Every presidential candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, but for the purpose of a debate forum, the weaknesses are far more fun to discuss. The mainstream media has been having so much fun deconstructing Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, they have largely overlooked Senator McCain.

But there's one thing about John McCain that he's never bothered trying to hide: his temper. It can get kind of..."hot," shall we say.

And when McCain's temper isn't on display, his nastiness can be. The Associated Press reported McCain made this remark in 1998:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father."

The Senator later apologized for the joke.

"If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is also reason to seriously question whether he has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States."

That comes from an editorial in The Arizona Republic newspaper. From 1999.

Stories abound of the wrath of McCain being unleashed against both his fellow Republicans and some Democrats:

"I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues . . . He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." -- Former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.)

"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. "I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president," former congressman LeBoutillier said.

Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, saw McCain's temper up close. "His volatility borders in the area of being unstable," Johnson has said. "Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause."link

More recently, concerns about McCain's temperament have given some Republicans pause in supporting the Arizona Senator.

Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

McCain's feuds with other senators have surfaced regularly. McCain has written about how he screamed at Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama an inch away from his face after Shelby voted against the 1989 nomination of John Tower as defense secretary. "I was madder than hell when I accosted him . . . and the incident is one of the occasions when my temper lived up to its much exaggerated legend."

link

Senator Cochran is known as a proliferate pork barrel proponent for his pet projects in Mississippi, so it is reasonable to expect he might not best buddies with McCain, a sworn adversary of earmarks and a budget hawk.

Some other examples of McCain's legendary temper have resurfaced over the last few years.


"F--- you," he shouted at Texas Sen. John Cornyn last year.

"Only an a---- would put together a budget like this," he told the former Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, in 1999.

"I'm calling you a f----- jerk!" he once retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

With Cornyn, he smoothed things over quickly. The two argued during a meeting on immigration legislation; Cornyn complained that McCain seemed to parachute in during the final stages of negotiations. "F--- you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly shouted.

Cornyn chuckled at the memory of what he called McCain's "aggressive expressions of differences." The Texan has endorsed McCain.

"He almost immediately apologized to me," Cornyn said last week. "I accepted his apology, and as far as I'm concerned, we've moved on down the road."

"I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger," Domenici told Newsweek in 2000.link

Finally, in the new book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't, author Cliff Schecter tells a story of a particularly unpleasant example of the legendary McCain temper from 1992.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c---." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days. link

One of McCain's colleagues say stories of McCain's out-of-control temper are exaggerated.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has endorsed McCain, said, "I always tell him he reminds me of an uncle of mine. You could get into an argument with him, then you'd see him a half-hour later and it was like nothing happened."

Lieberman stressed that "it is not the kind of anger that is a loss of control. He is a very controlled person."

A Arizona state senator who had a run-in with McCain disagrees with Lieberman's blase dismissal.

"I don't think that he forgets anyone who ever opposed him, that he can ever really respect or trust them again," said Karen Johnson, the targeted secretary-turned-state senator. "That goes for people here and overseas." link

The question for debate is:

Does John McCain have the temperament to be President and is it something Americans should be concerned about?

Yes, he does. What one may see as anger another may see as passion, and after all, John McCain is a sailor. There is no question John McCain is passionate about what he believes and he's not one to back down on doing what he thinks is the right thing to do. He has the political battle scars to prove it. I'm sure his time in the Senate has been frustrating to him at times when his "esteemed fellow Senators" patted each other on the back and with a wink and a nod proceeded to screw the American people. I don't agree with some of John McCain's positions, but I do know where he's going to stand, and I do know he'll bring passion to the Oval Office - not flowery speeches and a "crazy uncle".


Aquilla

Always been a McCain fan. Here in AZ he is famous for that temper, when he is actually here. The local talk radio--on the right side -- was trumpeting this flaw -among many of their perceived list --of his until very recently when they had to fall into party line and say as they are instructed. It has been funny to hear them have to swallow down that little bit of vomit as they proclaim the advantages of John "the traitor" McCain. The male version of Hilary Clinton. Backstabber. Turncoat, Liberal Democrat RINO.

The yang of it has been the left side screaming and crying its so unfair the love affair the media has with McCain and how they treat him with kid gloves and never really get on him about the skeletons in his closets.



Be fair warned Aquilla you may get more than you bargained for and wish for Hilary instead. McCain does what McCain wants and once president he will not need the conservatives. He never forgets a slight no matter how small. I have no doubts he will remember every insult that your fellow conservatives threw his way.

The screaming will be entertaining.

Does John McCain have the temperament to be President

I'm not sure.

and is it something Americans should be concerned about?

Yes.

The reason I'm not sure is that there is clearly a variety of opinion regarding the potential damage caused by McCain's temper. There are few reports of his outbursts affecting any sort of major, long-term decisions or impairing his judgment on specific issues. Nor do his demonstrations appear to be consistent and chronic - like, they don't match the phases of the moon or anything. (As far as I know. )

On the other hand, his temper does seem to have alienated a number of colleagues (to say the least) and that alone should give us a bit of pause. (Even if their characterizations are politically motivated, he's certainly given them material to exploit - as could anyone from, say, al-Sistani and Ahmadinejad to Olberman and Limbaugh.) Given his recent positions on, for example, the occupation of Iraq, it is worth considering whether the rage that some have taken as an indication of "instability" could inform some of his positions - is his ideology driven by his nature? Not to play armchair psychiatrist too much, but anyone with anger issues doesn't necessarily restrict their rage to occasional Tourette's-inspired invective.

The extent to which McCain may require anger management counseling or something is, to me, unknown. If nighttimer's list of incidents is comprehensive, then it doesn't sound like an outrageous problem - I've dropped as many f-bombs on as many colleagues in as many years (well, not quite as many years ). But if the list is simply representative and symptomatic of a bigger problem, then we should all be concerned. The fact that we don't know (and may not until it's too late) implies a certain level of risk and, combined with the effect McCain has already had on some of his colleagues, is probably one factor worth considering when casting one's vote. Or maybe using the c-word to attack one's spouse in public is just "passion".

Yeah, he'll bring "passion" all right back to The Oval Office. And more "f-bombs" than Tricky Dick Nixon in his heyday.

Anyone who has such a short temper, foul disposition and dirty mouth is going to have problems doing his job. Somehow I can just see Grandpa Simpson (aka John McCain) going all the way off on some poor Cabinet secretary who tells him something he doesn't want to hear or telling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to go blank themselves.

Will McCain introduce Cindy as "The First Lady" or "The First C-word?"

Who needs "passion" like that? Or a president who curses like he's still a sailor? Popeye was a sailor too and he never dropped "c-bombs" on Olive Oil.

Bring on the flowery speeches and the crazy uncles.

C'mon, NT, is this all you got going against McCain? Some f- bombs going back as far as 25 years? Where's your game man? You can do better than this.


As far as telling Pelosi and Reid what to do with themselves, hopefully McCain will. Dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Meanwhile, NT, I found this really rotten head of cabbage left over from St. Patrick's Day. Want it so you can throw it at Wertz's head?


Just watching folks.....


Aquilla

To me, this is really a non-issue and it's sad that the media is continuing with prurient "gotcha!" political stories like this that are truly pointless and tell us nothing. If you want anger management issues, check out Andrew Jackson. The man killed another man in a duel before he was president. And to think, we are having a conversation about McCain cursing at people, I mean, seriously people. So nevermind the economic meltdown, rising gas prices, and a war quickly headed to nowhere. Let's instead focus on lapel pins, exaggereated "bitterness" comments, Hillary downing shots, and McCain's temperment. John McCain is does have the temperment to be president. Barack Obama even said McCain would be a better president than George Bush. The man has a ton of foreign policy experience and no one else can touch him in regards to that experience. I do disagree with a number of his positions, but at the same time, I(and others) have to acknowledge that the world won't end if he has to receive a phone call at 3 a.m......under sniper fire.........downing shots......forgetting his lapel pins.......and being "bitter" about it.

Wow NT! What on earth did Whitey do to you man? It really must have been something really bad. We need to start the healing now. Talk to us. Share so that we can help you.

I once said that if Obama got the nomination to run against McCain that it would be a different kind of election and that no one would be jumping off of any bridges if their guy lost. I think that I may have been wrong on that sentiment because if this is any indicator, it's going to be high emotion and ugly. McCain had better accept Secret Service protection soon.

Seems to me Aquilla, a guy with a hair-trigger temper who scares other Republicans that have worked with him is a legitimate avenue of inquiry and certainly more germane than the "food fight" between Obama and Clinton you find so endlessly amusing.

This may come as a surprise to you, but at some point the Dems will stop beating up on each other and McCain has over 25 years of f-bombs and temper tantrums to be detailed. Even the suck-up mainstream media will at some point remember they have to ask McCain something remotely resembling a tough question.

Want more, Aquilla? Oh, believe me, it's coming. McCain's not as much a "maverick" as he's a typical Republican. On the issues that matter most there's not a dime's worth of difference between McCain and Dubya and that's a anchor he's going to have to drag around all the way to November. Hopefully McCain will be able to handle it without dropping a f-bomb on some poor reporter.




Barack Obama also said HE (or Hillary) would be a better president than Bush or McCain. If f-bombs don't mean squat, Joe Pesci would make a better president than Bush or McCain. Samuel L. Jackson could be Joe's vice-president. Their campaign slogan could be, "Vote for us or get blanked."

Experience doesn't mean much if it's the wrong kind. I wouldn't be as sanguine as you that the world won't end if McCain gets his hands on the nuclear launch codes. This is the guy who said there will be more wars. What he didn't say was he knows that because he plans to start them.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to wake up McCain at 3 a.m. Somebody could get hurt.



So whys it gotta be about race, Just Leave me Alone? I didn't interject race into this debate. You did that all by your lonesome and it wasn't even remotely necessary.

You want to be of help? Me first. I'll use smaller words with not so many syllables. You try to keep up. That would be very helpful.

There ya go! NT's got his game back. And, I know it's coming. Soros and Begala are loading up the ammo to the turn of around $40 million to go after McCain. link

It seems to me that faced with pond scum like George Soros and Paul Begala, McCain might be well served by having a "McNasty" streak. If he doesn't, not to worry. I do. So, bring it on, NT. I ain't goin' nowhere.

Aquilla

I can't take all of the credit NT. While I appreciate your generosity, your past McCain posts have clearly brought your biases forward.

The thing is, you weren't always so against McCain. You respected him believe it or not. You understood that he is man that is strong on foreign policy. I get that you're rooting for your guy. Your Machiavellian methods are somewhat disappointing though.

Me neither, though the man upstairs doesn't make such promises.

I'm well aware of what Soros and David Brock and company have in mind for McCain. In a way it's his own fault since The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth crew took full advantage of the 527 loophole in the McCain/Feingold law. They wrote the playbook left-wing groups are going to follow. Whether or not Soros will be successful is anyone's guess. Personally, I believe McCain can be beaten on the issues and his record alone, but Soros and crew obviously don't want to take that chance.

I don't like these 527 groups and rich men mucking around trying to buy the political result of their liking, but there's nothing that can stop them.

I expect you will be similarly ticked off when the sure-as-God-made-little-green-apples 527 group on the Right pops up to kneecap Obama or Clinton.

Not that I'm holding my breath...




Hey, some of my greatest hits. Kewl! Now if you could only show net2007 how easy it is to do a little research, that would be really helpful!

I never claimed John McCain was my home slice or anything like that. Neither did I ever suggest he was the Antichrist. I don't see any inconsistency in what I wrote in 2004 and what I'm writing in 2008.



Well, life is a series of disappointments, is it not? I'm quite certain you'll find a way to get over this one, JLMA.

When compared to George W. Bush, you're darn tootin' I think McCain would have made a better Commander-In-Chief than that schmuck. Barack Obama was dead on-point with that observation and everyone who isn't a total Bushbot knows it.

I haven't stopped respecting McCain. I told someone tonight if I had to choose from a list of my five least terrible Republicans to be POTUS, McCain would be on the list. Not my first choice, but at least within consideration.

But the problem is McCain has changed since 2000. He isn't the maverick Republican he claims to be. Certainly not on enough key issues to make me choose him over Obama or Clinton. He's gotten greased up and into bed with the religious bigots, the neo-cons and other folks he denounced eight years ago.
They may not love each other, but they'll tolerate each other to get what they both want.

What will stop McCain from raising his right hand to take the oath of office next January is his stance on the war. He's all wrong on the issue and any presidential contender suggesting another 100 years in Iraq is okie-dokie with him is automatically eliminated from serious consideration. Yeah, yeah--I know he's "clarified" the remark since he made it, but only because it blew up in his face.

Plus, I do think his temper is a legitimate area to be concerned about as is McCain's advancing age. I seriously doubt he is up to the physical and mental strain of four-to-eight years in the Presidency. There's nothing Machiavellian about it.

I think McCain can win on the issues and his record and that's how he'll campaign. Unlike last time, I don't know what my side's 527s have in mind this time around, maybe they'll just go after your side's 527s and that could make for an interesting sideshow - dueling 527s. I think McCain himself will stick pretty much to the issues and there are stark differences between McCain and both Democrat candidates. Should be plenty to talk about during the general campaign.

Aquilla

I was trying to ignore this thread, but as long as it’s here, please note the following response from McCain’s campaign.

Does John McCain have the temperament to be President and is it something Americans should be concerned about?

I don't see anything in what has been brought up that would indicate that he doesn't have the temperament. The worst thing is his cussing at his wife.

I don't think Joe Sixpack is going to care that McCain has been known to swear. In fact, only elitists care about such things.

No seriously, he isn't constently being bleeped out on CNN. It isn't as if he hauls off every other sentence. Occassional bursts of emotion are generally healthy.

Comparing McCain to myself, I am generally an easy going guy. But sometimes, when someone keeps pushing me, I have been known to "go off" and yell at someone. Ask my kids. That doesn't mean I'm going to drop a nuclear bomb on their head. If I were 200 years old like John McCain, I'm sure the examples of me "exploding" would fill one chapter in some dime store novel. Same as McCain.

This is a non-story, especially to middle America.

Well, gee what's got Mark Salter of the McCain campaign so hot and bothered?

Did McCain make that crude Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno joke? Yep, he sure did.

Did McCain tell Senator John Coryn, "F*** you?" Yep, he sure did.

Did McCain call Senator Charles Grassley, "a f****** jerk?" Yep, he sure did.

Did McCain call Senator Pete Domenici an "a******?" Yep, he sure did.

What would you expect Salter to say, carlitoswhey? Especially in a right-wing publication like The National Review?

Fortunately for this thread, I didn't just rely on The Washington Post for my examples. Some of them also came from Newsmax, which is about as liberal as Karl Rove.

But thank you for your contribution. So happy you resisted the urge to ignore it.

Only an "elitist" would be upset about a guy calling his wife a "trollop" and a C-word, Amlord?

When you "go off" on your kids do you call them "effing jerks" and "blank-holes", too?

There is nothing "healthy" about a old man with a short fuse who swears at his colleagues and curses out his wife. It's comical to watch the conservatives on this board contort themselves into pretzels over language they would be screaming to the hills about if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the ones spewing the bile. The situational ethics and overwhelming hypocrisy being displayed here is knee-deep and rising.

If Middle America doesn't care about a guy who wants to be president but can't control his temper and abuses others in profane outbursts, then Middle America's value systems are all screwed up.

Since when did swearing become an inability to control one's temper? Now, if he hauled off and hit somebody, THEN we'd have a story... Swearing is so commonplace, especially in the US Senate, that this remaina a non-story.

I already admitted that his comments to his wife were the most offensive to me. Offensive, but that doesn't mean he "can't control his temper". He swore. He didn't punch her in the face.

At least he didn't assault a Staffer, as Dick Morris claims President Clinton did to him. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...orris061203.asp

Would that be the same Dick Morris who enjoyed sucking the toes of prostitutes? Now there's an unimpeachable source!

You're right that McCain doesn't assault staffers. Just other Republicans that tick him off.

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. link

Aww, but that was waaaaaay back in 1992. Ancient history, right? Well, what else do we have....?

Reports recently surfaced of Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, taking offense when McCain called him "boy" once too often during a 2006 meeting, a story that McCain aides confirm while playing down its importance. "Renzi flared and he was prickly," McCain strategist Mark Salter said. "But there were no punches thrown or anything."

Well, if Mark Salter says there were no punches thrown, it must be true!

BUT....

Perhaps the most remarkable story of McCain's temper involved Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi. Two former reporters covering McCain, one who witnessed the following events and one who confirmed the facts provided by the first, relayed it to me as follows: In 2006, the Arizona Republican congressional delegation had a strategy meeting. McCain repeatedly addressed two new members, congressmen Trent Franks and Rick Renzi, as 'boy.' Finally, Renzi, a former college linebacker, rose from his chair and said to McCain, "You call me that one more time and I'll kick your old ***." McCain lunged at Renzi, punches were thrown, and the two had to be physically separated. After they went to their separate offices, McCain called Renzi and demanded an apology. Renzi refused. Apparently this posture made McCain admire him, as they became fast friends. link

Somebody who doesn't work for McCain claims HE jumped Renzi and punches WERE thrown. It's nice to know they kissed and made up and became best buddies after trying to thrown down on each other. These guys must eat too much red meat.

I'm glad you found John calling Cindy a nasty name "offensive", Amlord. But while he didn't haul off and smack her one in the pie-hole, you DO know that verbal abuse of a spouse can be just as damaging as physical abuse, right?

Why do I have this nagging feeling if Barack had called Michelle that word or Bill said that to Hillary, there would be about a dozen threads going on right now?

Oh, that's right. Because there would be.

It is certainly not enough to tip me in McCain's direction, but despising Texas Sen. John Cornyn as I do - I call him Sen. Cornball - I'm laughing.

McCain said what I'd like to say to Cornyn. It's good to see Texas Junior Senator getting the respect he so richly "deserves."

I'm sure that Senator Obama has lost his temper a few times. There just isn't any record of it, because he wasn't a US Senator. Bill Clinton was known for losing his temper, and I don't recall that disqualifying him from the office. As for Bill hypothetically calling Hillary names, well, what he did to her was a lot worse than name-calling, don't you think?

I don't get the situational ethics argument at all. I'm against profanity being used in front of children, and on (some of) the public airwaves. That makes me a hypocrite for supporting McCain over his Democratic rivals?

You are from Chicago, carlitoswhey. Can you find an instance where Barack Obama lost his temper in the Illinois legislature? Did he do so routinely?

It is more likely that Obama's softness will be a detriment in the general. He gets a bit whiny when asked tough questions, he doesn't seem to get mad.

Of course, there is probably not much record from his stint in the Illinois House. After all, he voted "present", not really committing himself to issues, much of the time. You don't get mad when you don't take a position.

Hey, when you're right, you're right, Amlord. Obama would probably feel so much better if he just dropped a few "f-bombs" when he got honked off or just call Hillary the "c-word." That would be so statesmanlike.

There is the possibility that Obama is just too cool, calm and collected to go ballistic at a moment's notice like McCain. But hey, if you prefer some guy with a nasty disposition and anger management issues making life and death decision that could affect millions or billions of people, I'm cool with that too.



I can understand if you don't want to even try to rebut the points I made in my previous post, Amlord, but you of all people should know better than to take this thread off-topic with a irrelevant aside about Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois. This thread isn't about Obama's temper. It's about McCain's, okay?

Trust me---you REALLY do not want to get into a discussion about politicians not taking a stand and ducking out on issues. Not when McCain was absent from Congress in 2006 than anyone else except for Senator Tim Johnson of North Dakota who was recovering from a cerebral brain hemorrhage at the time.

Does John McCain have the temperament to be President and is it something Americans should be concerned about?

Well, if we want more of the same, the answer would be no. If we want a more level-headed president who doesn’t have immature hissy fits whenever someone disagrees with him, then the answer is yes. We’ve been dealing with stubborn, bull-headed, and ill-tempered for 7 years. Passion can be negative or positive, and I’d much rather have a positively passionate president than an angry, negative one. Anger clouds judgment and McCain’s temper tantrums lead me to believe he isn’t a good candidate to deal with issues that require a cool head. Reacting with aggression isn’t always the best course (as we have seen with the current pissy president).

Calling his own wife the C-word is pretty pathetic and nasty. If he can’t even hold his temper with his wife, what’s going to happen in a real crisis situation?

On the up side, it should make for some pretty entertaining stuff during the run-up to election.

Man. This is more much ado about nothing.

Yes, Republicans are full of s***. Whenever they expound on lofty ideals for others and try enshrining these ideals with the force of law (federal marriage amendment, life amendment, cyber IMs, my personal favorite adultery, etc.) they end up being exposed as everything they're against. Let's not forget chickenhawkery and small government champions.

But cursing? That's grasping at straws. If this list is exhaustive I am a waste processing plant next to McCain's potty and I don't have a problem saying c***. Yep, I go there. ::snaps her fingers with a head waggle::

There's no point in trying to beat the GOP at their own game: obsess over sin to siphon votes from people dumb enough to vote on sin. Democrats can't dumb it down that low, that long enough to make this electorate gamble work for them like it does for the GOP. But worse than losing votes to candidates that exemplify proclivity for personal vices is this: shining a light on McCain's verbal past feeds into the same nonsense that has NBC reporting Clinton leading among bowlers, and Clinton and Obama are even among drinkers. Democrats can't win when the media is this dumb. Waving this story in people's faces encourages the media to go for dumber.

Carlitos, despite Salter's protestations the story could still be accurate. People being interviewed can say anything they like, but not everything they say will be published. What will probably be published is what helps the newspaper sell. Just ask Jeremiah Wright.

Does John McCain have the temperament to be President and is it something Americans should be concerned about?

I don't know whether there is a specific temperament to qualify someone for the presidency. If there were, how many of our Presidents, especially the one currently in office, would have passed muster?

I recall George W. Bush referring, while not aware of being on-mike, to someone as a "major league a--hole." Dick Cheney flipped the bird at Leahy and told him to f--- himself. It is common, low behavior that we Americans are altogether too accustomed to hearing from our leaders as well as each other.

That having been said, I do have reservations about a man in a position of importance taking the time to call people and tell them not to hire someone because he had a run-in with that person. To me, that seems petty and vindictive. Should we expect a change in McCain's behavior if he becomes the next President?

So yes, it is something Americans should be concerned about.

Since when do you have to be a push over to be President. He has been through more than the other two ever will and come out just fine – he will make a fine President.


All the "temper" stories are old - and frankly if this is all the desperate left can "dig up" against McCain they are toast.

I appreciate the humor, I definitely see what you're aiming at on this. To be serious though, is there a correlation between cursing in the oval office and job performance?

I can appreciate your skepticism Lesly and nebraska29 and while it may seem as though this is yet another case of "gotcha" politics, my intent was not to get into yet another round of "Can You Top This?"

Profanity by a politician in and of itself is not important. If Cindy McCain can deal with her husband berating her and his foul mouth, that's her cross to bear. Suffering fools gladly is obviously not something Senator McCain does well even when he's sleeping with her.

But temperament does matter. Politics is the art of compromise and if I've alienated you by calling you a foul name or cursing you out the walls are going up, not coming down. I disagree Lesly that this is "nonsense." In a world full of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, it's essential that the Commander-in-Chief be someone who can make cool and calm decisions and not react rashly in a stressful situation. McCain's temper is a legitimate area of inquiry.

It is possible if McCain wins he will have to deal with a Democratic Senate and House. If he's dropping F-bombs on his own teammates, how in the hell is he going to deal with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid when he wants to get something done?

McCain has enjoyed a free ride in the mainstream media long enough. It is high time to see if his character is as pristine and above reproach as he would have everyone believe.

John McCain has a long history of working across the aisle on major legislation. Sometimes his cooperation with the Democrats in Congress has earned him the ire of conservatives in his own party, including myself. But, at the end of the day, he does get things done. I would put his record of working in a bi-partisan fashion up against anyone in Congress, including Obama and Clinton. He'll win that contest hands down.

So, you can question his language from 25 years ago if you want to, but that's not really very germane to the issues of the day.


Edited to add....

And, I'd be careful about using the term "bomb". It just might invoke a discussion about Bill Ayers who threw more than the f-bomb in his day.

Aquilla

Funny thing about that long history of working across the aisle, McCain's biggest accomplishments were the campaign financing reform bill he and Russ Feingold came up with (which McCain won't talk about on the campaign trail lest it irk conservatives) and his status as a leader of "The Gang of 14" moderate Senators who preserved the filibuster procedure from then-Majority Leader Bill Frist's "nuclear option." I doubt McCain is going to brag about that either.

You may not have noticed, but the Rick Renzi throwdown was in 2006 and dropping the "f-bomb" on John Cornyn occurred last year. Not exactly ancient history.

If you're going to hold William Ayers and his behavior of 40 years ago against Senator Obama, it's entirely germane to hold the behavior of the past few years against Senator McCain.

I don't know that McCain is going to hide any of his work with the "other side" under a rock. Were I advising him, and I'm not - yet, I'd tell him to be who he is and what he is. The McCain-Feingold bill was well-intended with unintended consequences. Bad legislation? Perhaps, but it does show McCain can work with people like Russ Feingold, one of the more liberal members of the Senate. His "Gang of 14" was roundly criticized in conservative circles, including me, probably in this very forum. But, looking back on it at the end of the day and what was accomplished with the appointments of justices like Janice Rogers Brown, and 2 superb Supreme Court Justices in Roberts and Alito, I was wrong and McCain was right. He took the hit from the right, but he got results. He even was able to work with Ted Kennedy on the Immigration bill. It didn't pass, unfortunately (that's another subject for another debate), but if you had told me a year ago that a Republican Senator could work with Ted Kennedy and still gain the GOP nomination for President, I'd have asked you what you were smoking and where you got it!

The ability to work across the aisle as McCain has done, time and time again, and produce results is the kind of thing that makes him a formidable opponent for either Clinton or Obama. He doesn't have to move to the center, he's already there, that's his base. He just has to get the right wing of the party to fall in line and they're doing that now. They have to because if they don't, McCain will cuss them out.


Aquilla

He sure ****ing does! He's a rough and tumble son-of-a-*****. McCain has no ****ing problem telling his colleagues to **** off whent they're being ****heads. That's the kind of ****ing leader the US of mother-****ing A needs right now. Not some God**** woman or sissy boy with giant ears.

***

That was sarcasm BTW.

John McCain's temperament is just fine to run anything - it's his policies that need work.

***

Also, it appears you shouldn't interfere with Barack when he's eating:

Aquilla, you have lurched uncontrollably into the truth. I don't disagree with a single word.

You have no idea how painful that was for me.



If that had been McCain he would have said, "Lemme eat my god**** waffle, you little ****!" Toldja Barack keeps his cool.

In seven years of Bush in office the only time I've heard about him cussing out something was during lunch at a G-8 summit two years ago. The target was Hezbollah/Syria. On the other hand I've read numerous accounts of Bush antagonizing members of his own party, the people he needs to pass his initiatives, without resorting to colorful language from 2003 to 2007.

QUOTE(Without A Doubt)

Bush was a prick without resorting to colorful language and screwed servicemembers, their country and Iraq in the process. Would that he had failed to get what he wanted, and twist the words on the resolution to suit his preformed decisions, by telling members of Congress to go f--- themselves!

Temperament is part of a person's character. Character should be a campaign issue only if a candidate makes it an issue. Nobody bats an eyelash when upon closer inspection the fiscal conservative Republican votes for pork and he's raked over the coals. Likewise no one should bat an eyelash when the tough prosecutor is caught lying with prostitutes he tried to put out of business and he's blasted in the press. Not that I care apart from the fact that these moral jokes tend to project their own shortcomings on others right out of a script, but the treatment in the press isn't surprising. As far as I know McCain hasn't made cursing or temperament a campaign issue. McCain can hardly raise a fuss in that regard since he has embraced Bush's leadership on the GWoT and policies in general.

However, I don't understand why anyone should use character as a political weapon unless you want to make character a central theme within your party. Politicians are a means to an end. They ought to be used to achieve political goals and ignored as role models in our personal lives. I don't look to them for inspiration or confirmation. I vote for them because I want them to carry out my interests, and if they drop a few f-bombs in the process, so what? I'm voting for issues important to me, not whether a politician can achieve results I find important with decorum.

If McCain does have a temper problem you should rejoice. I know I would. MAD is in force no matter who occupies the White House and an inability to play well with others may mean McCain will get along with his own party as well as Bush has. That's something to be thankful for, not a reason to scold.

I suppose this is where I differ with you Lesly. I believe politicians can be more than "a means to an end." With some rare exceptions most politicians are merely tools to be used and discarded when no longer needed or useful. Certainly the vast majority of politicians personify the old joke: nothing more than used diapers and should be discarded for the same reason.

But there are politicians who have inspired me from time-to-time. Barbra Jordan did so with her 1976 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. John Anderson inspired me in 1980 to vote for him over Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. She wasn't a politician but AIDS activist Mary Fisher's speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention is considered one of the 100 Greatest Political Speeches.

And as I've stated more than once before, Barack Obama has inspired me now.

Politicians shouldn't be held to a higher moral and personal standard than anyone else. That's why I'm seldom surprised by corrupt ones. I don't care if a politician worships God, Buddha, has no religious beliefs at all or just says, "My religion is my business and I do not choose to discuss it."

I'm not so much interested in exploiting John McCain's profane outbursts and anger management issues as a club against him as I am concerned how it may impact his possible future performance as president. Right now, he's just one of a few candidates for a specific job and his temperament and ability to work well with others is a part of the application process.

But in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I will note McCain does have a sense of humor.

This campaign has officially gone on too long. Look what it's starting to do to Clinton, Obama and McCain.

So McCain is abusive? Do you have any hyperlinks to police reports or anything like that? Really, are you debating the issue or is this just a bash McCain fest for you?



The record does show that McCain is one who is calm and cool and can cross lines when needed. I won't mention vague generalities about vulgarity, but instead, I'll be specific. McCain was a key member of the gang of 14 which kept the senate from being gridlocked over a supreme court nomination. He was also cooperated with Russ Feingold to create the McCain-Feingold-Cochran campaign reform Act. Actions of a right wing partisan bent on being an obstructionist? Heck, he even voted for raising the minimum wage. So McCain has a problem with a few elected representatives, he is supposed to get along with everyone? It's kindergarten time again?



Ummmmm, the same way that he cooperated with Russ Feingold and the 13 other senators who broke the partisan deadlock.



I agree with you on this to an extent. His view on the war as needing to continue is very problematic. His healthcare program is definitely a joke. I find it hilarious that his own aides are having trouble proving his healthcare program would provide adequate coverage.

Hey, hey, nebraska29, slow your roll, playa. I'm not saying John McCain is abusing his wife. I am not even saying I believe the story or the allegation. I'm merely repeating it and others can draw their own conclusions. IF the story is true (and "if" is the operative word), then by the classic definition that would fall into the category of verbal abuse.

Maybe you missed it, but I said I am not here to bash John McCain for the fun of it. This is not a tit-for-tat game. I'm just putting some information out there and you can accept it or reject it. But don't get up on your high-horse and accuse me of trying to put the screws to McCain.

There have been literally dozens of threads on this board designed for no other reason than to rip Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a new hole. It's pretty damn sad if you can't even suggest a discouraging word about McCain without even self-styled "liberals" getting bent out of shape.

I THOUGHT this was a debate board. Or are sacred cows like McCain off-limits and nobody told me?



No, it's not kindergarten time and I've already pointed out in this thread about McCain/Feingold and The Gang of 14. As I said to Aquilla, do you really think those are two moments of his career he's going to talk up as he tries to convince the Republican base to get out and vote for him?

Physical confrontations and cursing out "a few elected representatives," is more than just a problem with McCain. It's a pattern of behavior. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, nebraska29 is your call.

I have pointed this out before, but apparently it needs repeating, the senior Senator from Arizona has a lifetime rating of 82.3 percent according to The American Conservative Union. That's higher than some conservative die-hards like Senators Cochran, Voinovich, Gregg, Stevens and Shelby and nobody's ever accused them of being "mavericks."

McCain's temper is real. Just as his rock-solid record against issues such as abortion is real. He favors prosecution of abortion doctors, Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives and supports the repeal of Roe v. Wade. McCain may be more moderate and less intemperate than many of his conservative brethren, but he's not a closet liberal no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.

To that, I would have told Senator McCain, "Oh pot, the hunch-faced kettle is calling."

Then I apologize to him and anyone else who might be offended for the above remark.



Sometimes that is the appropriate response in life, and even moreso in politics. I'm sure Hillary and Barack have said such things when the cameras weren't rolling. Or in Barack's case, by doing the old (two-finger) scratch of the cheek which made people wonder whether or not he was covertly flipping Hillary the bird.



He is saying what everyone else is saying behind others backs. He doesn't give a f_ _ _ whether you like him or not. He is who he is and that is a very attractive quality in a human being. You know where you stand with this man. I'd much prefer someone tell me straight up they think I'm full of it then to make nice in front of me but rail against me behind my back.



Does he remind him of a "crazy" uncle?



Admittedly, I don't personally know any of the candidates. But from what I know of the three remaining contenders, I think McCain has the most integrity and honor. And if I had to rely on one of them to tell me the truth, I'd look to him.


Does John McCain have the temperament to be President and is it something Americans should be concerned about?


Yes he does. A temper is not a bad thing. My grandpa was a dairy farmer and let me tell you, that temper came in handy when he needed to get his heifers in line. They are a piece of cake compared to the animals McCain will be herding if he makes it to the Oval Office.