See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Mr 'McNasty' in battle to keep his cool
Source:
Financial Times
URL Source: http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpag ... ?news_id=fto041020081406258166
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Author: Andrew Ward
Post Date: 2008-04-11 17:12:22 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 99
Comments: 4
Mr 'McNasty' in battle to keep his cool By Andrew Ward in Washington It was the telltale sign that John McCain was getting mad. During the last few Republican presidential primary debates, when his battle with Mitt Romney became increasingly rancorous, a forced smile would spread across the Arizona senator's face every time his opponent went on the attack. Asked about the expression by a reporter later, he described it as a "defence mechanism" to mask feelings of anger and frustration. Mr McCain has been battling to control his infamous temper since childhood, when schoolmates nicknamed him "McNasty" and "Punk". Now, as he prepares to carry the Republican banner into November's election, critics are questioning whether his fiery temperament could be a liability as commander-in-chief. In January, Thad Cochran, a Republican senator for Mississippi, said the thought of Mr McCain as president sent a "cold chill down my spine", describing him as "hotheaded" and "erratic". James Dobson, the influential evangelical leader, said he could not support Mr McCain, in part because he "has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language". On Capitol Hill, his outbursts are part of congressional folklore. One of the most recent came last year when, according to witnesses, he shouted, "Fuck you!" at John Cornyn, a Republican senator for Texas, during a heated exchange over immigration reform. A similar tirade in 1999 cost him the support of Pete Domenici, a New Mexico senator, in the 2000 presidential election. "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger," said Mr Domenici. A new book, called The Real McCain,claims he once physically attacked Rick Renzi, an Arizona congressman, during an argument. Speaking on Fox News this week, Mr McCain said that this and other allegations in the book were "either false or exaggerated". But he has acknowledged in memoirs and interviews that his temper is a source of "personal concern". "I wake up daily and tell myself, 'You must do everything possible to stay cool, calm and collected today'," he once said. Current and former aides say the catalyst for his temper is nearly always a matter of political principle or personal honour. He once flew into a rage at Chuck Grassley, an Iowa senator, over a perceived slur against his war record. On another occasion, he bawled at Dan Goldin, the former Nasa administrator, after a $125m space probe was lost because of a mix-up between metric and imperial measurements. "It is usually over an issue he feels passionate about - how taxpayers' money is spent, or a moral issue of right and wrong," says Howard Opinsky, Mr McCain's spokesman during the 2000 Republican race. Ernie Baird, a prominent Republican in Mr McCain's home state of Arizona, says the senator's reputation stems from his willingness to confront difficult issues and challenge vested interests. "There's some politicians who husband political capital. But McCain is not afraid to spend his, and that sometimes involves getting in fights," he says. Criticism of Mr McCain's temperament has long been used by his foes as code to insinuate more serious character flaws. During the 2000 campaign, supporters of George W. Bush spread rumours that the senator was mentally unstable after his 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, where he attempted suicide and was repeatedly tortured. People familiar with Mr McCain say the innuendo is malicious and unfounded. "He controls his temper better than he is given credit for," says a former senior government official. Several associates said his temper was no worse than that of many politicians. "I've worked for bosses who scream at staff. I wouldn't put McCain anywhere near that category," says Mr Opinsky. "I'd be more worried about someone who always had a sunny demeanour. After an event like Hurricane Katrina you don't want the president saying, 'Everything's great.' You want somebody who is angry." Presidential historians say scrutiny of Mr McCain's temper is legitimate, given the importance of character in the Oval Office. "[Richard] Nixon clearly had character deficiencies that contributed to the ruination of his presidency," says Jeremy Mayer, presidential scholar at George Mason University. But he adds that temper alone should not be a disqualification, citing Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton among past presidents who were known for having a short fuse. Joel Goldstein, a presidential scholar at St Louis University, argues that temper can be dangerous in a president if it intimidates officials and deters dissent; but other faults, such as lack of curiosity, can be just as serious. Until now, discussion of Mr McCain's temper has been largely restricted to the chattering classes of Washington and Phoenix. "It will only become an election issue if he shows a flash of anger on the campaign trail that brings it to wider attention," predicts Bruce Gronbeck, an expert on presidential character at the University of Iowa. The only incriminating evidence to have made it onto YouTube so far was a testy exchange with a reporter aboard his campaign aircraft last month. Character is considered one of Mr McCain's greatest electoral assets because of his reputation for integrity and steadfastness. Anything that undermines that positive image could damage his campaign. Democrats may try to make a connection between Mr McCain's temper and his bellicose rhetoric on Iraq and the "war on terror" to sow unease about his becoming president. But any overt attacks against the character of a revered war hero would risk backfiring. "He is almost untouchable," says Mr Gronbeck. According to Mr Opinsky, the senator's spikiness is part of his appeal. "People are tired of politicians with a veneer," he says. "McCain gets happy, sad, angry and doesn't try to hide it. That's why people like him." ************************************************************** The on-line version of this article toned down the headline a bit, so I've restored it as it appears in the print edition of today's FT.
Thursday Apr 10 2008 13:00
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
But he has acknowledged in memoirs and interviews that his temper is a source of "personal concern". "I wake up daily and tell myself, 'You must do everything possible to stay cool, calm and collected today'," he once said. Oh MY!
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
McCain is a sick and dangerous person. He may as bad or ever worse than bush and that would be tough to do. This morning I went to our church's monthly breakfast at Deer Valley Airport and there was a McCain promo meeting going on. His supporters made the mistake of asking me if I supported McCain for president and wanted to sign some petition. I told them loud enough for most of the whole place to hear that I would never consider supporting a person who abandoned our P.O.W. Bros in Nam and who says he is a chip off the old man's block knowing that his dad helped cover up the blatant and intentional Israeli Zionist attack on the U.S.S. Liberty and who threatened to imprison any of the survivors who talked about it or testified in congress or the courts about it. Obviously they were not expecting such a response and just looked down at the floor while I stood there waiting for a response. McCain's outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. "The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush," the former Senate staffer said. "McCain said ‘f— you' and never spoke to him again." "He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Senator Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well." Another former senator who requested anonymity recalled an exchange at a Republican policy lunch. McCain turned on another senator who disagreed with him. "McCain used the f-word," the former senator said. "McCain called the guy a ‘sh--head.' The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.' That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently." "People who disagree with him get the f--- you," said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. After LeBoutillier had openly tape recorded comments at a conference, McCain got the idea that LeBoutillier was secretly tape recording him. "Are you wired up?" LeBoutillier quoted McCain as asking. "Of course not," LeBoutillier said. "Prove it," McCain said. LeBoutillier said he lowered his pants, apparently satisfying McCain that he was not taping him. "He is a vicious person," LeBoutillier said. "Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn't support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior." Andrea Jones, McCain's press secretary, did not respond to requests from NewsMax for comment. Senators are leery of speaking on the record about what McCain is really like. Bob Smith described his behavior reluctantly. A former Republican senator listed Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Pete Dominici, fellow Republican senators, as being among those who had encountered McCain's outbursts, but none of them agreed to be interviewed on the subject. Most major media outlets have been uninterested in pursuing the subject. Virtually every media outlet ran Sen. Trent Lott's comment at a 100th birthday tribute to Strom Thurmond. As a result of the criticism over his remarks, Lott stepped aside as Senate majority leader. But only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, that ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father." McCain apologized to the Clintons. But more recently, McCain said on Fox News, "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." In part because he gives reporters access and charms them with his apparent openness, McCain gets good press. "A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing," Time wrote in a Dec. 13, 1999 profile of McCain. "The candor tells you more than the comment, and reporters sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they don't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story." "National reporters may genuflect, but local journalists cringe at the thought of covering McCain, better known in Arizona for his short temper, refusal to take calls, and attempts at media manipulation than for the ‘straight talk' he doles out . . ." a Playboy profile said in February 2000. When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy's dalliances — except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability than presidential infidelities. "The White House is a character crucible," according to Bertram S. Brown, M.D., a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to President John F. Kennedy. "It either creates or distorts character . . . . Even if an individual is balanced, once someone becomes president, how does one solve the conundrum of staying real and somewhat humble when one is surrounded by the most powerful office in the land and from becoming overwhelmed by an at times pathological environment that treats you every day as an emperor? "Here is where the true strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure." When asked about his temper, McCain has portrayed himself as angry about issues. "Do I feel passionately about issues? Absolutely," McCain has said. "Do I get angry when I see pork barreling and wasteful spending? Absolutely." But McCain's outbursts have not been directed at policy issues or waste. Instead, even if they are longtime friends, he explodes at people who disagree with him or who tell him they cannot support him. Pat Murphy, an editor at the Arizona Republic, became friends with McCain in the early 1980s. As Murphy rose to become publisher of the paper, their friendship continued. In 1989, Murphy and his wife Betty had lunch with McCain in the Senate dining room. They were talking about a hearing on a federal project to build a dam system designed to deliver water from the Colorado River to Arizona. Even though the project was supposed to be non-partisan, McCain told Murphy he had planted highly technical questions with a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to ask when Rose Mofford, the governor of Arizona, testified. The idea was, because she was a Democrat, to make her squirm when she did not know the answers. Murphy was horrified and told McCain his feelings. After that, McCain froze him out. "What has struck me about McCain is that everybody underestimated the ability of his advisers and him to hypnotize the national media, because most of us in the media in Arizona thought of him as a guy who had a terrible temper, occasionally had a foul mouth, a guy who whined and pouted unless he got his way," Murphy said. "McCain has a temper that is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?' Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, a Democrat, encountered McCain's temper when he and other local mayors briefed the Arizona congressional delegation on local issues. After Johnson spoke, McCain said, "Hold it a minute. Somebody write down everything this guy has to say. You know what, we need to record him. It's best to get a liar on tape." Johnson stood up and said, "Senator, if you have a problem with me, why don't we go out in the hallway and talk about it." "You're goddamn right I have a problem with you," McCain said. "They've been treating you like a princess in Phoenix while they've been burning me over this dam deal, and I'm sick of it." A longtime member of Senator Dennis DeConcini's staff, Judy Leiby, worked on veteran's issues and had differed with McCain on some of them over the years. After DeConcini announced he was retiring in 1994, McCain showed up in his office. "I was standing around talking to about a half a dozen postal workers I'd worked real closely with," Leiby recalled. "And McCain came in. He walked down the line, shaking hands, and he ignored me. And one postal worker said, ‘Do you know Judy Leiby?' He said, ‘Oh, yeah, I know her.'" McCain turned away from Leiby, trembling. "You could tell he was so angry, he was white," she said. "He turned back to me and said, ‘I'm so glad you're out of a job, and I'll see that you never work again.'" Of this incident, McCain said that because he didn't hold Leiby in "particularly high esteem," he thought it would be hypocritical to shake her hand. "I didn't raise my voice, didn't offer any disparaging remarks or insults," he said. Jim Abbott, the supervisor of the Coronado National Forest, reported a similar threat by McCain in 1989. Worried about the impact on the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel, Abbott ordered a halt to construction of University of Arizona telescopes at the top of the mountain. McCain then asked to meet with Abbott and said, "If you do not cooperate on this project, you'll be the shortest-tenured forest supervisor in the history of the Forest Service." A few days later, McCain called Abbott to apologize. Construction ultimately proceeded after McCain backed legislation to create an exemption for the project from the Endangered Species Act and other existing laws. Democrat Marty Russo had an altercation with McCain when McCain was in the House, according to the Atlantic Monthly. "Seven-letter profanities escalated to 12-letter ones and then to pushes and shoves, before the two were separated," according to the account. In 1993, the Boston Globe reported that McCain "came across the Senate floor and, while mocking [Ted] Kennedy, told him to ‘shut up,' according to observers in the chamber. "A stunned Kennedy returned the comment, telling McCain to ‘shut up' and ‘act like a senator.'" The previous year, Robin Silver and Bob Witzeman, both medical doctors, met with McCain at his Phoenix office to discuss the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. At the mention of the issue, McCain erupted. "He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room," Silver said. "He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us." After Silver pointed out that his behavior was inappropriate, "He apologized and was contrite," Silver said. Indeed, senators joke among themselves about their collection of "McCain Notes" — apologies McCain sends after he has unleashed a tirade. The question on the minds of those who know him is whether a man who seems so out of control should have the authority to unleash nuclear weapons. "I think he is not fit to be president," said former congressman LeBoutillier. archive.newsmax.com/archi...cles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml My parents, longtime Republicans, lived in Arizona before their death. I lived there too. They voted for Republican presidents like Eisenhower. You remember Ike? He commanded a lot of troops in Europe before he became president. Ike said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed--those who are cold and not clothed." Ike tried to warn us. Generally, President Eisenhower tried to avoid unnecessary wars, avoid foreign alliances and entanglements, the sort of things President George Washington also warned us about. Senator McCain, you and I are about the same age. We both served during the Vietnam War. We both have been Arizonans for many years. Do you really serve the best interests of the American people by requesting more troops and many more billions for the war in Iraq ? I wonder how a foreign war based on lies can suddenly become more truthful by escalation. Do you, sir, really expect conditions to become better for US troops and Iraqis? The average soldier questions his purpose, his mission there now. The average Iraqi resents our presence there. An occupied nation unjustly attacked cannot but feel a God-given right, a patriotic duty to resist. After almost 50,000 US casualties (dead and wounded thus far), how many more dead and wounded Americans will be required to subjugate a country we had no right attacking in the first place? Political insiders mention you as a possible Republican candidate for 2008. As a fellow veteran, a fellow former prisoner, and a fellow Arizonan, I always respected you. Anyone who survives years of confinement and torture has my respect. Sadly, I've come to respect you less and less, as I see you sell your soul for less and less in return. Did a top GOP insider take you aside during the summer of 2000, and instruct you to soften your stance towards GWB? You had been hitting him on substance and were rising in the polls. Did top Republican insiders promise you the ticket in 2008? As a fellow Arizonan, I felt George W. Bush insulted you and your family in 2000, during the campaign through South Carolina, and you should have invited him outside for a proper thrashing. Those smear attacks were vicious and deeply personal. Perhaps your silence during the Bushco smear attacks was due to a promise made to you about 2008. One can only wonder. Back then you said: "I am a Republican. I'm loyal to the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And I believe that my party, in some ways, has strayed from those principles, particularly on the issue of fiscal discipline." So how exactly does spending $500 billion on a war in Iraq show "fiscal discipline"? About the best thing you said later, sir, was your pithy observation: "Bush's knowledge of foreign policy is from the International House of Pancakes." Since your remarks have been proven correct, sir, WHY then would you want to approve additional wastefulness--of men, money and materials--in this fraudulent and immoral foreign policy adventure in Iraq ? Especially when we could use that money here at home? Why would you approve of anything the Bush Administration conceives when it is morally and economically damaging to America ? Have you forgotten Eisenhower's warnings? Washington 's warnings? Did an insider from the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) take you aside in mid-2000 and say: Look, John, the PNAC crowd has big plans, ambitious plans, for the first five years of the 21st Century. We are running out of energy resources in this country, as you know, and our paper dollars are basically worthless. Saddam has threatened to dump US dollars and China will need lots of oil by the year 2010. If the Middle East follows Iraq 's example and sells oil in any other currency but US dollars, we are cooked, finished, dead. There is, however, a spectacular terrorist event coming--planned for mid-September-- that we already know about. We intend to use that event for a springboard into the Middle East . Are you with us, Senator? Or did a top insider from AIPAC take you aside sir, and inform you that unconditional support for Israel would be necessary for any successful run for the presidency in 2008? Did some top honchos in the Israeli Lobby suggest you support the war(s) to weaken Islamic countries? Because we hear a lot about Islamofascists attacking America , but both of us know, sir, that Israelofascists are even more dangerous and terrifying. Better funded, more powerful, more pervasive, right here in America . Is that who got to you? Because it appears to be so. You wrote a forward to a book supportive of the Israeli side of the USS Liberty incident. What is surprising, as a US Navy veteran, is that you took the word of Israelis over that of US sailors who were there. The crewmen of the USS Liberty said they were attacked brutally after having been clearly identified as an unarmed US ship by Israeli pilots who circled their ship for seven hours. At the time, 1967, we were allegedly allies with Israel , as we are (allegedly) today. The USS Liberty attack is well known to veterans, sir. These veterans are, or would be, your supporters in any political race. A shame you seem to be serving Israeli interests, rather than American interests, and certainly not the truth. Understandably, your loyalty to your father, Admiral McCain, may have been the reason you approved the book. Many top Navy brass, your father unfortunately among them, let the crew of the USS Liberty down. But what of "Duty, Honor, Country," sir? Shouldn't patriotic US servicemen, like yourself, seek to lend support to other servicemen, especially fellow Navy men who came under fire, than to serve political correctness or some foreign interests? Which brings me to the recent "Torture Bill," the Military Commissions Act, recently passed by Congress. You initially opposed it. Bravo, sir. You remarked about such breaches of the US Bill of Rights: "The core political values of our free society are so deeply embedded in our collective consciousness that only a few malcontents, lunatics generally, ever dare to threaten them." Lunatics, yes, and malcontents. We Americans, those millions of us who still believe in the Bill of Rights, were counting on you. After all, you had been imprisoned and tortured by a repressive regime. Here at home, millions of POW-MIA ribbons and bracelets were reminders for you, sir, and your brethren. Have you forgotten? And now, suddenly, you decided to approve the Military Commissions Act, which pretty much allows the sort of torture you endured? A word of caution and advice. It appears the degraded Dems will do nothing in the next two years. Infiltrated or unduly influenced by AIPAC or the CFR, they are as imperialistic as the current despicable crop of Neocons. You sir, should initiate a bipartisan reversal of the MCA. A soul, once sold, can be bought back and redeemed. You sir, should initiate a bipartisan reversal of ALL unconstitutional laws passed by yourself and by men unworthy to carry your medals in the last five years. The only chance you have of being a remarkable man, a memorable US senator or American president, is to reverse course and serve the American people, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Redemption is an admirable step to political success, senator. Americans embrace a man who knows when he is wrong, honestly admits the error, and attempts to reverse direction. Unless, of course, you are counting on those easily rigged, electronic voting machines in 2008 to hand you the office. Then it would be wise to remember the words of another political reformer: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his immortal soul? www.strike-the-root.com/62/herman/herman4.html Could the USS Liberty surface as a campaign issue? The latest news on the Liberty, the Navy spook ship attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, is that recently released National Security Agency documents are backing up what many -- including the survivors of Liberty -- have been saying for 40 years: that Israel knew full well that it was attacking -- with aerial strafing, napalm and torpedoes -- an American vessel. You may have read it on Military.com, one of the few news sites to run the piece in total. Other than The Chicago Tribune, which came out with the story, only The Baltimore Sun picked up the piece, according to a Google search. It will be interesting to see is whether any presidential candidates address the latest revelations, since those from both parties frequently tout longstanding ties and mutual loyalty between the U.S. and Israel. One candidate with a real interest in this story is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who five years ago endorsed a book, The Liberty Incident, that concluded it was a mistake. McCain's interest stems from the fact that his father, the late Adm. John S. McCain, was commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, at the time, and ordered the official court of inquiry to investigate the attack. Based on the court's findings, Adm. McCain concluded it was a case of mistaken identity. But five years ago the legal advisor to the court broke his own silence in an interview with me, calling the final report a sham, a cover-up. It was about that same time that The Liberty Incident, by A. Jay Cristol, a former Navy pilot and retired judge, hit the bookshelves. Sen. McCain praised the book and its findings in a blurb that appeared on the back cover. In recent months there have been more revelations about the attack and immediate aftermath, however. In June, I reported that the Navy already was calling the attack accidental in its casualty notification telegrams to next of kin even before the court of inquiry convened for the first time. Then came the Tribune story last week, reporting that the National Security Agency's deputy director of operations in 1967 now confirms that transcripts of U.S. intercepts of Israeli communications show the Israelis knew exactly who they were attacking. Oliver Kirby is quoted in the Trib story as recalling the Israeli pilots several times identifying the ship as American but being told to attack anyway. While some of the original transcripts and intel have disappeared, the story reports that some of it is still in U.S. government archives. So far, calls to McCain's senate and campaign offices have not been returned. -- Bryant Jordan www.defensetech.org/archives/003776.html The Cover-up Begins
The problem as I see it is that McCain is a bully who, as an adult, never had to worry about the consequences of his actions, either because of who his father was, his supposed war hero status, or his position as a Senator. It's a shame no one ever stood up to him, or better yet, punched him in the mouth. It would have done him some good IMHO.
A new book, called The Real McCain,claims he once physically attacked Rick Renzi, an Arizona congressman, during an argument. Speaking on Fox News this week, Mr McCain said that this and other allegations in the book were "either false or exaggerated".
#2. To: aristeides, robin (#0)
"I wake up daily and tell myself, 'You must do everything possible to stay cool, calm and collected today'," he once said.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
#3. To: aristeides (#0)
#4. To: aristeides (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest