C- candidate and a very angry man

John McCain is looking like a loser.  Maybe he won't lose, but he comes across as a born loser.  On top of that, he has the markings of a weak man.  Take away his imagined Navy uniform and his tale of capture and he could be Willy Loman.  And then, Bob Herbert reminds us, there's the anger.

Mr. McCain’s temperament has long been a subject of fascination in Washington, and for some a matter of concern. He can be a nasty piece of work. (Truly nasty. He once told an extremely cruel joke about Chelsea Clinton — too cruel to repeat here.)

If the McCain gaffes seem endless, so do the tales about his angry, profanity-laced eruptions. Senator Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, said of Mr. McCain: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, told Newsweek in 2000: “I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”

Both senators have since endorsed Senator McCain’s presidential bid, but their initial complaints were part of a much larger constellation of concerns about the way Mr. McCain tends to treat people with whom he disagrees, and his frequently belligerent my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

Senator McCain has acknowledged on various occasions that he has a short fuse and has at times made jokes about it. He told Larry King in 2006: “My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

My guess is that most voters don’t see John McCain as an angry candidate, despite several very public lapses. The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy.

"My way or the highway."  Haven't we had enough of that already?

Comments

[JW]

A very popular sports DJ in the Bay Area has a great rejoinder to those who phone his show and effusively praise him. He always says "thanks, but you've never seen me cornered".

McCain, like Bush and Cheney, is an indisputably wicked man, in every sense of the term.

Obama is at least twice as smart as his rival (make that three times smarter). Unlike McCain, too, he possesses a magnificent temperament, a tremendous asset for any politician. But neither have we yet to see him cornered, (although perhaps we did on that FISA vote).

Given the 'Rule or Ruin' philosophy that guides the GOP, I'm not too sure a "my way or the highway" mentality would necessarily be a bad thing where steering congressional democrats is concerned. In fact, if Obama proved capable of imposing that type party discipline, I'd tend to recommend it. Should he prove unable, I foresee the Blue Dog contingent continuing to subvert the hopes that now abide The Man From Illinois. That is, assuming Obama's current run to the right is only a general election tack, and not where his heart abides. Because if that is indeed where he's at, we're in for another four years of Bush Lite.

[PW]

I agree with you about the discipline. But my problem is with Pelosi and Reid. Any ideas about leaders for the House and Senate?

Run to the right. Actually, I think Obama, by nature, has got feet in both camps with the lead foot on the left. He's more like an ol' fashioned Dem.

[JW]

Recall that I'm a native San Franciscan. My regard for Pelosi had long been genuine (and is not yet entirely extinguished).

That all began to change with her unconscienable "off the table" pronouncement. I regret to say the FISA betrayal has led me to conclude that both she and (more importantly) her party are a lost cause. Both have been irredemingly corrupted by their dealings with the criminal Bush administration, and will hereafter accomplish little substantive good, either in the short or long haul. They bargained with Satan; they sold their souls; and they are moral cowards.

At this point- by my lights- the best case scenarios will see a schism occur within the party's ranks, in which its current leadership will be repudiated and replaced by those willing to submit themselves to an honest reckoning of that unholy collaboration; OR, we simply await on the current generation to slowly fade from power, in hopes they will be supplanted by a wiser, more courageous generation in, say, another 15 or 20 years.

(Hope you got a decent amount of rainfall the last couple of days).

[PW]

You may not be sanguine about the next generation when you read this. I was horrified.

Yeah, we got a whole 3/4" of rain. Impressive. Not.

Haven't seen any bumf on the Obama's relationship with either Pelosi or Reid. Have you?

[JW]

Rest easy. Reflect that by 1968, Walt Disney's creed of the 1950's ( "Be sure you're right, then go ahead") came back to bite him in pretty badly in the ass via the generation he spent that decade so advising. The current crop of Mummy and Da-Da's precious little bundles will land on their feet, too. "The Kids Are Alright".

Politically, however, I'm anything but sanguine. "Human nature will not change". More to the point, the dues required to ascend the democratic party's greasy pole damn near guarantees that only the spirtually bankrupt will get to the top. And by that I mean a person of free spirit, without regard to religious inclination. I readily acknowledge there are outstanding individuals within that party's ranks. But they are suppressed by the guardians of the status quo. Perhaps, just maybe, Obama might be the straw that stirs things up for the better. But when I begin to entertain that hope, I'm stopped cold when I reflect on his FISA capitulation. I'm not a cynic by nature. "One sweet dream came true today" rings true with me, as does "And in the end the love you take is equal.." etc., etc. But there is something horrifically deranged with todays democratic party establishment. My cynicism regarding its capacities to reform itself is damn near total. And that's a doggone shame.