McCain struggles to keep temper in check during NYT interview

The details are a little murky, but in 2004, John Kerry apparently considered John McCain for the Democratic presidential ticket. According to Kerry, top McCain aides approached him about McCain’s interest in running as Kerry’s VP. McCain denies this, but he nevertheless acknowledged on national television at the time that he’d consider joining the Democratic ticket, should Kerry extend the offer.

I was always a little surprised that this didn’t become more of an issue during this year’s Republican primaries. Mitt Romney made a half-hearted attempt to generate some attention, but on the whole, McCain was never forced to talk about his openness to running against Bush-Cheney four years ago (or, for that matter, his publicized consideration of leaving the Republican Party altogether in 2001).

Despite the fact that this never caused him any serious political damage, McCain is apparently surprisingly sensitive about it.

What began as a typical chat session with traveling reporters on the plane from Atlanta to New Orleans quickly became a testy exchange with McCain. The senator was questioned on the details of a conversation with former presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 about being his potential running mate.

The topic came up earlier this morning during a town hall at the headquarters of Chic-Fil-A, where an employee asked if McCain would consider John Kerry as a running mate for this election cycle.

McCain answered in Atlanta that his and Kerry’s political views are too different. “I just totally disagree with them,” McCain said. “He is a liberal Democrat… I am a conservative Republican. When we had that conversation in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

Now, that last part is simply not true. McCain may say now that he “ever even considered such a thing,” but he did say, during a CBS News interview in 2004 that if Kerry offered him offered him the VP slot, “Obviously I would entertain it.” Given this, it’s odd that McCain would lie about this now.

But the real trouble came this afternoon, when a NYT reporter followed up on the point.

MSNBC said, “McCain showed his infamous temper.” ABC News said McCain “lost his cool.”

Those descriptions might be a little hyperbolic, but the subject of his 2004 discussions with Kerry are definitely a sore spot for McCain and it showed.

For those who can’t watch video clips online…

Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times asked, “Senator, can I ask you about Senator Kerry. I just went back and looked at our story, the Times story, and you told Sheryl Stolberg that you had never had a conversation with Kerry about being about vice president…”

McCain testily replied, “Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that. That I had a conversation. There’s no living American in Washington — that knows that, there’s no one.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And you know it, too. You know it. So, I don’t even know why you ask.”

Bumiller: “Well, I ask because I just read…”

McCain: “You do know it. You do know it.”

Bumiller: “Because I just read in the Times in May of ’04 you said….”

McCain: “I don’t know what you may have read or heard of, I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe in May of ’04 I hadn’t had the conversation…”

Bumiller: “But do you recall the conversation?”

McCain: “I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?”

Bumiller: “Well can I ask you when the conversation was?”

McCain: “No. nope, because the issue is closed as far as I’m concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.”

Bumiller: “Can you describe the conversation?”

McCain: “No, of course not. I don’t describe private conversations.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you…”

McCain: “Why should I? Then there’s no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don’t know that that’s a private conversation. I think that’s a public conversation.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you’re so angry?”

McCain: “Pardon me?”

Bumiller: “Never mind, never mind.”

McCain: “I mean, it’s well known. Everybody knows. It’s been well chronicled a thousand times. John Kerry asked if I would consider being his running mate.”

Bumiller: “Okay.”

McCain: “And I said categorically no, under no circumstances. That’s very well known.”

On the issue of McCain getting rather testy, I’m telling you, temperament is going to be a campaign issue this year.

On the facts of McCain’s remarks, it’s odd that he’s being so dishonest about recent history. Based on his own public remarks, McCain said he was open to running with Kerry and also said he was always opposed to running with Kerry. McCain said he talked to Kerry about the ticket and also said he never talked to Kerry about the ticket.

How did this guy get a reputation for “straight talk” again?

Thanks for giving this its own post, Steve.

This isn’t huge, but I do think it will help erode the support he has with his base — the media.

  • There’s fodder for a general election ad right there.

    (voice over) John McCain, a straight-talker?
    (run clip from 2004 interview)
    (run clip from this interview)
    (voice over) that didn’t seem like such straight talk to me?
    (repeat clips with just the two key lines)
    America needs a President that will be straight with them.

    I’m Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

  • Bumiller was so close to the story of her career. A few more “Why are you angry”s might have driven him over the edge. Our reporter, TR, was right on top of that story. šŸ™‚

  • Edo said:

    There’s fodder for a general election ad right there.

    (voice over) John McCain, a straight-talker?

    Good idea, Edo. McCain talks straight but with two tongues.

  • I cannot wait for Obama to “debate” McDepends. I don’t imagine that he’d be able to make it through the whole thing without a meltdown.

    Such a beautiful sight it shall be to behold, too!

  • I live to serve, Dale.

    I wonder if the fact that this was a reporter from the NYTimes had anything to do with the hostility?

  • I keep hearing from Republicans that they see McCain’s “anger issues” as a serious problem that will not get better with time. We need to keep this going and pound it into the collective mind.

    Combine that with the general good impression Obama makes on Republicans (they like him even if they don’t like his political views). I think they know he will beat McCain in November, and they’re not terribly upset about it.

  • TR (6) is closest, but I’m surprised no immediate reaction that tomorrow’s sping will be, “it was the NYT. What do you expect? or Who wouldn’t be mad?”

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  • How did this guy get a reputation for ā€œstraight talkā€ again?

    Some of it is from the Obama campaign:

    John McCain may have a long history of straight talk and independent thinking…

  • the republican party is going to have to change its acronym from GOP to GOM (Grumpy Old Men)

  • That’s one thing I look forward to in the general. Obama will surely get inside St John the Straitalkers OODA Loop just as well and as truly as he has gotten into HRC’s. But with McCain, he won’t have to hold back his responses, temper them to not break apart the Dem party. But will use JSM’s temper to drive wedges between McCain’s and independant and “liberal, sane, sentient, Republicans and toward Obama in Nov.

  • Just what we need – another petulant moron with an impaired brain. I am sure the public will rally around this man with uncontrollable exuberance!

    He even has a fraudulent military record from Viet Nam – JUST LIKE DUR CHIMPFUHRER!

    A vote for mccain = 4 more years of the criminal cabal behind chimpy!

    If dur chimpfuhrer does not declare himself “decider for life” – then the folks that brought you the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004 will see to it that we get mc-lame, unless, of course, they can get SHILLARY!

  • After reading the post, I was expecting a screaming, wildly-gesturing, generally unhinged McCain. What I see in the video is someone who’s somewhat annoyed. &nbsp His self-contradictions regarding the 2004 VP position should be the sole focus here… playing this up as a “temper” issue just makes those of us on the Left look a bit unhinged.

  • #15: “…playing this up as a ā€œtemperā€ issue just makes those of us on the Left look a bit unhinged.”

    No, no, no. We want to spin this (carefully) back to the media. Sure, he wasn’t foaming at the mouth and gesticulating wildly, but you could see a bit of red in the eyes there, and the message we need to project is that this man Can Be Provoked, and easily. This is valuable.

  • If this was not a “temper issue”, why did the reporter ask him why he was so angry? We can’t see his face like she can.

  • Was it temper, no, but it was a tell. When Bush uncomfortable with his lies, his tell is to either fumble his words or he gets the sleazy smirk on his face. When McCain is uncomfortable he acts like he did in the video and hyper-aggressively tries to dismiss the conversation as no big deal. The media should take note. This is how he acts when you busted him on a lie.

  • McCain: ā€œI don’t know what you may have read or heard of, I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe in May of ā€˜04 I hadn’t had the conversationā€¦ā€

    This should be McCain’s “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is”

    It seems McCain is trying to get from under it, by suggesting that when he said something, it was before he had the conversation…. Kind’a like John Kerry’s “I was against it before I was for it”

    I agree that we shouldn’t play up the anger issue… If he gets angry it will happen naturally, no need to make a point of it… Make the point where it belongs… His flip flopping on the issue, and denying what he said himself.

    The more you point to the stupid anger issue, the more the right wingers will assume it’s the media trying to get him, just like they did with the NYT article on the lobbyist, and the alleged affair… Instead of sticking to the unethical behavior with lobbyists when he’s claiming to not be influenced them.

    I’m getting a little annoyed by the democrats, who are trying to do the ‘gotcha’ (Republican tactics) when the truth is far more telling.

    Truth: Lobbying issues and doing favors Sleaze: affair innuendo

    Truth: Open to be Kerry’s VP Sleaze: look he got angry

    Let’s keep the truth on the Democratic side and keep the sleaze where it usually is; the republican side. When he gets angry, everybody will see it, including the republicans… if the affair is true, everybody will hear about it, including the republicans.

  • “The more you point to the stupid anger issue…”

    That’s the thing, though. There’s nothing stupid or sleazy about the anger issue. A person whose first stress-response is anger is absolutely unfit to be in a position like the presidency. If it were inconsequential, sure, we could dismiss it as just playing gotcha.

    I don’t suppose it’ll do to worry too much about it. He’s showing us his own weak points, as petorado ably points out, so I hope the candidates on our side are taking notes.

  • John Mccain is the greatest Chameleon of our time. I think a great Campaign ad would be to ask Boy George’s Permission to play Karma Chameleon and show for 1 minute all the things Mccain has flip flopped on. It is time for the Democratic Party to get tough, and to fight back. Mccain was considered to be John Kerry’s running mate, and 4 years later he wants to be Mr Ultra Conservative.

    Mccain is a tricky guy, and if we don’t let people know just how much of a lier he is he just might get elected. It is not something we can allow.

  • Comments are closed.