‘Senator Hothead’ the wrong guy to ‘raise the level of political dialog’

Of all the candidates to talk about civility in the political discourse, John McCain is probably the most ridiculous. But he apparently sees which way the winds are blowing, so the Arizona senator is giving it a shot, hoping desperately that reporters play along and ignore his record.

ABC News’ Bret Hovell Reports: Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that if elected president, he would clean up the nation’s political discourse, and called for an end to negative campaign ads.

“I’m going to raise the level of political dialog in America,” McCain, R-Ariz., said at a campaign rally in central Michigan, “and I’m going to treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect.”

As president, McCain said, he’d be able to work well with members of Congress on the Democratic side of the aisle. “We’re going to get a dispute and a debate done, but in a respectful fashion,” McCain said.

This isn’t entirely new. In November, McCain told a group of supporters, “I think people want a respectful debate and a respectful discussion. And if they don’t, then obviously, I’m not the person to be their candidate.” He added, “Legitimate policy differences, those should be debated and discussed. But I don’t think you should take shots at people.”

This is deeply ironic. Campaign coverage generally ignores McCain’s nasty, belligerent side — Newsweek once referred to him as “Senator Hothead” — but the record is overwhelming, and worth considering given his claims about “respect.”

Amanda at TP did a nice job pulling together some recent examples of McCain’s “vicious temper,” which have helped lower the level of our political dialog, but I wanted to flesh this out a bit.

In 1998, McCain was so fond of “respectful discussion” that he told a nasty, tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton at a Republican Senate fundraiser, describing the president’s daughter as “ugly,” and suggesting that Janet Reno is a man.

Earlier this year, during a back-room discussion on immigration reform, Mr. Respectful Debate started shouting at Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who dared to disagree with him. McCain accused Cornyn of raising petty objections, and Cornyn accused McCain of having dropped in without taking part in the negotiations. “F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” McCain shouted. The WaPo added that McCain also “used a curse word associated with chickens.”

In 1999, Jake Tapper reported on an incident in which McCain got into a shouting match with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Grassley got in McCain’s face, and the two pit bulls started barking at each other while the other senators in the room sat back and watched. The pair got so close to one another that the senator who tells me the story — aware that because of war injuries, McCain’s arms don’t fully extend — was convinced McCain “was going to drive the top of his head into Grassley’s nose. I was convinced that bone fragments were going to go into Chuck’s brain, and I was sitting there and was about to witness a murder.”

McCain suddenly stood up. But instead of a head-butting homicide, he delivered a crushing blow of words.

“You know, senator,” McCain said, seething, “I thought your problem was that you don’t listen. But that’s not it at all. Your problem is that you’re a f**king jerk.”

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.

To be sure, McCain has every right to be a jerk. We’ve had presidents who were jerks before; I’m sure we’ll have many more in the future. Chief executives do not have to have class and treat people with dignity in order to get elected. McCain is free to be as cantankerous as he wants to be.

My concern here is one of hypocrisy. If he wants to be taken seriously, McCain shouldn’t shout “F**k you!” at fellow senators one day, and then promise voters that he’s going to “raise the level of political dialog in America” the next. He can’t call his colleagues “f**ing jerks” and then turn around and promise to deliver “respectful” debate.

Now, if only campaign reporters could stop planning their John McCain Fan Club meetings and point this out, it might make a difference.

With all due respect to the reporters, it’s probably hard to hear McCain cursing while they’re down there blowing him.

  • McCain talks about treating people with respect as a preemptive attack on people questioning his age (or anything else, say, like adultary). If they do he’ll whine that they are not treating him with respect.

    Of course I have no respect for him for that joke about Chelsea.

    And of course his telling America that he’s the adult who can decide when we can leave Iraq without it being a defeat, but whenever we might decide to go it would be bad.

  • hoping desperately that reporters play along and ignore his record.

    You might want to correct that typo, Steve. Should read: “fully confident that reporters will play along and ignore his record.”

  • I think the thing to remember is that the media has spun this guy’s actual temperment heavily for a long time. We need to focus on the media people, send them examples of their spinning and the reality, and gently remind them that we’ll be posting those things all over the internet to embarass them if they don’t clean up their act and quit spinning for the guy. I think he gets a lot of credit (and slack) for being an ex POW, and I think that’s about as stupid as giving HRC too much credit for being married to a popular president. Just because you got shot down and tortured doesn’t mean you’re a good person.

  • He’ll be a pushover in the general campaign next fall. Push his buttons a few times, and watch him explode in front of a national audience. Good, wholesome entertainment. Insert Monty Python’s “Mr. Creosote” image of your choice here.

    Maybe we can get “The Donald” to scream “You’re Fired!” at him on election night—if he doesn’t blow out an artery before then….

  • And let’s not forget the “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” business. Making jokes about starting another disastrous war doesn’t exactly raise the level of discourse.

  • Repubs and Dems alike have seen Obama light up independents with his can’t-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric, so now everyone on both sides is appropriating his schtick.

  • Given the media’s love affair with John McCain, I’m sure we can count on another round of free passes for the Senator from Arizona, no matter what the facts.

  • Who was the last Republican candidate who partially ran on changing the uncivil dialogue in and tone of Washington? How’d that work out?

  • Well…seems John Kerry is endorsing Obama today…that’s a real slap at Edwards, I would think.

    But not sure how much it helps Obama, either.

  • Isn’t he the guy, as I recall, who said in 2000 that one of the “advantages” of having Alzheimer’s is that “you can hide your own Easter eggs”? Gee John, I get a real yuk out of that every time I drop in to visit the Alzheimer’s nursing home…….

  • It’s amazing: You gotta give him credit, NO ONE has mastered media manipulation more than McCain… he wants to stay in Iraq for a “million years”, but he gets the anti-war vote in New Hampshire?

  • In defense of John McCain, I say those very same words to Republicans too, only he says them to their faces and I yell them at a computer screen.

    But when some righties whine that they’d rather not have an “emotional” woman with her finger on the button, we can trot out Jon’s violent belligerence to members of his own party and ask whether he should have the means to act on his own nasty impulses.

  • Okie – Republicans may like hot-headed men, but a woman would just be characterized as hysterical and unstable – you know, not the one you want making life-or-death decisions, finger inches from the nuclear trigger.

    It could be that this election will become an epic battle on the struggle women have had to “make it” in what is still a man’s world. I wouldn’t discount the anger and passion and emotion in that fight, either.

  • Okie, I agree. Republican males will find McCain’s temper reassuring. And I agree with Anne. By trying to feminize Obama (as a perjorative) and stressing Clinton’s sex, MSM may force this election to be about stereotypes. McCain is certainly a good imitation of an angry man.

  • I sure hope someone is following him around with a video camera, so people who might be inclined to vote for him can view — over and over again — his “Macaca moment” when it happens.

  • Let’s not forget the time McCain railed at Sen Levin (D-MI) because Levin wanted the White House to list their goals and benchmarks for Iraq, and McCain insisted that that was “our job”. I thought he was going to deck the poor granny-bespeckled professor. Of course a couple months later McCain is accusing Dems of “micromanaging the war”. No mention in the MSM, and Matthews thinks McCain “deserves” the nomination.

  • DrGail, The problem is that McCain has a long string of “macaca” moments and the press finds them charming.

  • As OkieFromMuskogee said @12… Republicans like that kind of behavior, especially the male / macho’s kind. The ones you can ‘have a beer with’ etc…

    I totally agree with Steve @5 … “Push his buttons a few times, and watch him explode in front of a national audience.”

    Once he has an explosion during a debate, or sues his F-bombs while someone is wielding a camera anywhere else; moderate people will turn away from him. Sure the hard core Republicans don’t care and would think the other person ‘deserved’ it and no apology is necessary. Isn’t that what authoritarian figures do? Yell at you and call you names. Isn’t that what a lot of those hard core Republicans yearn for? Reliving their childhood, where father knew best and let you have it when you ‘deserved’ it.

    Luckily for us… that’s only about 28% of the population. Nobody is gonna change their mind, doesn’t matter how much logic and reasoning you do with them. Actually if you’re not careful you may see some F-bombs hurled in your direction for trying to ‘brainwash’ them.

  • Rational thought and discourse is anathema to Conservatives of all stripes, and Conservative Republicans in particular.

    It explains why Mike Huckabee does not accept that evolutional biology is well demonstrated in scientific experiments and research. Or why Republicans hate rational thought in general: It interferes with the testerone rush too much.

    In the case of Chris Mathews, it is more a case of superficiality, where taking the time to analyze and think would mean he might not make it to the Kennedy Center tongiht, or miss that Georgetown coctail party. Better to endorse the man “everyone wants to have a beer with”, than go over his actual policies and results.

    Has a shallower person ever occupied a prime time commentator’s chair than Mr. Mathews? Walter Cronkite’s description of his impression of modern Netwrok News Anchors as “Well coiffed hair, and nothing more” can be said to have reached its zenith in “Hardball with Chris Mathews”.

  • DrGail – the DNC does have people tracking the Republicans with video cameras. That’s apparently part of how the “in Iraq for a million years” got out, according to a DNC email I got.

  • Anne, @10,
    There were whispered rumours at the time (and slightly louder since), that the Kerry/Edwards ’04 ticket was one of those arranged marriages which didn’t work out at all, due to incompatibility of the “participants”. Makes one wonder how they’d have thole it through the 4 or even 8 yrs, had Kerry been elected but it doesn’t make his endorsement a surprise.

  • The press was all over Al Gore about perceived hypocrisy–to the point of exaggerating nonexistent statements and events; they should be just as happy to beat McCain over the head with this stuff, but that would be in contravention of a narrative that they have built about McCain for years.

    On the other hand, it has been my belief for a long time that Democrats need to call things bullsh*t when they are bullsh*t. Maybe if they start to talk like the rest of us then it will be easier to believe that they understand us and can be expected to serve our interests

  • Don’t forget it’s not guaranteed that a Democrat will win the presidency. Much as I would prefer a Democratic victory, the possibility of a Republican winning still exists. And if that is to be the case, I sure as hell prefer McCain over any of the other GOP candidates, his unfortunate pro-war views notwithstanding.

  • I am surprised to read about McCain’s 1998 remarks about Chelsea Clinton, (and kind of hurt too). How in the hell could he think an apology wouId make this go away. I don’t follow politics closely, am a bit worldly myself, and am supporting Hillary, but in all fairness, this was in extremely bad taste. I am really let down in John McCain. To think, that I once thought he would make a good commander in chief. I’m mad at myself for not knowing about this, and I admit that I’ll have to start reading more. By the way is he a drunk or something?

    I’m a “middle of the road” Democrat, but I always vote (in my opnion) for the best candidate, on either side. I will now, never vote for John McCain, and I feel sorry for my republican friends to have such ilk represent them. Can’t they do better? No wonder Ann Coulter says she would support Hillary over McCain. I have never agreed with her on anything, but I sure do on this.

    Bobby Brummett, 72

  • Comments are closed.