McCain: A question of temperament

[Gunny]

By Michael Leahy
Washington Post
updated 4:30 a.m. CT, Sun., April. 20, 2008

John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his colleagues.

But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ." it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: While the plural "my friends" was usually a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator, calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.

It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.

Grassley said recently that "it was a very long period of time" before he and McCain spoke to each other again, though he declined, through a spokesman, to discuss the specifics of the incident.

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."

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24223304/

Hotheaded and pigheaded. Great combination.

 

[jreeves]

Hotheaded and pigheaded. Great combination.

All of the occasions listed happened over 15 years ago. Do you think people can develop a more even temperament over time? Do you think it's such a bad thing to actually feel passionately about your position on issues?

 

[Swamp Fox]

Personally, I would prefer that our President get a little pissed off sometimes. There are plenty of things in Washington DC that would have a normal person cussing. Maybe a little anger would clean out some of the dead weight there.

 

[Gunny]

All of the occasions listed happened over 15 years ago. Do you think people can develop a more even temperament over time? Do you think it's such a bad thing to actually feel passionately about your position on issues?

Certainly people can develop a more even temperment over time.

Who feels passionately about *my* position in issues? I think passion is fine but the more one gives in to emotion on an issue the less objective the perception is going to be.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Certainly people can develop a more even temperment over time.

Does this mean you'll be starting soon.

 

[Gunny]

Does this mean you'll be starting soon.

 

[jreeves]

Certainly people can develop a more even temperment over time.

Who feels passionately about *my* position in issues? I think passion is fine but the more one gives in to emotion on an issue the less objective the perception is going to be.

Do you think any canidate will ever support all of your positions? Isn't that a little egocentric? I mean I know that MCcain doesn't support all of my positions on the issues. But he definetly comes the closest to supporting my views on the issues. Also, you and I can't possibly be right about every issue.

I do agree with you that emotion dulls one's objecivity. Although, it is refreshing to see someone that actually gets pissed when the government wastes billions of dollars on pet projects in the form of earmarks.

 

[Foxfyre]

George W. Bush's approval ratings have never been higher than when he actually allowed people to see him angry. Whatever anybody thinks of George W. Bush, however, a public hot head is not in his resume.

Some time back Dick Cheney made all the front pages when he used the "F" word in a heated exchange with a senator.

Some of us are old enough to remember another New Hampsire debate when Ronald Reagan, eyes flashing, raised his voice to inform a pushy moderator that he had paid for his microphone and he would give the opening statement he had been promised he could give. Video here http://clients.bn24.com/portals/NHPL/Default.aspx (The short Reagan clip is the first one on the website.)

It has been widely publicized (along with video) several times in which Bill Clinton lost his cool with a staffer or a media type when he thought he was off camera, but nobody would consider him unpoised or unprofessional in public.

I have seen McCain misspeak on camera, but I have never seen him get truly rattled or goaded into unprofessional behavior.

Or we could all listen to Hillary yell for the next four years.

 

[rayboyusmc]

He still has some anger issues. He called his wife a "kunt" in front of his staff recently. I can't see any excuse for that.

I want a president who stands up to our enemies and friends. But I don't want one who's anger can overule his logic.

The ability to get angry when needed and show it can serve a purpose quite well. The inability to control one's anger is not a leadership stength. It is a weakness that I don't want in control of the Nuklar Button.

Let's see if he controls it during the debates. Maybe he will be like Cheney who told Leahy to go f himself. Many repubs thought that was quite manly of the dik.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where'd you get the information about him calling his wife names?

 

[Paulie]

All of the occasions listed happened over 15 years ago. Do you think people can develop a more even temperament over time? Do you think it's such a bad thing to actually feel passionately about your position on issues?

jreeves, the guy was tortured for years. Perhaps you haven't put much thought into how that may have affected his psychological state, but I have. I can't possibly imagine living through such a thing for that length of time and not having a few screws loose because of it.

I respect the man's service to the country, but I don't however think he's qualified psychologically to be the leader of the free world. I think the American public has made a grave mistake choosing him as the nominee.

You trying to defend him on this seems like just yet another way for you to try and be ok with voting for him.

 

[AllieBaba]

Honestly, I prefer a president who isn't a slave to public opinion to the point where he never loses his cool, never allows anyone to see him as he really is.

I like McCain because he's actually done something besides being a politician. He's motivated by things OTHER than his political life and what people think of him.

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, the guy was tortured for years. Perhaps you haven't put much thought into how that may have affected his psychological state, but I have. I can't possibly imagine living through such a thing for that length of time and not having a few screws loose because of it.

I respect the man's service to the country, but I don't however think he's qualified psychologically to be the leader of the free world. I think the American public has made a grave mistake choosing him as the nominee.

You trying to defend him on this seems like just yet another way for you to try and be ok with voting for him.

Your entitled to your opinion, but it's not like he was flipping out on people who looked at him wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He still has some anger issues. He called his wife a "kunt" in front of his staff recently. I can't see any excuse for that.

I want a president who stands up to our enemies and friends. But I don't want one who's anger can overule his logic.

The ability to get angry when needed and show it can serve a purpose quite well. The inability to control one's anger is not a leadership stength. It is a weakness that I don't want in control of the Nuklar Button.

Let's see if he controls it during the debates. Maybe he will be like Cheney who told Leahy to go f himself. Many repubs thought that was quite manly of the dik.

Prov ed a link to a source for that claim.

 

[Foxfyre]

Prov ed a link to a source for that claim.

The ONLY place I've seen that particular reference is on anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-American hate blogs. Which strongly suggests that somebody made it up and is trying to make it stick.

 

[CSM]

I respect the man's service to the country, but I don't however think he's qualified psychologically to be the leader of the free world. I think the American public has made a grave mistake choosing him as the nominee.

It is rather interesting the way a few posts are headed lately. The thread about the draft has a post or two about restricting felons from military serrvice and now we have one that implies former POWs that were tortured should be restricted from being President.

I'm making a list so we alll know who should be restricted from what profession/position.

 

[jillian]

The ONLY place I've seen that particular reference is on anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-American hate blogs. Which strongly suggests that somebody made it up and is trying to make it stick.

Actually, it's supposedly from a book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter. Can't speak to its truth, but Schecter wasn't sued for it as far as I know.

 

[Annie]

It is rather interesting the way a few posts are headed lately. The thread about the draft has a post or two about restricting felons from military serrvice and now we have one that implies former POWs that were tortured should be restricted from being President.

I'm making a list so we alll know who should be restricted from what profession/position.

Yeah I'm thinking it's more of the 'military is so broken, look what Iraq has wrought.' As for McCain, I suppose it's just more of 'all's fair in love, war, and politics.'

 

[jillian]

It is rather interesting the way a few posts are headed lately. The thread about the draft has a post or two about restricting felons from military serrvice and now we have one that implies former POWs that were tortured should be restricted from being President.

I'm making a list so we alll know who should be restricted from what profession/position.

Because that's what was said, right? That no former POW should be president... Couldn't be McCain's temperment which might be a problem? And certainly, no questions should ever be asked.... no matter what the indications that they should.

Since when does the military let in felons, btw?

 

[ReillyT]

As for McCain, I suppose it's just more of 'all's fair in love, war, and politics.'

Because you have demonstrated you are above such things?