McCain and Palin: The Pretenders are Unfit to Lead

@cicerone imposter,

hi , c.i. !
since we don't have pm's yet , i'll call this :

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY !

i realize that some americans have difficulty letting go of vietnam .
even though president bush himself has made peace with vietnam and has praised the co-operation between vietnam and the U.S. , some americans continue "the fight against the vietnam enemy and communism" in their own way .
it reminds me of growing up in germany after WW II , when some germans still claimed that germany had lost WW ONE (!) because "the army had been stabbed in the back" .
those are/were feelings of despair imo and rational dialogue is not possible .
take care !
hbg

1 Reply

Another thing that I find just as troubling as McCain's temperation is his short-sightedness. The most glaring example of his short-sightedness is his selection of a running mate.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, asked McCain, "straight talk," if he could honestly say that Sarah Palin was the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain replied, "Oh, yeah. She's a partner and a soulmate."

McCain and Palin may indeed share similar attributes. They both have a penchant for holding grudges and taking vengeful action against those who displease them. In that department, they very well may be "soulmates." But Palin's history demonstrates that she uses her proverbial sharp teeth to not only bite the people who displease her, but also to bite the people who have helped her. McCain might have her muzzled and on a tight leash for now--keeping her from talking except to read scripted notes and insulating her from the probing questions of the press--but Palin won't stay muzzled and leashed. She will turn and bite him as soon as it's politically expedient to do so.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

gerogeob1 wrote: "I know the man. John McCain is NOT given to fits of rage or long-term grudges."

Maybe you know McCain, but so do his wife and his former press secretary. Both were interviewed for the CNN segment entitled "McCain Revealed." Cindy McCain spoke of her husband's fury and a grudge that lasted a year. Not long term enough for you? How about the 12 year grudge he held on another matter? Read the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.01.html

McCain's angry outbursts are frequent and problematic. In other words, he has to work very hard to control himself in public lest the public get a glimpse of the hothead that he really is. His press secretary found it necessary to work out a signaling system: if it looks like he might lose control, she was supposed to rub her nose as a means to rein him in. There are far too many people who have experienced the brunt of one of his frequent outbursts for you to pretend that his temperament or vindictiveness is not an issue of utmost concern.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Have you see the video tape of McCain standing among of group of people at a party next to his wife, Cindy? She jokingly makes a comment about his gray hair. He bellows at his wife, "you cu*t!"

Do you still say McCain can't control his temper?

BBB

0 Replies

Next we'll hear that George played basketball on the same high school team as Sarah and that both have a T shirt that says "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted".

Quote:

From the Los Angeles Times

McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin

Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator's lists of 'objectionable' pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate.

By Tom Hamburger, Richard Simon and Janet Hook | Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 3, 2008

WASILLA, ALASKA - For much of his long career in Washington, John McCain has been throwing darts at the special spending system known as earmarking, through which powerful members of Congress can deliver federal cash for pet projects back home with little or no public scrutiny. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" detailing these financial favors.

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.

Now, McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has chosen Palin as his running mate, touting her as a reformer just like him.

McCain has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a central theme of his 2008 campaign. "Earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress," McCain has said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,5932587.story

Does the word 'hypocrisy' come to mind? How about 'maverick'? Or say, 'reformer'? 'change' maybe?

1 Reply

@hamburger,

A "private" PM to hbg (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY):

It's not that the American People have difficulty in letting go of Vietnam, but McCain found it necessary to repeat his heroics in a Vietnam prison. He seems to imply that his 5.5 years in that prison qualifies him to become the president of the US. HUH?

As for the Vietnamese, we have many living here in Silicon Valley; my barber is Vietnamese. I've been to Vietnam once, and loved my experience there. I understand the US now has normal trade relations with Vietnam; good for them and us.

We frequent Vietnamese restaurants here in Silicon Valley, and enjoy their Pho and tofu bowls. Come and visit us, and we'll take you to some of our favorites.

1 Reply

LONG TERM GRUDGES against Vietnam War protesters:

Quote:

Yet McCain did not easily leave behind all his wartime grievances. He questioned the credibility of David Stockman, a conservative Reagan administration budget director, for having participated in student peace protests. "As Mr. Stockman was a member of the antiwar movement during the Vietnam conflict, I do not believe he should be the individual to evaluate military pay, benefits, and entitlement," McCain wrote to a constituent.

After McCain learned that antiwar activists Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden had been VIP attendees at a 1983 space-shuttle launch, he drafted a letter to White House aide Ken Duberstein protesting the "atrocity" and demanding that NASA's director "be held accountable."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/23/shaped_after_saigons_fall/?page=2

As the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, how would VENGEFUL McCain hold people accountable?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Here's more:

If Dems are planning to start crafting campaign narratives surrounding John McCain, I might recommend an obvious one: the senator appears to have temperament issues. Investor’s Business Daily, a conservative economic publication, asks this week, “Can McCain Control His Temper?”

John McCain claims his temper is not an issue. “I don’t think I would have the support of so many of my colleagues if that were the case.” Who are these supportive colleagues?

They certainly do not include Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Over the weekend, he announced he cannot endorse his colleague for the White House and is endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney instead.

“The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Cochran said. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

Perhaps Cochran can’t appreciate the maverick in McCain. But the same can’t be said of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a noted reformer and friend of whistle-blowers. Grassley said in a recent interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn’t speak to him “for a couple of years.” McCain got in his face and shouted an obscenity at him. […]

t seems McCain goes ballistic on anyone who disagrees with him. And he’s not just verbally abusive, but physically threatening.

Now, it’s worth noting that when George W. Bush’s conservative allies launched a smear campaign against McCain in 2000’s South Carolina primary, one of the more tasteless attacks argued that McCain, after years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had developed mental problems, and was insufficiently stable. Those smears were obviously offensive and disgusting, and have no place in the discourse.

But this is a different question entirely, and deserves to be considered on its merits. Does John McCain " a man Newsweek once labeled, “Senator Hothead” " have a temperament issue? And is it relevant in the campaign?

Investor’s Business Daily brought up the Reagan comparison.

We appreciate that McCain, who was dead right about the surge, is willing to stare down “radical Islamic extremists.” We want them to fear our commander in chief. It helps if they believe he’s got his finger on the button, so to speak, as the Soviets believed with President Reagan.

Difference is, Reagan didn’t have an itchy trigger finger. His recently published diaries confirm that he skillfully used firm diplomacy behind the scenes. We’re not so sure McCain can control his bellicosity.

The concerns are certainly well grounded. A few weeks ago, Amanda at TP pulled together some of my favorite examples of McCain’s infamous temperament, including:

* In a “heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul” last year, McCain screamed at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), “F**k you!” He added, “This is chickens**t stuff…. You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.” [5/19/07]

* In a discussion over the “fate of Vietnam MIAs,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked McCain, “Are you calling me stupid?” “No,” replied McCain, “I’m calling you a f**ing jerk!” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

* At a GOP meeting in fall 1999, McCain “erupted” at Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and shouted, “Only an a**hole would put together a budget like this.” When Domenici expressed his outrage, McCain responded, “I wouldn’t call you an a**hole unless you really were an a**hole.” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

These apparently aren’t isolated incidents.

“I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues,” said former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees. “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.”

McCain’s outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush,” the former Senate staffer said. “McCain said ‘f**k you’ and never spoke to him again.”

Keep in mind, we’re talking about McCain dropping F-bombs on Republicans.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I agree with you about the general assessment of the vapidity of this piece, and while I hadn't wanted to contribute to the thread I do have a question for you in particular if you have time to answer it:

How hawkish would you say McCain is? I don't care much about his "temper" per se, but I do care if he inordinately defines himself through his military past in a manner that would make him inordinately willing to employ the military and lead it as a "military man".

My take is that he's too hawkish for my preference in these times but I'd be interested in hearing your take if you have any personal insight into that.

I don't think that McCain is particularly "hawkish", but that judgement, of course, depends on one's standards. Like most who have really seen war, I believe, he understands its awful destructiveness and the human cost involved, and, as a result, would not venture into it thoughtlessly. My strong impression is that he has a strong feeling for the historical cost of losing a war, and that is an evident motivational factor in his public comments on the Iraqi intervention.

One can fault that view, but I believe it is more defensible than one that asserts that war in Afghanistan is certainly OK - and should be prosecuted even more vigorously, but war in Iraq is certainly wrong.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Another thing that I find just as troubling as McCain's temperation is his short-sightedness. The most glaring example of his short-sightedness is his selection of a running mate.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, asked McCain, "straight talk," if he could honestly say that Sarah Palin was the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain replied, "Oh, yeah. She's a partner and a soulmate."

McCain and Palin may indeed share similar attributes. They both have a penchant for holding grudges and taking vengeful action against those who displease them. In that department, they very well may be "soulmates." But Palin's history demonstrates that she uses her proverbial sharp teeth to not only bite the people who displease her, but also to bite the people who have helped her. McCain might have her muzzled and on a tight leash for now--keeping her from talking except to read scripted notes and insulating her from the probing questions of the press--but Palin won't stay muzzled and leashed. She will turn and bite him as soon as it's politically expedient to do so.

This is a remarkably confident "insight" into the personalities and inner motivations of people I assume you haven't even met casually. How do you do it??? From what unknown source have you gained this ability??

Or are you merely taking your cues from screeds you read on the web?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

My strong impression is that he has a strong feeling for the historical cost of losing a war, and that is an evident motivational factor in his public comments on the Iraqi intervention.

That's something in particular that I was interested in. My understanding is that after the Vietnam war he studied Vietnam extensively and came to the conclusion that the US lost the war due to the war weariness of its doves and its faulty prosecution of the conflict itself.

He's right on both those counts, but what I'm most curious about is how much he resents the doves ability to limit the ambitions of the hawks and whether he places inordinate weight on achieving military success. I don't see him as a bloodthirsty hawk, but there is a degree of hawkishness that I consider wrongheaded far below that level that I am more concerned about and I worry that he's too close in geopolitical ideology to people like Cheney.

He wouldn't need to be a bloodthirsty hawk, but just militaristic in the same vein as the Project for the New American Century folk to be a potential disaster by my book.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote: "Does the word 'hypocrisy' come to mind? How about 'maverick'? Or say, 'reformer'? 'change' maybe?"

Hypocrisy does come to mind--repeatedly.

The PRETENDER McCain said the following:

"You well know I've been called a maverick, someone who...someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment; sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/mccain.transcript/

The REAL McCain has 169 Lobbyists running his campaign and most of them had front row seats to his convention speech.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

This is a remarkably confident "insight" into the personalities and inner motivations of people I assume you haven't even met casually. How do you do it??? From what unknown source have you gained this ability??

The quotes from the web are from people who actually do know him, just in case you hadn't realized that, Gob1.

Given your record here, I think I'll wait for further verification as to how well you know JMc.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

If he's running on his own drum beat, it's funny that McCain voted 95% with Bush. What makes a "maverick?" Somebody who voted 5% independent of his leader?

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

That's something in particular that I was interested in. My understanding is that after the Vietnam war he studied Vietnam extensively and came to the conclusion that the US lost the war due to the war weariness of its doves and its faulty prosecution of the conflict itself.

That may well be his view - it is certainly plausible, and indeed represents my own opinion of the war. All things considered, I believe we would have been better off if we hadn't involved ourselves in this bitter residue of French colonialism and Marxist revolution. However, that is a retrospective judgement. The "wise men" of the Kennedy Administration who made the decision to seriously involve us militarily evidently didn't see it that way.

Robert Gentel wrote:

He's right on both those counts, but what I'm most curious about is how much he resents the doves ability to limit the ambitions of the hawks and whether he places inordinate weight on achieving military success. I don't see him as a bloodthirsty hawk, but there is a degree of hawkishness that I consider wrongheaded far below that level that I am more concerned about and I worry that he's too close in geopolitical ideology to people like Cheney.

He wouldn't need to be a bloodthirsty hawk, but just militaristic in the same vein as the Project for the New American Century folk to be a potential disaster by my book.

You have outlined a rational basis for opposing his candidacy. I don't share it, but it is self-consistent. However, again, I don't see much difference in this area between McCain's supposed views on the matter and those of one who says that, while iraq was an error, a more aggressive prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is OK.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If he's running on his own drum beat, it's funny that McCain voted 95% with Bush. What makes a "maverick?" Somebody who voted 5% independent of his leader?

He is certainly more of a maveric with respect to the extreme elements of his own party than is the esteemed Senator from the Chicago Democrat political machine who hasn't ever defied any of the single issue groups in his party.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

However, again, I don't see much difference in this area between McCain's supposed views on the matter and those of one who says that, while iraq was an error, a more aggressive prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is OK.

I saw you mention that earlier but don't quite agree. If you mean that someone who opposed the war in Iraq on a principle of not waging a war of aggression that might make sense, but there's certainly other ways to distinguish between them.

I don't think the US had the legal or moral basis to invade Iraq, but I do think the US had a moral and at least arguable legal basis to invade Afghanistan. I don't think all wars are created equal and can see a logically consistent ratiocination that would decry the war in Iraq while also supporting the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

I don't personally care about escalating the war in Afghanistan, and think that Obama uses that as a campaign platform mostly to try to illustrate that he's not the kind of dove who rejects all militarism, but if one believes that one war was strategically and morally right while the other strategically and morally wrong I don't see the glaring logical inconsistency that you seem to.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

A "private" PM to c.i. (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY):

Quote:

It's not that the American People have difficulty in letting go of Vietnam

i'm sure most americans have been able to let go .
i recall that some time ago when the subject of vietnam came up , there were at least a few posters that thought "the war could/should have been won " .

we do have a goodsized vietnamese representation in our small city .
mrs h volunteered for a number of years with a government sponsored group helping new canadians (including vietnamese boatpeople) to feel welcome in canada - she worked mainly with children . even today some of those kids - now grown-up - recognize her .
perticularly because of queen's university here , we have no shortage of students from around the world (even one of the japanese "royals" attented queen's u. ) and , of course , also have a good variety of restaurants with "cuisine from around the world" .
take care !
hbg

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

When did you become an ideologue? Your previous postings here were much more rational and cheap partisan sound bytes was not your only stock and store. Where did that person go?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Debra Law wrote:
Another thing that I find just as troubling as McCain's temperation is his short-sightedness. The most glaring example of his short-sightedness is his selection of a running mate.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, asked McCain, "straight talk," if he could honestly say that Sarah Palin was the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain replied, "Oh, yeah. She's a partner and a soulmate."

McCain and Palin may indeed share similar attributes. They both have a penchant for holding grudges and taking vengeful action against those who displease them. In that department, they very well may be "soulmates." But Palin's history demonstrates that she uses her proverbial sharp teeth to not only bite the people who displease her, but also to bite the people who have helped her. McCain might have her muzzled and on a tight leash for now--keeping her from talking except to read scripted notes and insulating her from the probing questions of the press--but Palin won't stay muzzled and leashed. She will turn and bite him as soon as it's politically expedient to do so.

This is a remarkably confident "insight" into the personalities and inner motivations of people I assume you haven't even met casually. How do you do it??? From what unknown source have you gained this ability??

Or are you merely taking your cues from screeds you read on the web?

God forbid that anyone should educate him- or herself by gleaning information from reliable sources on the information highway. Perhaps, since you know McCain personally, you can tell him about us information seekers and he can then hold us accountable. After all, when a CNN journalist stepped over the line and asked McCain's spokesperson some probing questions--McCain angrily and promply punished CNN. I guess, in McCain's America, "we the people" are not supposed to probe for information and form opinions. Apparently, we should ignore the information we read on the web and succumb to his propaganda--hook, line, and sinker.

How many people over the years, including McCain's own wife, his press secretary, and members of Congress, have to report about McCain's hair trigger temper and outbursts before you get a clue? How many people does Sarah Palin have to fire in the wake of scandal or place gag orders on before you get a clue? Palin's own mother-in-law won't endorse her, for crying out loud. And when Palin's sharp barracuda or pit bull teeth turn on your old friend, McCain--only a fool could say that they didn't see that coming.

1 Reply

McCain and Palin: The Pretenders are Unfit to Lead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know