McCain Unhinged

In one fascinating display, you get McCain's temper, McCain's incompetent surrogates rushing to his defense, McCain's mock humility about "not wanting to talk about his time as a POW" and then McCain talking about his time as a POW.

McCain bristled at the comments on "Face the Nation" last weekend by an Obama supporter, retired general Wesley Clark, who belittled the relevance of McCain’s wartime experience as a qualification for the Presidency.

"I think it’s up to Sen. Obama now not only to repudiate him but to cut him loose," McCain said.

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

McCain allies Sen. Lindsey Graham stepped in to rescue him. Graham expressed admiration for McCain’s stance on the treatment of detainees in US custody.

"That to me is a classic example of how his military experience helped him shape public policy in a way no other senator could have done,’’ Graham said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, also traveling on the trip, expressed admiration for McCain’s wartime service as well.

McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.

Asked about one of his former jailors from the notorious Hanoi Hilton who has now endorsed his candidacy for President, McCain chuckled.

"Yeah, I saw that," he said. "He also said that he and I used to have these nice, long philosophical chats. The ones that I recall is, confess or else."

It's a wonder he didn't grab the reporter and have Huckleberry and Holy Joe sit on him.

But Cochran said he observed McCain engage in a physical confrontation with a Sandinista while participating in a diplomatic mission led by Sen. Bob Dole and others in the fall of 1987. Cochran, McCain - who had won election to the Senate that year - and other members of a bipartisan committee of lawmakers called the Central American Negotiations Observer Group - met with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, head of the left-wing political party known as Sandinistas, about tensions in the region..."McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention," Cochran said. "But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever. I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission. I don't know what had happened to provoke John but he obviously got mad at the guy and he just reached over there and snatched him."

And for Graham to bring up McCain's stance on the treatment of detainees is to invite ridicule--McCain was for giving the detainees a trial before he was against it, he was against waterboarding before he decided he needed to sell out his principles and run to the right so he could appeal to the craven wingnuts in order to win the nomination. I wish Graham could speak for McCain all day and every day--it's like a gift to the Democratic Party.

--WS

This is what it looks like when McCain Loses His Temper

A tip 0' the hat to Grand Moff Texan and Marc Ambinder...

McCain loses his temper with a flair that has to be admired. He is unhinged in releasing statements, and that is no small feat. A staffer has to write these things, edit them, and re-write them. And get the final draft approved. That's a lot of eyes on what, in this case, amounts to a full-blown temper tantrum that is unrestrained and unhinged.

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

Patronize, much? I think the country would probably "regret" the election of a out-of-control, raging, angry and frustrated man who cannot accept the slightest criticism.

All Obama has to do is roll his eyes at such a statement. That's the only response this thing needs.

Grand Moff Texan has more...

And you "moonbats" should just relax. It's not like McCain has PTSD or anything...

There are behaviors associated with the candidate that would be consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD. Author Robert Timberg mentions McCain's intense explosions of anger --- a hallmark sign of lingering mental trauma from war -- in his book "John McCain: An American Odyssey." Timberg describes the episodes as "an eruption of temper out of all proportion to the provocation." Timberg, who McCain has said "knows more about me than I do," wrote that McCain's sudden fury is a result of Vietnam coming "back to haunt him." McCain has himself described having an adverse reaction to the sound of jangling keys, which reminds him of his Vietnam jailers. McCain also told doctors that during solitary confinement he had strayed pretty "far out" and had referred to himself as "mentally deteriorating."

UPDATE I / Warren Street / 8:27 PM

Notice anything about this picture?



That's right--on the day when McCain decides to blast Obama for not serving in the military, McCain is skipping a vote on a funding bill for the Iraq war to hang out in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Who, if you'll recall:

Schwarzenegger served in the Austrian army in 1965, to fulfill the one year of service required at the time of all 18-year-old Austrian males. He won the Junior Mr. Europe contest in 1965. Schwarzenegger went AWOL during basic training so that he could take part in the competition, and spent a week in an army jail: "Participating in the competition meant so much to me that I didn't carefully think through the consequences. When I got to Stuttgart, I was all confused. I forgot my posing routine, I had to borrow posing trunks, but still I won!"

Always leading by example, even if it is the Austrian Army.

Oh, and Senator McCain? Yeah, a good number of those Republicans in Congress who "support" you? A hell of a lot of them didn't serve in the military, either. But we're not going to bring up Patrick McHenry, John Cornyn, or Norm Coleman if you don't...

Times are too precarious to risk an American Kruschev

With our country standing on a precipice, with our national standing at it's nadir point; the temperament of those standing before us, asking us to elect them to the nations highest office is not merely a legitimate concern, it is an issue of paramount importance.

Put bluntly - John McCain has temper issues that raise serious questions about his fitness to serve as the president and commander in chief of this countries armed services. I don't think it would be a wise move to elect a man to the presidency who hurls "fuck you's" at other senators, and who blows up at his wife and calls her a "cunt."

In fact, it can truthfully be said that McCain started his Senate career with a temper tantrum.

On election night 1986, the election that elevated him from a seat in the House to the Senate seat he still holds, he publicly raged at and berated a young Republican campaign volunteer, screaming in his face and poking him in the chest in a crowded ballroom. What offense had he committed to warrant such public abuse and humiliation? He had set up the podium from which McCain made his victory speech - but the podium was a little bit too tall, and the 5'9" McCain looked, on teevee, like he is 5'9" instead of towering and heroic.

John Hinz was the head of the Arizona state GOP at the time and he was offended by the outburst. "Here this poor guy is thinking he's done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn't look good on television," Hinz said when interviewed about the incident in 2000 when McCain lost the GOP nomination to Bush. Hinz went on to say that the incident was so over the top that it troubled him for years. "There were an awful lot of people in the room, and you would have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn't right and I was very upset at him."

Keep in mind, that is the executive director of the state party, speaking about a candidate who had just secured a seat in the United States Senate.

In 1995, McCain and Strom Thurmond got into a shoving match on the floor of the Senate. Thurmond interrupted an opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee by McCain, asking "is the Senator about through?" McCain thanked him for his courtesy (translation: "Get bent") and continued on (it should be noted here that McCain despises longwindedness in others and lets his impatience be known, in many rude and unsubtle ways.) Later, he accosted the elderly Thurmond on the floor and a scuffle ensued, although no punches were thrown. As The Washingtonian noted, the two "did not part friends."

When McCain ran for the republican nomination in 2000, the republicans enjoyed a 55-45 majority in the Senate. Of those 55 republican Senators, only four supported their colleague's bid for the nomination, most of the rest openly supported the candidacy of George W. Bush, who went on to win the nomination.

Why would McCain's fellow Senators be so reluctant to support their comrade?

Maybe because he's a prick?

He has accosted and attacked and accused many of them of wrongdoing, and basically acted like he alone has the market cornered on honor. He has it all and no one else can have any. There just isn't a square to spare.

He has exploded in anger at many of them, and alienated them in the process. He openly and publicly called Pete Domenici an "asshole" and Charles Grassley a "fucking jerk" when they had the temerity to advocate positions that McCain didn't agree with. After the Domenici "asshole" incident, one republican Senator who had thought about supporting his presidential bid, telling NEWSWEEK at the time "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger." [emphasis mine]

And here is an interesting opening sentence from the third paragraph from that 2000 NEWSWEEK article...even back then, the media mancrush was apparent...McCain has avoided harsh media scrutiny, and some senators are just plain jealous of his friendly relations with reporters. "He says things that would get us [negative] headlines, but he gets a freebie," groused one lawmaker.

The Arizona Republic has made an issue of his temper for years, reporting on his volatility and the wrath he has unleashed on the states political leaders for years. In fact, the largest daily paper in Arizona was blunt about addressing the issue of McCain's temper in a 1999 editorial when it wrote "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." [emphasis mine]

I believe that the issue of temperament is going to be of paramount importance. We, as a nation, have a lot of hard work ahead of us, and the next president is going to need to have patience and diligence and not be a reactionary jackass.

The last thing we need is Nikita McCain banging his shoe on the desk and vowing revenge on our "enemies."

It's the Temperment, Stupid

Steven Benen picks up on this little nugget of Republican in-fighting:

MARYLAND HEIGHTS, Mo. - Mitt Romney's campaign is blasting out automated phone calls that feature a recording of former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania raising questions about John McCain's "temperament" - a hot-button issue that Romney himself has assiduously avoided.

Santorum said in an interview yesterday that he wrote the script himself, and the campaign deferred to him and approved it.

"I think that to me it is a relevant issue for people to consider," he said. "I think it's one without question that factors into his ability to govern, to form coalitions, and to get things done."

But Romney had insisted as recently as last week that he would not make an issue of McCain's temperament, which some critics have said tends toward the hot-tempered and angry.

Santorum said he had witnessed problems with McCain's temperament, which he declined to detail. "I don't know anybody in the Senate who hasn't. Everybody has their McCain story."

The gift that keeps on giving. McCain is the weakest Republican out there and has only the support of the media and a few establishment Republicans who want to usher him off the stage (like they did with Bob Dole) once he finally shows that he can't win a national election. McCain has run through virtually every dime he's ever collected and has no chance of energizing the base of the Republican Party for more. Do you think Rush Limbaugh is going to help him raise money in South Florida? Do you think any of those US Senators who are tied to Washington Lobbyists are going to open up their rolodex and funnel money to McCain? Do you think anyone from the evangelical base of the party is going to tap the mailing lists and try to solicit funds? They may endorse him and say they support him on the surface, but underneath that surface, no way. They're not going to give money to a loser. They're going to put on a smile in public and swear to campaign for and support McCain, and then they'll go about their business and not contribute so much as a thin dime. Appearances matter. And if it ever appears that McCain is collecting millions from donors and is flush with cash, I'll certainly admit my error. I suspect he won't ever get that huge fundraising bump that Bush got in 1999 and 2000. Not even close to that.

If you can't get colleagues from your own party who served with you in the most collegial body in the country--The US Senate--then what possible chance do you have of winning? The last time the media got behind a candidate was Rudy, and Rudy ended up getting run out of town on a rail.

So Veto it, Bitch!

.

The Senate passed the Supplemental today, brushing aside threats of a veto and mountains of stale rhetoric and presidential pissing and moaning about Democrats determined to set a “date certain for surrender."

The Dems kinda shrugged and said “Whatever” like a parent ignoring a toddlers temper tantrum. (When my kids screamed "I hate you!" after I had the audacity to set limits and enforce them, I calmly responded "Good. That means I'm doing my job." Same principle applies here.)

From the Blue Dog conservatives to the progressive left, the Democrats said “No” with one voice to Bush's demand for war money with no policy strings attached. "He's not getting what he wants," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat. (emphasis mine)

The bill will get to Bush on Monday – and Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the farcical dog-and-pony-show on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln. You remember Mission Accomplished, right? (I’m guessing he doesn’t whip out the 'ole veto pen before Wednesday.)

Behind the scenes, the talks on the next version have already started, but Democrats are not willing to give any more ground than Bush. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said yesterday that putting the force of law behind benchmarks has always been an issue that has divided congressional Republicans from the White House -- making it a potential wedge to push next week.

The bill passed yesterday sets strict requirements for resting, training and equipping troops but would grant the president the authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly justifies the waivers. The bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet: Create a program to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence, ease rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party members and approve a law on sharing oil revenue.

Unless the Bush administration determines by July 1 that those benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home immediately, with a goal of completing those withdrawals by the end of the year. If benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1.

As the president commences the wailing and gnashing of teeth over being told “No” the Democrats are getting their act together and going on the offense. Democratic leaders in Congress are working in concert with Liberal organizations and planning hundreds of rallies, meet-ups and news conferences to protest the coming veto. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is organizing what it anticipates – and fervently hopes - will be a historically large outpouring of sentiment against the Iraq war within hours of the anticipated veto. Planned events include news conferences just after the veto and "signature rallies" -- some of which could draw thousands of people -- the following day in about 50 places represented by fence-sitting Republicans lawmakers.

I, for one, am positively spoiling for this fight. I want to see this newfound backbone and resolve calcify and become a permanent fixture of the Democrats and obstacle to the Republican perfidy, malfeasance and flat-out hackery that have been the hallmark of the last six years.

[--Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]