Senator Hothead

I'm not sure I think the fact that John McCain likes to curse at his colleagues or say things like "thanks for the question, you little jerk" when he doesn't like a question at a town hall meeting is, as such, a problem. But it seems to me to be of a piece with potential diplomatic fiascos like his 100 years in Iraq gambit.

Part of being President is that it's important for you to not suddenly and accidentally alter the declared policies of the United States of America just because you didn't eat your prunes in the morning and you're feeling a bit grumpy. The Bush administration has, for years, pursued what its critics (myself included) have characterized as an Iraq agenda focused on the desirability of securing a permanent military foothold in that country. To its credit, however, the Bush administration always recognized the sensitivity of the issue to the point where they would shy away from coming out and saying this. That there was the diplomacy, and part of being president is knowing how to do it. On the Senate floor, straight talk like "Only an asshole would put together a budget like this" (McCain to Senator Pete Domenici, 1999 or "Fuck you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room" (McCain to Senator John Cornyn during negotiations over immigration reform) is a faux pas that can be overcome with an apology after the fact. Those same instincts could, however, be a major problem if applied to the DMZ in Korea or the Taiwan Straits.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, what do we think Domenici did with the '99 budget?

Comments

The "little jerk" comment was a joke, and funny.

And Cornyn and Domenici are assholes.

Posted by Patrick | February 16, 2008 1:18 PM

McCain's temper could become a big issue. He's acknowledged the problem in the past and claims to have the problem under control, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

His ridiculous letter to Obama during the debate on ethics reform is a perfect example:
http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/

The contrast between McCain's arrogant and bitter sniping and Obama's humble response is striking.

Posted by Mike | February 16, 2008 1:22 PM

It's an old attack on McCain. Who cares? Hillary's been known to toss ashtrays and call Putin soulless in public. Why don't you focus on that, too?

Posted by Helter | February 16, 2008 1:25 PM

I'm sure sitting down with the Sunnis and Shia in Iraq and telling them to "cut the bullshit" will wrap things up nicely, too.

Posted by McKingford | February 16, 2008 1:30 PM

I've had it up to here with these misogynistic attacks on McCain's character!

Posted by lampwick | February 16, 2008 1:36 PM

Great post, but I'm not sure as to the function of the "as such" in the first paragraph. You sure seem to be arguing that his unstable temper is a problem.

Posted by Justin | February 16, 2008 1:39 PM

McCain's mistake is being bad-tempered with people who will later talk about it. Not that this is a minor mistake-- but, in fact, bad behavior from managerial types is pretty common.

Posted by MattF | February 16, 2008 1:41 PM

I notice that the two outbursts identified were directed against fellow Rethuglicans. Maybe that explains why some of his best friends in the Senate are on the other side of the isle (e.g. Joe Lieberman and Russel Feingold).

Posted by SLC | February 16, 2008 1:47 PM

Liebushman has his own "isle." One of the things I'm most looking forward to after November is seeing the Democrats increase their lead in the Senate and chopping Bloody Joe's balls off.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 16, 2008 1:53 PM

Matt's point is well taken, but, at Patrick suggests, Domenici really is an asshole who really has put together budgets only an asshole could conceive. And Cornyn deserves lots and lots of 'fuck you's - he's extraordinarily worm-like, even for a modern Republican. McCain's problem is two-fold: 1.) he apologizes for or otherwise retracts/recends truthful statements like these, and 2.) as MY says, presidents can't be intemperate in public.

Posted by jonnybutter | February 16, 2008 1:59 PM

Well, he did say, "fuck you" to Cornyn. McCain can't be all bad.

Posted by jim | February 16, 2008 2:17 PM

Cornyn and Domenici are assholes.

Cornyn, in particular, is the worst kind of asshole: the dumb asshole who thinks he's a smart, cocksure asshole. I can't decide whether he's the dumbest and most craven bullshit artist in the Senate, but he's in a constant battle to secure the top spot.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 16, 2008 2:22 PM

pseud writes: "Cornyn, in particular, is the worst kind of asshole: the dumb asshole who thinks he's a smart, cocksure asshole. I can't decide whether he's the dumbest and most craven bullshit artist in the Senate, but he's in a constant battle to secure the top spot."

Jim Inhofe by a mile. Inhofe is the dumbest asshole in the Western hemisphere.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 16, 2008 2:29 PM

This is why republicans dislike the idea of diplomacy first and direct negotiations with people who don't like us. They simply can't do it.

While it's good to recognize your limits, and smart to play to your strengths and avoid your weaknesses, these weaknesses are the primary part of the job.

Posted by MikeJ | February 16, 2008 2:40 PM

This is the same reason I couldn't back Wesley "Pristina" Clark in 2004. McCain's foreign policy ideas are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 2:59 PM

McCain's problem isn't that he's a hothead. If he was someone who was knowledgable and right on the issues, I could forgive him that. But as MY has noted and as The New Republic painstakingly documents, McCain has no core beliefs, convictions, principles, or knowledge base that he relies upon. He's not stupid, like Bush, but he is a man given to tacking whichever way his interests or his current emotional impulses (hatred of Bush and the wingnuts from 2000-02, oops, need them, better suck up again 2003-2008) lead him. The proble isn't being emotional, it's being emotional while not knowing WTF you're talking about and pandering to whomever you need to pander to at the moment.

Posted by scott | February 16, 2008 3:03 PM

Anybody who calls senators assholes is ok by me, even if they're also a senator. Also, I've heard nothing about McCain unleashing his temper on his underlings, or on waiters, or anything else that would make me think he's a real prick.

Posted by too many steves | February 16, 2008 3:15 PM

Liebushman has his own "isle." One of the things I'm most looking forward to after November is seeing the Democrats increase their lead in the Senate and chopping Bloody Joe's balls off.

I'd like to see some of the GOPers who were so upaet about the Democrats kicking Lieberman out in the primary show the same level of concern for Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.

Posted by Glaivester | February 16, 2008 3:15 PM

Scott. I agree, except I think that McCain has more than one problem, so the tag-team of Matt and Jonathan Chait pointing them all out over the next few months is good. Let's hope they have an audience of journalists in whose fertile mindes these mustard-seed posts can grow into powerful skepticism.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 3:17 PM

doesn't it make sense to keep Iraq as an imperial possession if your economy relies substantially on oil and oil is vanishing and Iraq is full of it? assuming the only repercussions are a relatively low casualty rate and a few manageable (and conveniently exploitable) terrorist incidents, wasn't the invasion a good deal?

but no, it costs.

so the crucial question is economic: have the gains in oil defrayed the immense outlay? nobody can answer that yet.

Posted by Hart Crane | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM

"have the gains in oil defrayed the immense outlay? nobody can answer that yet."

Um, I can.

Here is the nominal cost of oil to a refiner from Jan 2001 to Dec 2007. Notice how the cost didn't jump after Sept. 11th too much? But it did keep rising after the Iraq War and the ensuing chaos. Now, I will concede that growing demand in China and India were part of the reason, but the instability in the region due to our intervention is surely also a cause. Moreover, if we had really only cared about oil, why didn't we just let American companies invest in Iraq and drop the UN sanctions? In any case, the "outlays" were huge and the price of oil has substantially risen.

Jan-2001 25.45
Feb-2001 26.09
Mar-2001 24.05
Apr-2001 23.87
May-2001 25.31
Jun-2001 24.92
Jul-2001 23.76
Aug-2001 24.44
Sep-2001 23.73
Oct-2001 20.04
Nov-2001 17.24
Dec-2001 16.52
Jan-2002 17.38
Feb-2002 18.43
Mar-2002 22
Apr-2002 24.1
May-2002 25.03
Jun-2002 24.05
Jul-2002 25.16
Aug-2002 26.19
Sep-2002 27.66
Oct-2002 26.7
Nov-2002 24.6
Dec-2002 26.93
Jan-2003 30.52
Feb-2003 33
Mar-2003 30.65
Apr-2003 26.02
May-2003 25.74
Jun-2003 27.92
Jul-2003 28.55
Aug-2003 29.15
Sep-2003 26.39
Oct-2003 27.75
Nov-2003 28.28
Dec-2003 29.28
Jan-2004 30.93
Feb-2004 31.72
Mar-2004 33.1
Apr-2004 33.47
May-2004 36.32
Jun-2004 34.59
Jul-2004 36.68
Aug-2004 40.3
Sep-2004 41.35
Oct-2004 46.13
Nov-2004 41.77
Dec-2004 36.6
Jan-2005 39.01
Feb-2005 41.05
Mar-2005 46.78
Apr-2005 46.71
May-2005 44.84
Jun-2005 50.3
Jul-2005 53.83
Aug-2005 59.3
Sep-2005 60.18
Oct-2005 57.18
Nov-2005 52.13
Dec-2005 52.51
Jan-2006 57.33
Feb-2006 54.82
Mar-2006 56.38
Apr-2006 62.98
May-2006 65.34
Jun-2006 65.13
Jul-2006 68.86
Aug-2006 67.77
Sep-2006 58.92
Oct-2006 54.04
Nov-2006 53.61
Dec-2006 55.98
Jan-2007 50.74
Feb-2007 54.42
Mar-2007 56.8
Apr-2007 60.65
May-2007 61.64
Jun-2007 65.07
Jul-2007 71.2
Aug-2007 69.46
Sep-2007 73.47
Oct-2007 79.85
Nov-2007 86.74
Dec-2007 86.4

Posted by Davi | February 16, 2008 4:15 PM

The Bush administration has, for years, pursued what its critics (myself included) have characterized as an Iraq agenda focused on the desirability of securing a permanent military foothold in that country. To its credit, however, the Bush administration always recognized the sensitivity of the issue to the point where they would shy away from coming out and saying this.

Before we give the Bush admin. too much credit for its sensitive diplomacy on this issue, let's do keep in mind that that same "diplomacy" is also known as "lying to the American people about why we're still in Iraq."

McCain's statement at least has the virtue of leveling with the American people.

Let's also not forget that Bush is also the guy who publicly said Israel was the model for the new Iraq. Diplomatic as hell, that.

McCain's stance on Iraq is madness, but taking what we used to call Bush's "lying to the American people" and recategorizing it as Bush's admirable "public diplomacy," just to invent a slightly better vantage point from which to criticize McCain, is both obviously cynical and, frankly, a bit gag-inducing.

Posted by urbino | February 16, 2008 4:32 PM

I'd like to see some of the GOPers who were so upaet about the Democrats kicking Lieberman out in the primary show the same level of concern for Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.

The GOP was upset with the Dems for kicking Lieberman out of the primary because Lieberman agreed with the GOP. Gilchrest got kicked out of the primary because he *disagreed* with the GOP. So it's really not the same thing at all.

Hope that clears that up...

Posted by McKingford | February 16, 2008 4:47 PM

"declared policies of the United States of America just because you didn't eat your prunes in the morning and you're feeling a bit grumpy."

Yeah or maybe Hillary would go all menopausal and screw everything up. Or being a young flighty guy Obama would decide he'd rather do a collaboration with Kanye West so he can win another Grammy.

"Prunes" "grumpy" how cliche.

Posted by Thomas R | February 16, 2008 5:51 PM

"Democrats kicking Lieberman out in the primary show the same level of concern for Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest."

If this guy they got instead loses than it was a stupid move on the GOP's part. However it's not really the same thing. Gilchrest is in the House, which makes him a bit more expendable. To intentionally lose a Senate seat because the guy isn't with you on foreign policy, The Republican who ran against Chaffee did not receive much backing and in the end lost. Likewise I doubt the GOP would pull that on Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe.

Another issue is Gilchrest was generally more liberal than Liebermann was conservative. Going by the Americans for Democratic Action Liebermann's lifetime record would still, even after leaving the party, be in their 73-76% range. I don't find any year he got less than 70 from the ADA. The American Conservative Union gives Gilchrest a lifetime rating of about 61 and there are certainly years he got below 50.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006house.htm

Posted by Thomas R | February 16, 2008 6:09 PM

Personally, I think that the Senators need to stop being whiney bitches. No doubt that these same senators act the same way towards their interns and staff assistants-- it's just that the latter category of cursees have to accept that abuse because their career depends on it. If the senators themselves can't handle some salty language and stressful arguments from their colleagues, then it's clear that they're the sort of wimps who can dish it out but can't take it.

Posted by Tyro | February 16, 2008 7:26 PM

and he aint that bright to begin with... not down right stupid like bush, but pretty mediocre.

and he is getting too fucking old to be president.

our system is so broken, that an old dim wit rage acholic may become the most powerful person in the world.

our species is doomed.

Posted by escargot | February 16, 2008 7:47 PM

Obama has a talent for not saying what he means, which Eisenhower did, too. Ike used a lot of obscure military gobbledygook jargon that didn't pin him down to any single course of action when he wasn't ready to choose one. It's very useful in diplomacy.

On the other hand, I wonder if Obama's Sally Field-like need to be liked could lead him to leave the wrong impression with foreign leaders that he agrees with them. For an example from recent history, you can see that at work in Ambassador April Glaspie's 1990 conversation with Saddam Hussein that inadvertently left Saddam with the impression that it was okay with us to invade Kuwait.

Obama has spent his whole life trying to leave the impression that he understands other people's arguments and that he _might_ just agree with them. This is wonderfully useful in getting elected President but can be dangerous when you finally get power and you can't be all things to all people anymore.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 16, 2008 8:27 PM

McCain's also famous for a charming little joke about Chelsea Clinton. Some kinda guy.

Posted by Nat | February 16, 2008 10:01 PM

Steve:

Psst. Hey Steve. I heard that Obama has African ancestry! I wouldn't trust a guy like that with the Presidency. Would you? He doesn't seem to know his place. Damn shame they took down all of those separate but equal bathrooms, water fountains, and schools. If our country hadn't gone to pot, he wouldn't be so uppity. To paraphrase Trent Lott, if only Strom Thurmond had been elected... Maybe you guys at the American Conservative should write some articles and get out the word...

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 11:26 PM

"our system is so broken, that an old dim wit rage acholic may become the most powerful person in the world. our species is doomed."

Yes.

Have a nice day.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 17, 2008 1:36 AM

Inhofe is the dumbest asshole in the Western hemisphere.

That's a claim with merit, but Inhofe doesn't have the sheer ambition of fuckwittedness that Cornyn displays in the Senate. Inhofe's is more narrow and deep in his dumbfuckery, whereas Cornyn can be guaranteed to bloviate in a fashion that is both idiotic and self-aggrandising on a vast array of topics that he knows fuck-all about, but seems convinced of his expertise.

McCain is actually closer to Bush in his constrained curiosity, though the circumference is a little broader.

As for Sailer Boy, he's crafted a curious salt-cod rhetoric in which to dress a rather old and sad line towards people who aren't as pasty as him.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 17, 2008 1:46 AM

One of McKain's obvious faults is his arrogance regarding military matters. He disparaged the Army Officers by claiming he knows more about war than they do. He patronizes people by claiming if they question the occupation of Iraq and how long it's going to last, it is an insult to (someone's) intelligence. Yeah, John, an insult to our intelligence. McKain was a fucking Navy Fly-Boy who didn't even fly that many missions. He doesn't know jack shit about Infantry tactics or fighting in house to house in streets or jungles. Who would you believe has more expertise about fighting guerrilla warfare, a Navy Fly Boy or Infantry officer? That's a no-brainer. Besides when he gave Bush that big bear-hug at the 2004 Convention after what Bush's campaign did to him in 2000, he acted like a whipped dog. It was the most pathetic display of political groveling that I ever saw. Made me puke.

Posted by R.T.Thaddeus | February 17, 2008 10:27 AM

"Inhofe is the dumbest asshole in the Western hemisphere."

Oh I don't know. What about John Triplette

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8271407

Or for earlier names Colin Ferguson

http://www.cap-press.com/books/1195

For politicians Inhofe might be it, but I think there's just got to be dumber politicians in Guatemala or Bolivia.

Posted by Thomas R | February 17, 2008 10:51 AM

Didn't eat his prunes in the morning???

That kind of rank ageism I guess is only ok when it's against Republicans. I guess if Obama had been Republican, it would have been "didn't eat his watermelon in the morning..." Sheeesh.

Posted by nonesuch | February 17, 2008 2:10 PM

McCain is mainly interested in avenging his embarrassing failure in Viet Nam on, what, his fifth mission?

Posted by Where's Sally? | February 17, 2008 5:54 PM

Age has real effects (I'm unfortunately getting too acquainted with them) and it is foolish to not at least consider the implications of a person of McCain's age. I'm not saying that it would automatically rule out someone running from the presidency, but there are serious and substantial issues that need to be addressed forthrightly and not just shouted down by intimidation.

Posted by adastra | February 17, 2008 6:01 PM