Posted on 01/28/2008 9:05:53 PM PST by ajay_kumar
Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). “Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, ‘F— you!’ at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. ‘This is chickens—stuff,’ McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. ‘You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.’” (Charles Hurt, “Raising McCain,” New York Post, 5/19/07)
Read the other 9 examples at the linked URL.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
NO
He’s not Presidential material, which why the libs love him— they know they can beat him
Does McCain throw ash trays, or is it someone else??
I think he thirsts to use the military in a new war against Iran.
On the other hand, Iran may need a whuppen next year.
Not gonna happen now, IMHO. Russia is protecting them. With nukes. The Used-and-Abused Loonie-Left stalled GWB long enough for the Russian Fascists to get their act together. Israel is the only one who could get away with it now and the US State Department is running interference for the Russians. Iran is gonna nuke a few cities before the Russkies give us the green light.
They nuke 1 city and the whole country becomes a parking lot, courtesy of a Trident sub - if, that is, Israel doesn't beat us to the punch.
Not on your life. He’s much too scary for me.
I was watching McCain’s interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and I was stunned at the forced smile on McCain’s face. It was so obviously phoney. Does McCain think we’re just so stupid he can fool us ..??
Remember .. this is a LIBERAL technique. We can’t question people because they’re black; because they’re a woman; because they’re a war hero; because they’re disabled; etc., etc., etc.
McCain plays too many liberal games.
Ping!
No. I’ve always had questions about his emotional stability. It seems to get shakier as the years go by.
Several presidents have been hot-tempered behind the scenes, notably Eisenhower, LBJ, and Clinton. It is interesting that all three had problems with heart disease.
The problem is not making Iran a glass parking lot .. it’s what the retaliation would look like to all our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McCain’s temperment is not to be trusted.
I said this before, but it bears repeating. More than a year ago, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt explain why the media wanted McCain as the nominee .. because they already had a plan to defeat him.
1. Temper
2. Age
3. Cancer, and
4. The Keating Five (thoughtfully suggested by someone else)
All the media has to do is make McCain mad enough to EXPLODE on TV .. just one time .. and he will be done.
And .. who would you want standing next to Hillary - an old crochety guy or a young, handsome, smart person ..??
All good points, except....Hillary and Mitt are the same age, I believe 60. Mitt looks very well preserved for his age. Must be because of the clean living. No booze, no smokes, and not chasing interns.
I am uncommitted at this point, but I don’t know that I want a cream puff for a president. Our president has to stare down Putin, Achmadineja-whatever, Kim Sung Mentally Ill, the Chicoms, you know - a tough personality may not be a bad thing. Didn’t Patton have a temper, for instance? How about Churchill?
I wouldn’t want him as my pastor, but President of the Free World doesn’t need to be Mr. Nicey Pants all the time.
McCain was elected Senator in 1986. During his first term, he was proud of his "across-the-aisle" reputation, i.e. of forming close relationships with Democratic Senators.
But that first term also saw a major blot on his reputation in the form of the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal. Charles Keating, the head of Lincoln S&L, gave his name to the infamous "Keating Five" Senators, consisting of 4 Democrats (Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle), and 1 Republican : McCain.
Keating was a friend of McCain's, and had contributed generously to his Senate bid. But in spite of that connection, and the fact that McCain had taken part in a meeting called by Cranston (attended by all 5 Senators) for the purpose of putting pressure on banking regulators to ease up on Keating, it eventually became clear to Senate Ethics Committee investigators that McCain's involvement was minimal, and he didn't belong in "The Five". He had certainly used bad judgment in going to the meeting without first asking some hard questions of the Democrat Senator(s) who invited him, but his involvement and prior knowledge was nowhere near the same level as the four Democrats.
So the Senate Ethics Committee seriously considered exonerating McCain, while continuing the investigation of the other four.
But there was a major problem for the Democrats if they did this. It was 1990, in the middle of election season. Voters were angry about the S&L scandal, which up until then had been spun in the press as a "bipartisan scandal". If McCain was let off the hook, then the "Keating 5" became the "Keating 4" - all of them Democrats - and it would morph into a "Democrat scandal". This could have major consequences in the Fall election.
So the Senate Dem leadership decided there was no way they could afford letting McCain off the hook before the election. And since they controlled the Senate, they controlled the Ethics Committee.
But McCain had a card to play. His "cross-aisle" schmoozing paid off in the form of two Dems on the Ethics Committee who were buddies of McCain (or owed him favors, perhaps), and personally promised him to vote for his exoneration. The flipping of their two votes would be just enough to set him free by a 1-vote margin, assuming that all GOP Committee members voted to let him off.
But that was no slam dunk! One of the GOP members sitting on Ethics - Senator Jesse Helms (NC) - was in a close, tough reelection race that year. The S&L debacle was all over the national news back then. Challengers from both parties needing fodder for their TV ads were searching for anything that might even remotely connect their incumbent opponents with the scandal. Helms knew that a vote by him to clear McCain would instantly be grabbed onto and wildly distorted as "Helms Votes to Exonerate S&L Scandal Senator"; he would have been painted as "soft on ethics violations," or even as abusing his Ethics committee seat to free a guilty-as-sin crony. In a tight race this could be fatal.
The Senate GOP leadership team, led by Bob Dole, met to discuss the situation. Normally, they would have used "party discipline" to force all GOP members of Ethics to vote to clear McCain. After all, he deserved to be cleared. But there was another rule among GOP Senators that if any of them were in a tight reelection race and made a convincing case that voting with the rest of their party would endanger their election, then they could ask for and be granted permission to vote otherwise. Helms was invoking this rule, as was his right.
At the meeting that was called to discuss this issue, the leadership was forced to agree with Helms. As I remember the article, an anonymous meeting attendee told the article's author that McCain arrived at the meeting very late, and basically just stormed in. He was extremely emotional, and perhaps had even been drinking. He kept talking about his honor. He cried. He begged. He demanded that they force Helms to vote for exoneration. He said that his reputation would be forever ruined. He told them they MUST force Helms to clear his besmirched name.
That didn't happen. And apparently McCain totally lost it. He accused his fellow GOP Senators of betraying him, of stabbing him in the back, of allowing his reputation to remain in the mud when they had the power to pull it out.
When the Ethics Committee vote was later held, Helms abstained, resulting in a tie vote. Since the vote was whether or not to change the status quo by excluding McCain from the Keating investigation, a tie vote meant that the current situation was unchanged. McCain was still under investigation; still lumped in with the four guilty Democrats.
The author of the article speculated that McCain's strong feelings of being betrayed by his own party had a major effect on how he viewed his relationship with the rest of the GOP from then on.
Another speculation that seems obvious here is regarding McCain's obsession with campaign finance reform. If he felt his honor was seriously tarnished in the media, if he felt his name was synonymous with corruption, then what better way to redeem himself than to become the Number One Champion of Campaign Finance Reform, right?
And if doing so had the side benefit of screwing over many of his GOP colleagues with an abominable bill that favored the Democrats, well, so much the better, right?
At least, that's my speculation.
Well, all I can say is this. McCain often let’s his emotions override his common sense. That is a dangerous trait for the leader of the free world to have, IMO. Think of it this way...McCain is the anti-Reagan. Reagan didn’t need to fly off the handle to stand up to others, yet he was one of the strongest leaders this country has ever known.
Actually, his reputation of being a hothead might make enemies uncertain of the outcome of a provocation, thus, making things more stable! Or, maybe this is wishful thinking - not all US adversaries are logical thinkers by any stretch.
That's my problem with him. He had no idea, when questioned, that Z Visa's were "de facto amnesty". His temper flared and he argued vehemently that it wasn't so. And he was the author of the damn bill.
The other day, when he flubbed a pretty basic question on the economy, his excuse, after spending 20+years in the Senate, was " I'm not as up on economic issues as I ought to be"!
I love the guy for his service to the US, but he is no longer Presidential material. He's down a notch in the "sharpness" quotient! His temper is, I feel, under tight wraps for the campaign, and will certainly surface at some later date, win (God forbid) or lose!
Can’t you see the Dem ads now? McCrazy getting mad and hitting the red button.
They have already reference this already.
I think Edwards said it...already.
Red-faced screaming...
I was thinking perhaps a little girl picking daisies with a mushroom cloud in the background?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.