Is John McCain's temper a legitimate issue?

[Belegon]

This is a tricky one for me.

On the one hand, Joe Biden says that McCain's temper is not that much of a problem... or at least that it has been exaggerated:

"Yeah, he has a temper," said Democratic vice-presidential nominee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden of Delaware. "It's obvious. You've seen it.

"But is John whatever his opposition painted him to be, this unstable guy who came out of a prisoner or war camp not capable of (acting rationally)? I don't buy that at all."

...but the article I pulled that quote from also talks about him shoving a woman in a wheelchair out of his way and pushing a woman into a wall. That bothers me.

Four years later, at her group's Washington conference, about 25 members went to a Senate office building, hoping to meet with McCain. As they stood in the hall, McCain and an aide walked by.

Six people present have written statements describing what they saw. According to the accounts, McCain waved his hand to shoo away Jeannette Jenkins, whose cousin was last seen in South Vietnam in 1970, causing her to hit a wall.

As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor, the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain.

"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca, the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51660.html

What do you think? Is the temper of a man a legitimate concern when he is in control of a nuclear arsenal? The gut answer is yes, but can't a man overcome it when he has to? Is making it an issue not giving McCain a fair shake?

He would be far from the first man in the oval office with a bad temper. Truman's was legendary.

 

[bwallard]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (giggle).

Remember that one?

Scary guy. But way way scarier is the thought he might not make it four years and then we have President Palin.

Now *that* is scary.

 

[HardNightDay]

No. It's not an issue.

 

[Liar]

Legitimate? Sure.

Relevant? Only if he has a record of letting his temperament go out over doing his job professionally. Is he mismanging his current legislative job because of temperament?

 

[jomar]

McCaine has a rep for being impulsive and that combined with anger could be a concern. However, I would think that he would not be where he is if he truly had meaningful temper issues.

 

[TE999]

Dr. Strangelove, report to the Situation Room.

 

[DesertPirate]

Legitimate? Sure.

Relevant? Only if he has a record of letting his temperament go out over doing his job professionally. Is he mismanging his current legislative job because of temperament?

No he isn't therefore it's not an issue.

 

[amicus]

What, you lefties got tired of besmirching Palin and are back to McCain now?

Hilarious!

In 19 months of campaigning the country still knows nothing about Obama's far left, socialist intentions for America. First it was attack mode against fellow Dems and now, attack mode against the opposition, wunnerful.

Poor Hillary, with humongous bags under her eyes on the road in Florida campaigning for a losing ticket...thas almost sad.

Why is the left so ashamed of their agenda as to not even mention their platform planks...oh, sorry, there was no platform this time around...the far left didn't have the courage to specify.

No surprise.

McCain and Palin in a landslide, all 50 states. Take that to the bank and look forward to sixteen more years of Republicans in the White House.

Howdoyalike them apples, Spanky?

Amicus....

 

[sweetness6280]

What, you lefties got tired of besmirching Palin and are back to McCain now?

Hilarious!

In 19 months of campaigning the country still knows nothing about Obama's far left, socialist intentions for America. First it was attack mode against fellow Dems and now, attack mode against the opposition, wunnerful.

Poor Hillary, with humongous bags under her eyes on the road in Florida campaigning for a losing ticket...thas almost sad.

Why is the left so ashamed of their agenda as to not even mention their platform planks...oh, sorry, there was no platform this time around...the far left didn't have the courage to specify.

No surprise.

McCain and Palin in a landslide, all 50 states. Take that to the bank and look forward to sixteen more years of Republicans in the White House.

Howdoyalike them apples, Spanky?

Amicus....

Wow, ami. Did you have a bad day or something?

Bel's question was respectfully worded, giving both sides of the argument. His post comes across as completely fair-minded, looking for opinions on a question that he seems to be struggling with.

So far all of the answers have been just as respectful, until I got to your post. It looks like you came to the thread loaded for bear.

Just saying.

 

[Guest]

The last time McCain ran it actually was a huge issue it is a large factor in why he did not get the nomination last time around the block. Granted, the man went through hell..... but I have to say in all honesty I don't believe that he has the right temperament to be in charge of the worlds largest army. I don't want to watch the news or hear about him suddenly in some fitted frenzy decide that everyone that is against us is a 'Gook' and needs to die. No one knows for sure how far he can go before he would simply snap.

 

[rgraham666]

Wow, ami. Did you have a bad day or something?

Bel's question was respectfully worded, giving both sides of the argument. His post comes across as completely fair-minded, looking for opinions on a question that he seems to be struggling with.

So far all of the answers have been just as respectful, until I got to your post. It looks like you came to the thread loaded for bear.

Just saying.

He's always like that, sweetness. He won't go out of doors at sunrise of sunset because the sky is red.

 

[amicus]

Sweetmess, I don't know or care to know Belegon's politics and if you think his thread is completely benign and fair minded, you are truly politically naive.

He is in attack mode, as the entire left seems to be, rather than advocate the policies they have in mind to effect, 'change'. in the nation. They are so ashamed and fearful of the American people realizing just what their plan are, that they seek to demean the opposition without ever mentioning issues.

Stop to think about it, a long term Senator, accused of having a temper that might disqualify him to be commander in chief. Who else but a bankrupt far left apologist would even consider such a thread?

Answer is, no one. It is what it is, a scurrilous attack on an honorable man that exposes a true lack of moral values and ethics in the opposition.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Of course it's a major issue for a president. You certainly don't want someone at the helm who will make a quick judgment and take precipitous action out of anger or pique. It's one of the worst people you could have in the presidency.

It's one of the big question marks with McCain--and with anyone considered a maverick. It's possibly the biggest fear on his selection of Palin as a running mate. Did he really think it out or go with his gut--a gut that hasn't always assessed situations and the path to soloutions all that well?

but I get a little bit of that with Obama too in his stiffing of Hillary Clinton. I think an experienced leader would have handled that a lot better. In the end, she's the one who did all of the accommodating--which many see as evidence that she was really the clearer-headed choice. (Which she obviously knew would be the result, which, completing the cycle, is why she, the more savy politician, did it.)

 

[sr71plt]

Sweetmess, I don't know or care to know Belegon's politics and if you think his thread is completely benign and fair minded, you are truly politically naive.

He is in attack mode, as the entire left seems to be, rather than advocate the policies they have in mind to effect, 'change'. in the nation. They are so ashamed and fearful of the American people realizing just what their plan are, that they seek to demean the opposition without ever mentioning issues.

Stop to think about it, a long term Senator, accused of having a temper that might disqualify him to be commander in chief. Who else but a bankrupt far left apologist would even consider such a thread?

Answer is, no one. It is what it is, a scurrilous attack on an honorable man that exposes a true lack of moral values and ethics in the opposition.

Amicus...

God, I'm so glad to hear that the left has a plan. Maybe we have a chance this time then. We're usually so scatterbrained about organizing and having and following a plan that we hand everything back to those who obviously have been screwing everything up--but who always seem to have a better plan to cheat themselves back into power.

I look at the dead heat polls and I just shake my head and wonder how the hell the Democrats couldn't make hay out of the Republican adminstration's total disasters. Nearly everything they've touched has turned to shit and yet there still seem to be a lot of brainless voters willing to let them continue doing it.

 

[Edward Teach]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (giggle).

Remember that one?

Scary guy. But way way scarier is the thought he might not make it four years and then we have President Palin.

Now *that* is scary.

Amen.

 

[Belegon]

Sweetmess, I don't know or care to know Belegon's politics and if you think his thread is completely benign and fair minded, you are truly politically naive.

He is in attack mode, as the entire left seems to be, rather than advocate the policies they have in mind to effect, 'change'. in the nation. They are so ashamed and fearful of the American people realizing just what their plan are, that they seek to demean the opposition without ever mentioning issues.

Stop to think about it, a long term Senator, accused of having a temper that might disqualify him to be commander in chief. Who else but a bankrupt far left apologist would even consider such a thread?

Answer is, no one. It is what it is, a scurrilous attack on an honorable man that exposes a true lack of moral values and ethics in the opposition.

Amicus...

Damn, tell me how you really feel.

I'm sorry, Ami... but I haven't been able to take you serious for a very long time. The idea that either party could possibly ever win all fifty states again is so ludicrous.

It really was a question where I want to know how others feel. I worded it as neutral as I possibly could, because I didn't want people assuming that because I'm pro-Obama I was just finding a new way to slam McCain.

I don't think John McCain is a bad man and I respect the service he has done for his country. I may not feel he should be President, but that doesn't mean I hate him.

 

[ishtat]

Churchill was a drunk a manic depressive had a vile temper and, oh dear was half American.

Adolf Hitler on the other hand was a vegetarian who banned hunting and 'blood sports'

Any preferences??

 

[sr71plt]

Churchill was a drunk a manic depressive had a vile temper and, oh dear was half American.

Adolf Hitler on the other hand was a vegetarian who banned hunting and 'blood sports'

Any preferences??

And Churchill made some really, really bad decisions--got so many killed in his early career that he had to come back for a second go at it. He's gotten good press by the Allies winning that one. (Which goes a way to explain Hitler too.)

 

[DesertPirate]

Churchill was a drunk a manic depressive had a vile temper and, oh dear was half American.

Adolf Hitler on the other hand was a vegetarian who banned hunting and 'blood sports'

Any preferences??

My preferred comparison, thank you.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I honestly don't want a McCain presidency (and am entirely turned off by a Palin Vice-presidency), but to be fair... McCain is closer to the center than Obama is and has a stronger record of doing what he says and listening to others.

Personally, I don't really mind a politician that "flip-flops"--so long as we have reasoned explainations for the change. I remember McCain catching flack, for instance, about his stance on Immigration Reform... and then being called a flip-flopper for changing his stance to be more in tune with mainstream Republicans. His excuse was something like "I listened to the people and the people told me they wanted this other thing, even though I wanted my idea--and I work for them".

I like that.

I don't think a McCain presidency would suck all that bad. I think it has the same margin of error an Obama presidency would offer.

 

[Liar]

Churchill was a drunk a manic depressive had a vile temper and, oh dear was half American.

Adolf Hitler on the other hand was a vegetarian who banned hunting and 'blood sports'

Any preferences??

Hitler. More steak for me.


What?

 

[sr71plt]

IPersonally, I don't really mind a politician that "flip-flops"--so long as we have reasoned explainations for the change. I remember McCain catching flack, for instance, about his stance on

Thank you. I don't think anything has irritated me more in the last five years on the political scene than candidates who changed their votes on the basis of changed information and circumstance just rolling over for the "flip-flop" charge. A good leader is who who continually reassesses and adjusts as necessary.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Thank you. I don't think anything has irritated me more in the last five years on the political scene than candidates who changed their votes on the basis of changed information and circumstance just rolling over for the "flip-flop" charge. A good leader is who who continually reassesses and adjusts as necessary.

Well, yeah, its been one of my greater frustrations with the Bush Administration... a very stark example of unwavering decision in the face of new information. Most Democrats aren't offering much in the way of an ideological difference (even Obama speaks in "I know what is best" and "I will do X" and gives me the impression that he's not really going to change in the face of public opinion--which is great if you're intending him to make the decisions, but I don't want another Executive Administration who thinks they're the decider).

I'm still very "Congress is the most easily accountable" kind of guy. Let them make the laws, let the President make them happen. If 80% of Americans don't want something, be willing to stop and say "O.k., revise".

Like National Health Care... America has voted on that, been polled for years on that. We don't really want it. Some do, most don't. Driving it home that you are going to make it happen (like Clinton) makes me nervous. Tell me you'll sign it if you get that bill? Fine. I know how you stand, but damn... lets make some room for "If you want National Health Care, call your congressman--I don't make that decision, they do."

Flip-flopping has too much press as a buzzword.

Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere and then keeps talking about how she said "Thanks but no thanks". I don't really care that she was for it when it benefited Alaska and their economy and became against it when she had to consider the real implications nationally.

I care that she kept the damn money we gave her for it, not that she changed her mind. Substance. We need more focus on that.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Of course it's a major issue for a president. You certainly don't want someone at the helm who will make a quick judgment and take precipitous action out of anger or pique. It's one of the worst people you could have in the presidency.

It's one of the big question marks with McCain--and with anyone considered a maverick. It's possibly the biggest fear on his selection of Palin as a running mate. Did he really think it out or go with his gut--a gut that hasn't always assessed situations and the path to soloutions all that well?

but I get a little bit of that with Obama too in his stiffing of Hillary Clinton. I think an experienced leader would have handled that a lot better. In the end, she's the one who did all of the accommodating--which many see as evidence that she was really the clearer-headed choice. (Which she obviously knew would be the result, which, completing the cycle, is why she, the more savy politician, did it.)

What he said.

It certainly makes me nervous.

And I agree that Obama isn't experienced... not nearly enough as I'd like. So do we choose an inexperienced visionary or an experienced hothead? *sigh*

I wish we had a different choice to make, frankly.

 

[sr71plt]

So do we choose an inexperienced visionary or an experienced hothead? *sigh*

I wish we had a different choice to make, frankly.

In my book, either one is miles better than what we've now got. So it's relatively good either way.