simple MUST be President so he can attain a higher postition than Admiral John Sydney McCain.
He gets pissed off when people fail to recognize his greatness.
Yes, that is a serious character flaw and a problem for somebody who wants to be CIC of the United States Armed Forces.
EJDolbow on April 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Oh no! Mr McCain gets mad! In today’s society, that also means he’s a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe! Men who get mad must be mentally defective!
In all seriousness, I guess it can be a legitimate issue, but from the standpoint that it is a liability for McCain as POTUS, what sort of liability would it be?
Weebork on April 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM
‘Be angry, but sin not’.
At least McCain has the stones to admit he has a temper. Lefties like Leahy don’t have the stones to even have a temper, (or self-righteous anger), they/he just use/s their/his passive aggressive schtick to illicit it from conservatives.
Christine on April 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I suppose people might not feel President McCain is open to criticism and they will not be as forthcoming with him if they know he is going to scream at them.
He told John Cornyn to “F***OFF” when John questioned McCain’s amnesty plan in the Senate.
EJDolbow on April 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The worst quote in the article is from former senator Bob Smith. There animosity dates back to their service on the select committee on MIAs. Smith believed the MIA Truthers, and McCain and Kerry didn’t. Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, became something of a conspiracy nut, and he and McCain had huge fights. Everyone here knows that conspiracy nuts can’t be reasoned with. Smith is probably sincere in his beliefs, but he was duped by the frauds, as Ross Perot was.
Smith has appeared in a video for that con-man Ted Sampley’s group, veitnamvetsagainstmccain. As anyone who’s familiar with the issue knows, Sampley & co. are not to be trusted. Ever.
juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I look forward to a president who is capable of getting angry at opponents. For McCain the problem will be forcing him to acknowledge Democrats as opponents.
AbaddonsReign on April 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM
there=their
juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I have probably seven books about Hillary in my library. Not one of them fails to mention numerous times her legendary temper and foul mouth.
As far as McCain, I would probably have a short fuse, too, if I had been through what he has and now sees our country headed for the crapper if the Dims have their way. I don’t have a problem with the temper.
wow.
Glynn on April 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM
McCain gets angry and uses profanity so he can’t be president. I wonder if LBJ was ever told that.
Limerick on April 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM
The author of this piece would probably write a piece about the horrors of Obama being asked about his stance on taxes as inappropriate. I would like to ask how many Americans were angry at 9/11, and if that was a good thing. Or would they prefer the reaction of the Palestinians (Carter’s friends) as they danced and celebrated in the streets?
Anger is not a bad thing. Obama’s entire campaign is based on anger toward Bush. Wright made a career preaching anger toward whites AND America. I don’t understand why it is only McCain where anger is a bad thing according to the media.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Despite his reputation for anger, McCain is not yet known to have given his opponent the finger in a Presidential debate.
NCC on April 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Two thoughts quickly spring to mind:
First, a little temper in the President’s office might be a good thing, as long as the anger is directed in a cold, calculating way against our enemies.
Second, all those whining Democrats, p*ssing in their boots about Obama being challenged on the skeletons in his closet, can now officially stuff socks in their pie-holes whenever they want to discuss McCain’s anger rather than the “issues.” Worthless, hypocritical water-rats.
second digit on April 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM
LBJ is not the example to use to comfort me about McCain’s personality issues.
Issue? Sure, character issues are legitimate targets. Will it hurt McCain? Most likely not.
joewm315 on April 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I agree with that 100%. It’s just one of the things I really like about McCain. I want a President who gets angry once in a while. It’s called passion.
Maybe…but the NY Times will pick it up and run it weekly anyway.
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM
You want a guy with some fire and some balls. You dont want a “hothead”. I’ve never really seen McCain’s temper so I dont know what to say. Calling someone a bad name, oh goodness gracious! That’s so barbaric I almost soiled my doilies!
Gimme a break. But yes, it’s a legit issue if they can show something substantial. Not just a generic meme that he’s a hothead.
Dash on April 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM
What of McCain’s treatment of POW/MIA families in the early 1990s as President Clinton worked to normalize trade relations with Vietnam? How can a man who was a POW act so coldly to families of MIA/POWs? The record seems to indicate that McCain went out of his way to block the efforts of POW/MIA families to find or account for their lost family members. This record does not speak well of McCain.
http://powwarrior.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/the-measure-of-the-man-why-john-mccain-doesnt-measure-up/
Angry Dumbo on April 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM
McCain’s temper is just a distraction from the real issues.
/ Obamatron off
Good Lt on April 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM
The picture on the main page for this thread is John McCain snarling at George W. Bush during a presidential debate in 2000.
The meaning of that expression and the middle finger are one and the same.
EJDolbow on April 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM
McCain/Chip ‘08!
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM
This nation has become a nation of wimps. The President of the United States is the leader of the free world, or at least the most powerful country in the world. Has our slavery to politically correctness now reached that office? Andy Jackson is rolling in his grave and Teddy Roosevelt is laughing his head off. Is anger in a presidential candidate a legitimate issue; everything is (contrary to the Obamaniacs’ view about their saviour), and IMHO, we need some anger in that office.
second digit on April 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM
McCain has father issues? Obama wrote an entire book about the father who completely abandoned him. Hillary and her brothers never could please their father; she became an overachiever with a sense of entitlement, and her brothers became whiny grifters. At least McCain’s father didn’t abandon him, and by all accounts was affectionate to his kids.
Oh yeah, the Iraq War was just to satisfy Bush’s daddy issues, right? Geez, all this long distance psychanalysis is silly. Who isn’t shaped by their parents and the circumstances of their upbringing?
juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM
This is a legitimate story and issue. Hewitt’s missing the point.
Does his temper indeed represent an arrogance, an unwillingness to understand opposing views?
I think the issue of immigration and his angry admissions to “build that damned fence” may be one indicator of how his temper affects his public judgment.
The question for all these issues - Obama’s relationships with Wright and Ayers, McCain’s temper - is how they affect public policy and the decision-making process (ugh) of the men.
Yes, character counts. And a bad temper is part of our character for good or ill.
SteveMG on April 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Anger management issues versus governing issues
And they called Dick Cheney grumpy
Kini on April 20, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Wait just one gosh-darn minute. The Obamessiah himself put ‘manufactured political distractions’ on notice the other day. Where’s this coming from?
p0s3r on April 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM
He didn’t call someone a bad name - he told someone who questioned his amnesty plan to f*** off.
aengus on April 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Obama, Jr., is a man haunted by the ghost of his father, and by his own feelings of inadequacy due to his conflicted feelings about his racial identity, as well as his father’s abandonment of him.
He comes across as a man who must be president so he can prove that he’s as good (or better than) whites, and also prove that he’s as good as (or better than) his father (who was a minister in the government of Kenya).
Obama, Jr., gets pissed off when people fail to recognize his greatness (and his entitlement to the presidency).
AZCoyote on April 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
The people at the website post a lot of stuff that is made up from whole cloth. They are simply not credible.
juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I think Obama has the same temper, evidenced in the debate the other night. He just covers it up better. And gets angry over being challenged which is just juvenile.
Most MEN have a temper now and again. It’s not whether they have one, it’s how they use it.
Getting angry over pork barrel waste is something I like in a leader. I don’t know about you, but I am tired of the government wasting my money.
As for Obama’s finger on the button, get real.
His finger will be nowhere near the button because he is too busy sucking it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/02/politics/p123631D30.DTL&type=politics
ArmyAunt on April 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM
So he has a temper . . . so what? As long as it does not become counterproductive to the well being of our country there is no problem.
rplat on April 20, 2008 at 3:02 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
What is next? A public ‘time-out’ law?
Limerick on April 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Uh oh, the Post is gettin’ worried!
WisCon on April 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
When McCain hauls off and slugs somebody, then his temper will become an issue I can care about. Until then, not so much.
rightwingprof on April 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Who wouldn’t get angry with the kind of crap that goes on in Washington? The guy has been tortured in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years, if anything, I think he deserves to get ticked off now and again.
jencab on April 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Hewitt nails it. It’s agenda journalism. But rather than a one-time hit, I expect the Post and NYT to build this theme as big as they can.
They say Hils has a temper, throwing things at times. Do you think McCain throws lights, ashtrays at people too?
petefrt on April 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM
McCain’s not used to being universally adored by the media as the fearless conservative-killer. The general election will crack open the man like a turtle on the interstate, his temper being the first thing to unglue.
Media-nominated, media-destroyed.
Man, I hope I’m wrong.
spmat on April 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I, for one, am ready to have a president lose his temper when the welfare and lives of our military overseas is at stake, when the lying treasonous MSM minimizes the good and maximizes the so-called evil they do.
I wouldn’t mind a president who doesn’t mince words with the lies of the media, the cowardice of Congress, the countries who criticize us who should piss off and the traitors in our midst.
This would be refreshing.
Mommynator on April 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Err.. “McCain’s not used to not being universally adored”
spmat on April 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Nail on head! If the savior has said this not a topic worthy of analysis, then who are we mere mortals to question?
second digit on April 20, 2008 at 3:25 PM
From a review of “The Johnson White House Tapes.”
Personally, I think anyone who thinks this is an issue was brainwashed by countless hours stuck in front of the TV watching Mr. Rogers. Can you imagine Mr. Rogers as president?
In all his years of public service, there is no indication that his anger has led to irrational acts outside of his blowing his top. If steam comes out of his ears now and then, so what? Seems nearly all who have suffered his wrath are still his friends and support him.
In any case, this is an old story and will die unless, of course he flips out during the debates. That would be bad. Great TV though.
Rod on April 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
The Post didn’t have any issues with Bubba turning purple and pointing fingers.
Hummer53 on April 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
McCain is exactly what this country needs, particularly when you consider the vile, dangerous nature of an upcoming generation (see the following Hot Air post: Grade schooler threatens to kill George W. Bush). There’s nothing wrong with a “temper” as long as it is controlled and used to further interests of our country and our society.
rplat on April 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
LBJ, now there was a President that could lose their temper.
Horrors, imagine a leader of people losing his temper, imagine you not performing your required duties and your boss actually getting angry…I can’t imagine such a thing, where is Ghandi when we need him?
Grow up, he has passion, he demands perfection, he wants to run a country, not babysit a bunch of whiners…
right2bright on April 20, 2008 at 3:32 PM
McCain need only reply:
“5 years in a POW camp being tortured might make you a little angry from time to time… but not as angry as the American people will be if they elect one of my opponents who is intent on making their country weaker, poorer and more divided. A bit of righteous passion may be a good thing, if it aims to keep us free, strong and our future secure.”
profitsbeard on April 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM
It was an observation about his Messiah complex. If you disagree with McCain on some issues you get screamed at and called names. Especially is you are a Republican.
EJDolbow on April 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Chef Ramsey has no problem either losing his temper or getting results from losing it.
Kruschev took his shoe off and banged it on that sacred podium at the UN.
A temper can be a tool.
Mommynator on April 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
McCain is aggressive at times.
Hillary is aggressive at times.
Bill Clinton is aggressive at times.
Obama is a typical passive-aggressive, and one of the most dangerous aggressives. Beware. They harbor aggression and undermine you indirectly, but with most devastating effects, blaming others, making excuses, and feeling victimized. Ambiguity is their forte.
Entelechy on April 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Anyone that loses their temper when unjustly called a liar is not a hot head. Maverick is a man, and the Dems and the Liberals have no clue what that is.
Hening on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I want a President who loves his country and is not ashamed of its flag. I would feel much happier knowing that our enemies would think twice before attacking us with McCain at the button.
Barry would look at a radar screen of incoming missiles and say “Look at those chickenssssssssss coming home to roooooooooost!” He would then sit in the audience listening to the mullahs running our country and claim he didn’t hear anything.
pedestrian on April 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I am ready for a POTUS who will show a little volatility, a little visible anger over things that deserve anger. I don’t care that certain parts of the world don’t “respect” us. If McCain displays a little edginess or anger that strikes a little fear into certain people I don’t see the problem.
JonRoss on April 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I wouldn’t mind McCain’s temper so much if it were usually directed at anyone but conservatives.
But it is ONE of the reasons that I consider him a potential greater danger to the Nation… and even the world, than Hilobama. Because his temper flares mostly when he is wrong, not when he is right.
Sometimes I wish President Bush would get righteously angry. Anger can be useful when used as a tool.
Unfortuanately McCain’s temper makes him a tool.
LegendHasIt on April 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM
genius
The Race Card on April 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM
oh come on …
he’s not angry … he’s just “bitter”.
I’d rather have someone who’s more wiling to get “pissed off” then “pissed on”.
GWB let the Dems pee on him so much even my “Bush ‘04″ t-shirts are stained.
Not that I don’t have issues with John Raisin’ mcCain”, I find his human qualities quite refreshing.
garry on April 20, 2008 at 6:06 PM
This might qualify for “update” status:
Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO online’s “The Corner” is reporting that the Washington Post article is (quite possibly) absolute crap.
The post consists mainly of an email sent in by one of McCain’s aides who was interviewed for the Post piece.
29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM
They bring up Karen Johnson, without giving you much context. Johnson’s a real fruitcake paleo, who worked for the embarrassing Evan Meacham, then headed up Pat Buchanan’s peasants with pitchforks effort out here in 1996, and rails against the North American Union and how gays are ruining marriage, a subject close to her heart as, yes, she’s been married five times. She was a Ron Paul supporter this time around. So the notion that here’s this poor gal who’s being hounded by John McCain is silly. She does have more baggage than Samsonite, and ordinarily, the liberals would cheer McCain’s distaste for her.
Brainster on April 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Ah, 29Victor, you beat me to the punch, so to speak. I was just going to post the same Ponnuru link.
Even though the clarifying email was sent by a McCain aide, I view many a Post article with a block of salt and am inclined to accept the aide’s information.
onlineanalyst on April 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Do you think the MSM will bring up Hillary’s or Obama’s anger issues?
Not a chance.
BobH on April 20, 2008 at 6:39 PM
onlineanalyst
“to the punch”
good one.
29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…….Just like you……..?
Seven Percent Solution on April 20, 2008 at 6:40 PM
A candidate’s temperament is a legitimate issue. Who wants to elect a wimp?
I don’t like McCain, but I’ll vote for him. A friend and I were discussing a local election and the observation was made “well, I think she’s a horrible, nasty person and I wouldn’t want to socialize with her, but, hey, this is the DA’s job we’re talking about. We want people like her there.”
If I want a tough DA, why would I expect less in the president?
We don’t have to like McCain, we just have to trust him to be the candidate who is best suited to the WH. I’d much rather have a man with a fiery temper defending us than one who’s inclined to sing Kumbaya.
obladioblada on April 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM
I respectfully disagree. I think the media’s testing the waters a bit to see if it sticks.
4shoes on April 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Mixed “sticky-water” metaphor aside ;) . I agree.
Those gearing up to attack McCain durring the general election are going to use this time to see if they can create a negative narrative for him that will catch on.
But, see my comment above, I don’t think this one is it.
29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I just read your link, I agree, I don’t think this is the issue that will come back. However, since liberals don’t seem overly concerned with truth, or honesty esp. when it concerns smears against conservative candidates, who knows? It may come back, just like the “100 year war” crap quote that the lib media (and candidates) keep taking out of context and repeating over and over.
4shoes on April 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM
McCain lets his anger out but is not ruled by it, which is healthy.
Hillary doesn’t show so much anger, but works hard behind the scenes to destroy those who make her angry. It’s the Clinton Way.
Obama seems not to get angry, but it’s clear he has some major issues. In fact, I’d say he’s not so much angry as filled with barely suppressed hate.
Only a liberal wacko would fear anger from a man who clearly keeps his cool when the going gets rough.
MrScribbler on April 20, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Thanks, Brainster, I didn’t know that about Johnson, but I’m not surprised. It fits the pattern of the nuttier paleos and conspiracy weirdos who trade in this stuff.
juliesa on April 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Are you impaired?
You know nothing about me and you certainly have never seen me pissed off nor do you know if I have any thoughts about greatness.
EJDolbow on April 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I see the Post has taken a few pages from the NYT playbook.
conservnut on April 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM
John “Give’em H_ll” McCain!
Wait, that nickname was already taken.
jgapinoy on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM
…by a Democrat, so that makes his temper OK, right?
jgapinoy on April 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM
If McCain would only use his temper to kick the sorry asses off of the Left and those two scumbags the Dems are pushing on us this election cycle, then all will be forgiven, he will become President and our party would be unified.
Does he have what it takes?
The problem is that we really don’t know.
TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 8:08 PM
News flash EVERYONE has a temper! Good Lord how wimpy is this society going to get?
Gatordoug on April 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM
They bring up Karen Johnson, without giving you much context. Johnson’s a real fruitcake paleo, who worked for the embarrassing Evan Meacham, then headed up Pat Buchanan’s peasants with pitchforks effort out here in 1996, and rails against the North American Union and how gays are ruining marriage, a subject close to her heart as, yes, she’s been married five times. She was a Ron Paul supporter this time around. So the notion that here’s this poor gal who’s being hounded by John McCain is silly. She does have more baggage than Samsonite, and ordinarily, the liberals would cheer McCain’s distaste for her.
Brainster on April 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Great line about Buchanan’s “pitchfork” peasants!
Buchanan sounds great for about five minutes, then he’s suddenly going off on Israel and the neocons and the drunk bastard becomes Father Coughlin’s little alterboy.
TexasJew on April 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Wasn’t Harry Truman known for the indelicate way in which he expressed his strong opinions?
njcommuter on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 PM
John Cornyn (Republican - Texas - America): Wait a second here, I’ve been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You’re out of line.
John McCain (RINO - LaRaza - Mexico): F##k you!!! I know more about this than anyone else in the room!!!
McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 [McCain/Kennedy, aka
shamnesty bananakumquat that passed the [quisling] Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Just as I thought. Leahy’s WaPo article is a hit job, just like the NYT piece earlier.
petefrt on April 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Not to go all arm chair psychologist on you, but leftists — both male and female — hate men. Oh, they like emasculated men, the kind who whine like little girls when someone asks them a hard question during a debate and makes them look inarticulate, or the kind who get caught dropping trou in the Oval Office and has to send his mommy-wife out front to calm the storm, but they don’t like men who can take care of themselves. Those kind of men are standing between the leftists and the Marxist state. They hate George Bush’s “swagger” because it suggests maleness. They call him a “cowboy,” a truly iconic image of manliness. They hate Dick Cheney because they are pretty sure he’d kill them with his bare hands if he had to. They call him Darth Vader, a character with not a scintilla of femaleness. And they really hate military men, which pretty much speaks for itself. Liberals hate tough guys because they don’t make good slaves — and because sometimes they punch the little punk-ass SOB in the mouth when he goes too far, and liberals are mostly punk-ass SOBs who tend to go too far. Now, with McCain, they fear that while he has political-liberal tendencies on some issues, they’ve got another balls-on fella on their hands, and voters like balls-on fellas. Leftists don’t, but voters do.
Rational Thought on April 20, 2008 at 8:32 PM
You are beginning to catch on Gringo. Fortunately for me not that many others here are.
VinyFoxy on April 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM
My dear fellow, you shall keep watch in the street, I’ll do the criminal part and Sigmund will do the psychoanalysis part.
Holmes on April 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Just think that the line bears repeating.
baldilocks on April 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM
lol.
Support the right to arm talking bears.
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Thanks for the hat tip on the “Update and Bump” Ed….not!
:)
4shoes on April 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Excellent point, again I have to agree. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to get some traction (”stick” as it were) and then the press will begin write like it’s Gospel that McCain is “Mr. Angryman” and it will color every future story about him. It will be referenced whenever some pundit “analyzes” any of his decisions or public statements. It will be used to write off any of his policy decisions as resulting from “the anger of Mr. Angryman.”
Remember when the press started portraying Dan Quayle as an idiot? To the best of my knowledge he’s a pretty darn smart guy, but the label stuck and now that’s how he’s seen by the majority of people in America. They managed to do the same thing with Bush.
29Victor on April 20, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Because Sen McCain benefits by the Civil War that is going on in the Democratic Party simply by staying out of the news, perhaps this is an attempt to get the news focused on McCain to give Senators Clinton and Obama some breathing room. How funny is it that usually its the other way around!
Operation Chaos continues!
(For the record, I know that Operation Chaos is just something that Rush has dreamed up so he doesn’t get too bored. It’s still fun to go on about because doing so will most assuredly annoy liberals.)
Weebork on April 20, 2008 at 8:52 PM
I have made good judgments in the Past. I have made good judgments in the Future.
- Dan Quayle
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.
- Dan Quayle
Mars is essentially in the same orbit… Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
- Dan Quayle
The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation’s history. I mean in this century’s history. But we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century.
- Dan Quayle
I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.
- Dan Quayle
MB4 on April 20, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I’m not saying McCain = Washington. Interesting nonetheless.
Actually a great book review/article:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/14/mar96/mansfld.htm
funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 9:00 PM
And McCain’s takedown of Obama on the Ayers/Coburn statement was excellent, and certainly doesn’t fulfill the MSM dearest wish to portray McCain as an out of control hothead.
The “temperament” criticisms of McCain started back when he was taking on Ted Sampley and his scummy enablers who were defrauding military families with lies about “left behind” POW/MIA folks.
funky chicken on April 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! Every time the Times does one of these hatchet jobs, Maverick picks up two or three points in the polls. Hopefully, there will be a “controversy” by lunchtime tomorrow. Then I’ll be able to get updated on it while listening in on Rush and the next battle plan for Operation Chaos.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM
On the UPDATE:
Cripes! I predicted this kinda stuff months ago. At a time when Fred was just dropping out…(I miss Fred)…and immediately jumped on McCain’s wagon. Others went to Mitt.
Many said McCain was a “media darling”…and if it’s looking bad now, just WAIT until the general election kicks into gear.
John McCain is an honorable, decent, patriotic man. A man involved in DC politics for some time now. A man who will make a great POTUS.
The liberal press is going to turn on him even triple what this piece is. Or more.
Just think about a President Clinton again…or worse, a President Obama.
Get up. Get out. And vote John McCain. For America.
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I second that.
VinyFoxy on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Everybody has a temper,So whats new!
I remember when Ronald Reagan was President,
they were scared to death that he might start
a war,and I remember saying good,they better be
scared to death that he might push the button!
Now the MSM are trying a new angle on McCain,
well he has a extensive political and Military
service record,but ya know he’s got a temper!
I won’t be surprised if they try to make John McCain
out to be Captain Queeg from the Caine Mutiny,accept
Queeg wasn’t angry,he was paranoid!
And talk about angry,ever seen a Liberal Moonbat so-called
peace rally.Whether its Israel’s right of exisistence,Irag
War,protesting in Berkley for Military recruits!
Liberal protest’s my friends is a definition or excerise in
hate and pure angry!
canopfor on April 20, 2008 at 9:27 PM
How many weeks in a row has the GOP won the news cycle? At least since the Wright controversy, maybe a little longer. The libs are imploding, and I love it. Operation Chaos continues. Why aren’t we talking about Bush? The Economy? The War? Gas Prices? Wah! Wah! Wah! Democrats: Losers That You Can Count On Losing.
chief on April 20, 2008 at 9:27 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…
So unless anyone comes up with a picture of him losing his temper and drop kicking a dwarf or somethig similar… the temper is more an asset than a liability especailly with some tyrant like Ahmadinejad (sp)
CCRWM on April 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Then how can he be a nice guy?! This kind of stuff drives me up the wall. It discredits salter’s own response. Conservatives don’t have to be told that washington post reporters are democrat propagandists, the undecideds need to learn that. When you say a story is dishonest but then say the reporter is a good guy you blow your entire rebuttal. Dishonest means intentionally untruthful, lying. Liars are not nice people. Laura Ingraham and hannity do this same thing all the time, they preface stories about these unapologetic liars and the propaganda they spew by stating what great people they are. If hannity says what an objective, serious reporter bob schieffer is one more time I’m going to rip the radio out of my dashboard.
peacenprosperity on April 20, 2008 at 9:36 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
MB4:
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.
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
heh…That made me laugh.
At one time, I would have gotten mad, but not now.
I truly wish those, and thank gawd it’s fewer every week, who see John McCain as some kind of “amnesty” guy…because he IS NOT…would get off that issue. If that’s all some GOP conservatives have on McCain…
JetBoy on April 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »