« Post-second GOP debate notes | Main | The "David E. Kelley Contempt Fallacy": TV versus real-world contempt of court »

Saturday, May 19, 2007

McCain owes an apology Beldar opposes McCain's bid for GOP nomination

Mccain_nyp U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)'s skepticism about the pending "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation (a/k/a McCain-Kennedy) very closely mirrors my own and also, I believe, that of a good-sized majority of his other constituents in this largest Republican border state. As far as I'm concerned, Sen. Cornyn's earning his salary, and my vote if he runs for re-election, by voicing some very legitimate concerns over that proposed legislation.

So I take a quite bit of derivative personal offense when another senator — especially one from another Republican border state, and most especially from a senator who ought to be on best behavior lest his presidential campaign self-destruct over longstanding (and well-justified) "temperament issues" —  shouts "F**k you!" at Sen. Cornyn for representing me effectively:

Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday.

In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, "F- - - you!" at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation.

"This is chickens- - - - stuff," McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."

Surprised by McCain's foul-mouthed broadside, Cornyn told him he was "out of line."

This isn't just an example of the New York Post blowing stuff out of proportion. Essentially the same story is reported by the WaPo (here   and here) and Fox News (via Allah on HotAir), too.

McCain's camp denied that he claimed superior knowledge of the bill but acknowledged that the two Republicans went at it. "These negotiations can be very tense, and there was a spirited exchange. That's it," said Brian Jones, McCain's presidential campaign spokesman.

Yeah, right. Is there supposed to be an excuse in there somewhere? Or is it the position of Sen. McCain that shouting "F*** you!" at a fellow senator in a crowded Senate meeting room is acceptable behavior?

It is emphatically not acceptable behavior. Sen. McCain owes Sen. Cornyn — and frankly, Sen. Cornyn's constituents, and his own — an immediate and unstinting public apology. Sen. McCain claims that this draft legislation is a "textbook example of how the congressional process was designed to work," but his own conduct is a textbook example of immature and irresponsible pique — ill-fitting a U.S. senator, and incomprehensibly inappropriate for a would-be U.S. president. He should be ashamed.


UPDATE (Sat May 19 @ 3:30pm): Prof. Althouse (h/t InstaPundit) has a contrary opinion:

This strikes me as babyish tattling. I want a President who says "f*ck you" and calls things that are chickens**t "chickens**t." Not where the kids can hear him, of course. But this was a closed meeting and Cornyn was apparently trying to disqualify his opinion because he dares to go off and run for President. McCain was entitled to push back. I say it's nothing.

I do not want an American president who cannot restrain himself from shouting "F*** you!" at his peers. Losing one's temper to the point of shouting profanity in the workplace is not something to encourage or trivialize in general. But doing so when one is in a job or profession or position that's supposed to involve dignity and sound judgment demonstrates a lack of dignity and a lack of judgment. I don't know Prof. Althouse personally, but it would surprise me if she shouts "F*** you!" at faculty colleagues, or would think "it's nothing" if they regularly did so at her.

Prof. Reynold's linking post to Prof. Althouse's opinion is titled "MCCAIN TALKS TOUGH, and that's okay." Well, sure, tough talk is sometimes actually vital. But this isn't "tough talk," it's rude talk. Private rude talk is one thing; even public rude talk may sometimes be excusable, depending on just how rude and what the circumstances are — but in these circumstances, it wasn't. I'm surprised that neither Sen. McCain, Prof. Althouse nor, apparently, Prof. Reynolds seem able to draw that simple, but very important, distinction.

I'm far less worried about McCain using this language "where the kids can hear him" than I am "where people actively interested in the business of the U.S. Senate can hear him"! Certainly all four of my teenagers have known these words for years and years, but they, at least, have the maturity to know when they ought not be used and the self-control to restrain their actions accordingly. I'm not worried that they'll be corrupted by McCain's profanity; rather, I'm worried that they'll lose respect for our national institutions and national leaders because someone like McCain seems to feel free to behave himself like a drunken hockey fan while on the job in the Capitol Building.


UPDATE (Sun May 21 @ 3:45pm): Prof. Althouse was gracious enough to leave an answer to a question — "How many times, Prof. Althouse, have you shouted "F*** you!" at a colleague with whom you disagreed in a meeting?" — that I left in her comments (ellipsis hers):

Never. But I'm amongst mild-mannered academics where repression and passive aggression prevails... and it's NOT pretty. The world of active politicians is very different.

I don't doubt her characterization of law school faculties as being bastions of passive-aggression, but I don't recall many of my own profs as having been repressed or mild-mannered. In any event, what would be aberrant, uncivil behavior at Wisconsin Law School ought certainly be considered the same within the chambers of what's supposed to be "the World's Greatest Deliberative Body."


UPDATE (Sun May 21 @ 4:45pm): Scott Johnson at PowerLine has a whole lot more about the background of McCain's outburst, and if his sources are accurate, McCain's misbehavior was far worse than previously revealed. Supposedly McCain was worried that delays during a Friday morning meeting to finalize the language of the immigration bill might cause him to miss a scheduled 1:30 p.m. press conference, at which he badly wanted to appear — in between campaign fund-raising trips — to claim credit.

With a dozen Senators, two Cabinet members (Chertoff and Gutierrez) and perhaps 15 staffers in the room discussing an unpublished documents exceeding 300 pages in length, it was slow going. Senator Cornyn, tacitly supported by Sen. Jon Kyl, pushed hard to streamline legal procedures to allow prompt deportation of illegals. Senator Kennedy resisted.

As the clock moved closer to 1:30 p.m., Senator McCain suddenly lost it. "This is chickens***," he told Senator Cornyn. "I think it would expedite things if you would just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up." Senator Cornyn responded: "Wait a minute. We’ve been meeting for three months on this in good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think you’re out of line."

Senator McCain responded: "F*** you! I know what is going on here. I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!” Other Senators moved in to calm things down, and the talks went on.

So my senator can't even be in the room, much less debate policy, if it threatens to delay John McCain's photo op?

I believe this is the point at which lefty bloggers would begin screaming "John McCain is trying to disenfranchise me!" I'm not that hysterical (and they routinely stretch the concept of "enfranchisement" beyond recognition). I'm sure that in a calm moment, Sen. McCain would agree that the voters of the State of Texas are just as entitled to have their views represented as are the voters of the State of Arizona.

The problem is: How often does John McCain have calm moments any more?

I'm now at the point where I'm obliged to say, per the just-revised heading to this post, that I've made a new personal decision. Previously, I haven't picked one candidate to formally support (mainly because I want to see if Fred Thompson enters the race). And in any event, my support or opposition to anyone is unlikely to much influence anyone's vote but my own. Nevertheless:

I now formally announce my opposition to John McCain's candidacy for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. I would still probably hold my nose and vote for him in November 2008 if he became the GOP's nominee, because I don't believe in self-immolatory politics and the Democratic alternative will inevitably be worse on the issues most important to me. But I definitely do not want to see John McCain become the GOP nominee, and in the unlikely event that my vote still matters by the time of the Texas presidential primary elections, I'll definitely vote against him.

Some other bloggers, like Prof. Althouse, and some commenters here say this is a tempest in a teapot. I respectfully disagree. Character and temperament matter. His made him a war hero, for which he deserves respect, but they now make him an unattractive choice among the alternatives for the GOP nomination. I am convinced that the party and the nation can do much better.


UPDATE (Sun May 21 @ 9:45pm): In the comments below: Why this episode is not comparable to VPOTUS Cheney telling Sen. Leahy "go f*** yourself" on the Senate floor.

Posted by Beldar at 01:20 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2007) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to McCain owes an apology Beldar opposes McCain's bid for GOP nomination and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» http://instapundit.com/archives2/005387.php from Instapundit.com (v.2)

Tracked on May 19, 2007 5:15:33 PM

» Anyone but McCain ... from Bill's Bites

Tracked on May 19, 2007 8:00:48 PM

» Amnesty, shamnesty. Maybe it'll die in the Senate from Bill's Bites

Tracked on May 21, 2007 12:35:28 AM

» McCain privately apologized to Cornyn shortly after May 2007 profane shouting from BeldarBlog

Tracked on Feb 17, 2008 6:01:09 AM


(1) J Kerner made the following comment | May 19, 2007 3:10:20 PM | Permalink

John McCain is simply the one candidate known to have taken a bribe. He was one of the Keating Five, who traded political influence for cash. He is unwirthy of high office.

(2) Beldar made the following comment | May 19, 2007 4:21:55 PM | Permalink

J Kerner, you're entitled to your opinion, but Sen. McCain, although admitting to bad judgment in who he was associating with, was never indicted, much less convicted, for taking any bribes in the Keating affair. That long-ago lapse in judgment doesn't much trouble me; I'm worried about his current judgment.

(3) Brian made the following comment | May 19, 2007 5:32:28 PM | Permalink

An attorney friend of mine reports his father taught him that the use of profanity is usually the sign of a weak mind trying to make a point forcefully.

(4) James made the following comment | May 19, 2007 5:39:15 PM | Permalink

"You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."

The nerve of the guy, trying to derail bad legislation! How do people like that get into the US Senate anyway?

(5) Bill Peschel made the following comment | May 19, 2007 5:49:34 PM | Permalink

I would like to know a little more about what led up to this outburst. There are people who are thicker than brick walls, and about the only thing you can say to them is "F-you".

I can understand why it's better to have someone who bites their tongue, however. A person given to outbursts tends to intimidate subordinates, and if you want to be open to bad news or opposing opinion, this is not the way to act.

(6) Jim in Texas made the following comment | May 19, 2007 5:50:33 PM | Permalink

Sen. Cornyn is my senator along with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Sam Johnson, also a former POW with McCain, is my Congressman.

I called all three last week and voiced my objection to the bill vigorously and I find McCain’s outburst immature and unbecoming. I actually supported McCain in 2000 but his action since then have turned me off completely. I can’t imagine a man who blithely assailed the First Amendment and who want to open our borders to another 48 million illegals immigrants ever becoming president.

Someone needs to vote him out of office.

(7) John F. made the following comment | May 19, 2007 6:21:47 PM | Permalink

The bill says 'f*** you' to border security and amnesty concerns. Its genesis says 'f*** you' to the democratic process. Senator McCain says 'f*** you' to those who dare question the compound 'f*** you' he has already sanctified; this is the difference between obscenity and mere profanity.

(8) happyfeet made the following comment | May 19, 2007 6:38:41 PM | Permalink

If you can't say it on '24' you shouldn't say it in Congress. Simple as that.

(9) DRJ made the following comment | May 19, 2007 7:01:25 PM | Permalink

Senator McCain was upset because Senator Cornyn's objection was valid and McCain had no credible response to it. McCain responded like a petulant teenager who was caught coming in after curfew and responded accordingly. Thus, in my opinion, McCain owes Cornyn an apology for using bullying tactics to respond to a meaningful point. The fact that McCain's response also involved profanity was simply another indicator of how immature he can be when challenged.

Arizona voters are deluded if they think McCain is an effective leader, but I'm certain American voters have more sense than to elect him President.

(10) DaMav made the following comment | May 19, 2007 7:41:15 PM | Permalink

Good grief isn't this little tifflet is hardly deserving of anyone's time. It would be hard to find someone more opposed than me to the latest Senate Amnesty Proposal and more skeptical of McCain.

But making a big deal of an exchange like this occurring behind closed doors says more about the naivete and thin skin of those fueling the fire than those perpetrating the act.

We've got 20 million plus illegal aliens about to be given instant amnesty, a touch and go war in Iraq, and we want to babble on about one Senator saying something uncouth to another? Talk about focusing on the leaf and not the forest.

(11) jane made the following comment | May 19, 2007 8:16:22 PM | Permalink

Beldar, caught your comment at Althouse. What nobody’s saying is that there very probably is some kind of calculus on cussing acceptability relied upon by most (liberal) pundits and much of the public. Given the same Congressional scenario but with different players:

Democrat cursing to a Repub- good or ho-hum.
Repub to Repub- tacky, but useful for GOP bashing.
White Repub to ethnic Democrat- real bad.
Male Repub to female Democrat- even worse.
Female Repub to whomever- too terrible to contemplate.

Will be moving back to Texas soon and am looking forward to the ‘gosh darns’ that the Texans I grew up with would say when they hit their thumb with a hammer... Also, to trying to do renovation and construction sin Mexicanos...

(12) Pierre made the following comment | May 19, 2007 8:47:19 PM | Permalink

Good post Beldar!

I am with you. McCain is a train wreck looking for a spot to land.

Talking tough is standing behind your principals. Talking rudely is screaming obscenities when you are out of ideas.

This immigration proposal is a mess that will instantly produce another large group of poor people eager to vote themselves a portion of my money. After all they will be soon be priced out of the market by the next batch of illegals. Welcome to the wonderful world of Republican politics where there isnt a problem in the world that cant be made worse while destroying the party at the same time. We got some geniuses in DC thats for sure.

(13) slick made the following comment | May 20, 2007 12:25:25 AM | Permalink

There's something very troubling about a man running for POTUS who can't handle opposing viewpoints.

For a number of reasons, McCain is unfit to be POTUS.

(14) Sean made the following comment | May 20, 2007 1:38:29 AM | Permalink

Never trusted McCain after McCain-Feingold.

Now going after Cornyn. McCain is a piece of turd. Dead in the water. I shudder to think of the Republican party's chances if that louse got the nomination.

(15) RWBlack made the following comment | May 20, 2007 6:05:21 AM | Permalink


Did you here it? If you are really quiet you will hear the last gasp of the McCain campaign. It happened when the hapless senator charged out ahead on the immigration debate. On the wrong side, if you are a conservative. Which John McCain has repeatedly claimed to be.

Let us review the conservative position on immigration. Conservatives believe illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should not be rewarded for it. They believe the government has the obligation for protecting those who play by the rules and obey the law and punish those who do not. Conservatives believe the line for legal immigration begins in the country of origin not in the USA.

McCain has consistently taken the non-conservative path on major issues, with the exception of Iraq. It appears instinctual. Remember McCain’s role in the terrible twelve who stopped Conservative Republicans from pushing conservative judges through the senate?

So, here was the senator with everyone but the liberal press declaring his campaign stuck in the mud. And how did he set himself apart from the pack of 10? How did he get the traction that could keep Fred Thompson from entering the race as a wildcard and winning it all? He took point on an issue contrary to a majority of the conservative constituency. In one bold stroke, he alienated most of the potential voters needed to win the Republican nomination. The immigration bill, passed or defeated, will hang around McCain’s neck from now until the last voter has left the booth.

The McCain for president campaign will limp along for months. There will still be those willing to give money to this walking dead of an organization and the liberal press, in love with John McCain, will prop him up but, for all practical purposes, his political career has peaked. It will go no further.

Goodbye, Never-To-Be-President John McCain.

Shhhhh! Can you hear it?

(16) nk made the following comment | May 20, 2007 9:34:44 AM | Permalink

McCain has been saying "F___ you" to conservatives since the 2000 primaries. His tirade against the Moral Majority, McCain-Feingold, The Gang of Fourteen deal, and now this travesty of an illegal immigration bill.

(17) rhodeymark made the following comment | May 20, 2007 10:44:02 AM | Permalink

Senator McCain is an American war hero, seemingly with a massive chip on his shoulder. It is a shame, but I can't help but look forward to Senator Thompson giving McCain his most resounding rejection ever.

(18) brickbat made the following comment | May 20, 2007 3:48:32 PM | Permalink

Chicken____ isn't so bad in context. The F Bomb, as used, says many things about the Senator--none of them good.

"I don't know Prof. Althouse personally, but it would surprise me if she shouts "F*** you!" at faculty colleagues, or would think "it's nothing" if they regularly did so at her."

Given her episode of calling people racists and then running from the room crying, I can be sure you are at least half right.

(19) buzz made the following comment | May 20, 2007 5:14:36 PM | Permalink

Brickbat, dont suppose you care to back up or verify those statements?

(20) James B. Shearer made the following comment | May 20, 2007 5:30:32 PM | Permalink

Beldar, what is your opinion of Cheney's use of the same word?

(21) Beldar made the following comment | May 20, 2007 9:23:04 PM | Permalink

Although Cheney's conversation with Leahy was on the Senate floor, it was a private conversation between the two men that was apparently overheard. It wasn't during the course of a committee meeting, and it wasn't shouted to everyone in the room. It was indeed rude talk; it wasn't intended, however, to be public talk. The latter can't be said of McCain's outbursts.

A pretty good case could also be made that there were different levels of provocation: Cornyn wasn't exactly accusing McCain of corruption, which is indeed exactly what Leahy had accused Cheney of.

But the main difference was the setting. Someone who can't tell the difference ought not be a senator, much less president. And as astute as you are, I'm pretty sure you'd already recognized this distinction, Mr. Shearer, before you asked my opinion about it.

Let me be very clear: I'm not disturbed about this episode because I'm offended, in the abstract, by the F-word, or because I think politicians ought not cuss. I choose, somewhat arbitrarily, to keep this blog at a mostly PG-13 level, but my personal language can be quite salty. If McCain had pulled Cornyn off to one side and delivered the same salvo privately, it wouldn't fire off my alarm bells in the same way. It would still have raised some doubts in my mind about his political judgment, because it would still have been a stupid way to treat someone McCain badly needs as a political ally on this bill. But it wouldn't make me think him fundamentally unfit to be the GOP presidential nominee, which is pretty much what I'm thinking now.

It's that McCain shouted "F*** you!" across the room — that he seemed to have lost his sense of who he was, who he was addressing, where they both were, and who was listening. If he can't restrain himself from shouting "F*** you!" at John Cornyn in a Senate meeting room, why should I not expect him to also shout "F*** you!" at heads of state in the White House? If he lacks the capacity to govern himself, how can he govern the nation? If he is an embarrassment to himself because of his lack of self-control — and he ought to be embarrassed about this! — how can he not be expected to regularly embarrass the United States?

(22) Jinnmabe made the following comment | May 20, 2007 10:03:05 PM | Permalink

he seemed to have lost his sense of who he was, who he was addressing, where they both were, and who was listening.

That's exactly it, for me. How can you trust someone with such poor awareness/memory/ability to control himself?

(23) Jinnmabe made the following comment | May 20, 2007 10:16:30 PM | Permalink

Sorry, something else. Althouse says, and Instapundit quotes:

Cornyn was apparently trying to disqualify his opinion because he dares to go off and run for President. McCain was entitled to push back

This is totally inaccurate. Cornyn was raising valid objections and McCain tries to bully Cornyn into silence with namecalling ("This is chickensh&*") and one of the most anti-democratic and condescending lines of the year ("I think it would expedite things if you would just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up.") So Cornyn makes the obvious point that McCain hasn't even been there, so for him to float in and try to bully his way through to the press conference is, well, foolish (I would have said something like "what do you mean "we"? you got a frog in your pocket?") and McCain erupts with a vulgar version of "How DARE you disagree with me!" But Althouse and Reynolds think he was entitled to "push back". That's just stupid. "But Mom, he hit me back FIRST!"

(24) Steven Jens made the following comment | May 20, 2007 11:34:29 PM | Permalink

This response to the first comment in the thread is late and unnecessary, but I don't think it's particularly disruptive:

I don't know much about the Keating scandal, but I do recall that in Bill Bradley's "Time Present, Time Past", he claims that it was pretty clear quite early in the investigation that McCain and Glenn were both innocent, but that the Democratic Senate refused to clear the clearly innocent because McCain was the only Republican who had been implicated. If McCain and Glenn had been cleared early, then for the rest of the investigation it would have been a Democratic scandal, rather than a bipartisan scandal.

For what it's worth.

(25) jane made the following comment | May 20, 2007 11:39:41 PM | Permalink

To me, McCain has disqualified himself as a Presidential candidate over and over and over, again. Where's the surprise when it comes to his temper or "maverick" positions, and how can we forget his Campaign Finance Deformed and opposition to stressful "torture"-interrogation of terrorists and suspects?

I think Fred Thompson will be our man against Hillary-Barack, or we haven't a chance in heck on Election Day.

(26) anon made the following comment | May 21, 2007 2:20:59 PM | Permalink

Jane: good luck building without employing Mexicans. More likely, you'll learn they're capable of just as good work as Anglos (Anglos are certainly as capable of bad work).

Beldar: Try to appear neutrally-principled on this all you want. I'm not buying it. I doubt you'd be so upset if McCain had similarly cussed, say, Ted Kennedy over a bill while taking a substantive position you support. And incidentally, if context matters so much, why doesn't Cheney's having been on the Senate floor matter? I'd rather decorum be preserved in that historic chamber than in ho-hum committee rooms. Anyway, this was hardly Sumner-Stevens.

All of you agreeing with Beldar: if you get your wish, you get Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. Wheeeeee.

(27) Beldar made the following comment | May 21, 2007 2:54:28 PM | Permalink

Anon, I'm not "neutrally principled." I'm principled against senators shouting "F*** you!" at one another during working meetings, and I'm against them suggesting that one of them needs to leave the room rather than represent his constituents' interest. And my reaction would have been precisely the same had this incident involved McCain shouting at Kennedy.

You'll search in vain for prior blogging here either opposing McCain or discussing the pending immigration legislation. With respect to the latter, I didn't know until this weekend what was in the bill, but I knew enough to be concerned. With respect to McCain, I'd previously given him the benefit of the doubt on "temperament" issues. I can no longer do that. And McCain's blow-up isn't excused or not depending on who else is in the race for the GOP nomination.

As for Cheney being "on the Senate floor," if one intends to suggest by that wording that he was speaking for the Congressional Record, that would be a lie. I whisper things in court from time to time that are intended to be private and not on the court's record either. I try not to be overheard. But if I were overheard, that doesn't suddenly make what I've whispered a statement that I intended to make in public, before everyone in the room. By contrast, if I shout something in court, one has to either presume that I intended everyone in the room to hear it, or that I can't control myself (or both). And that, unfortunately, is the McCain situation in this Senate meeting room, before more than a dozen senators and two cabinet secretaries.

McCain supporters can't defend this conduct because it's indefensible. They can, and are, trying to minimize its importance, and that's okay — others may have different judgments than I do about what public behavior is and isn't acceptable from senators and presidential candidates. But perhaps McCain supporters ought also be sending messages up to their guy that he needs to apologize, instead of circling the wagons, for the triple purposes of his presidential campaign, his on-going credibility as a senator, and this legislation.

(28) brickbat made the following comment | May 21, 2007 4:31:45 PM | Permalink


Sorry about the delay re. the Althouse incident. Below is a link to her version of the event. From there you can link to most of the discussion on other sites.


To be clear, I like Professor Althouse. I didn't link only because I thought the incident was so well known that my spin would be seen for the gross caricature it was. Just riffing a little with Beldar's post. No hard feelings, I hope.

(29) James B. Shearer made the following comment | May 21, 2007 4:57:22 PM | Permalink

For the record I don't support McCain or his immigration bill. However this is the sort of thing where people tend to have one standard for their friends and a different standard for their enemies. Of course you can distinguish between McCain's use of the word and Cheney's if you want but they seem pretty comparable to me.

(30) slick made the following comment | May 22, 2007 11:46:21 AM | Permalink

The last thing teh USA needs is another POTUS with a God-complex.

It's not the swearing - it's the ARROGANCE. "I know what's right - you don't".

If the man was too tonedeaf to realize how this would effect his chances of winning the nomination, what does that tell you about him?

(31) slick made the following comment | May 22, 2007 11:47:30 AM | Permalink

The last thing teh USA needs is another POTUS with a God-complex.

It's not the swearing - it's the ARROGANCE. "I know what's right - you don't".

Also, if the man was too tonedeaf to realize how this would effect his chances of winning the nomination, what does that tell you about him?

(32) Aubrey made the following comment | May 22, 2007 4:23:37 PM | Permalink

McCain chose to attempt intimidation rather than make an argument, probably because he didn't have an argument to make. That's not a characteristic of any kind of serious leader, much less a POTUS.

(33) Carol Herman made the following comment | May 22, 2007 9:17:27 PM | Permalink

I'm watching this show, and it dawns on me that McCain is running for the presidency, not as a GOP candidate; but as a donk. A party cross-over.

And, this "trick" which was supposed to happen "over night." Without much notice. And, then followed by long vacations, blew up.

Too bad nobody's bright enough in the White House, to warn the shnook that doing deals like this are bad for his reputation. But what does he do all day, anyway? Hand-shake. So, he recently had the queen over.

And, still nothing happens to his poll numbers.

WHile McCain stands a very poor chance in finishing anywhere near the top of what Fred Thompson calls "the 8 midgets."

But he'd be real comfortable over at the donk's parade. And, he'd be better than the Flying Pig. SO why not?

Just shows ya how easy it is to twist Bush's arm, though.

And, while McCain loses altitude for the nomination? I notice he's very welling to bop others on the head. So, it's not just the "F" word in play. It's just nasty politicians doing tricks.

(34) sherlock made the following comment | May 23, 2007 8:49:56 AM | Permalink

I am not interested in any President who values the fawning of the MSM more than the respect of his peers or his constituents. This self-absorbed "maverick" got his nickname by pirouetting on conservative principles any time he thought it would place him "above" his party.
He is also petty and vindictive, but I think others have said that - for me it is just a lack of trustworthiness.

The comments to this entry are closed.