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

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.