McCain

There is no lack of documentation on John McCain’s anger management problems. The Media has done its share to report on just a few of those incidents but its true implications have never been entertained. What does this character flaw mean and what are some examples of McCain loosing his cool?

Psychologists claim that, “anger causes a loss in self-monitoring capacity and objective observability.” The Washington Post wrote an article about 10 years ago on McCain and his temper tantrum. So here is a list of McCain behaving non-Presidential like by stating:

1) "F- - - you!" @ Senator John Cornyn [New York Post]
2)  “A - - hole” @ Senator Pete Domenici [Newsweek]
3) “F- - -ing Jerk” @ Senator Charles Grassley [Newsweek]
4) Yelled and Humiliated Young Volunteert [The Arizona Republic]
5) Told Senator Kennedy to “Shut-up” [Boston Globe]
6)  “Sh- - Head” @ fellow Senator [NewsMax]
7)  “F - - - you” @  Republican Senator [NewsMax]
8) “C- - -” @ Cindy McCain [Raw Story]
9) Got Mad at Foreign Diplomat [The New York Times]
10)  Screamed and Acosted Senator Richard Shelby [Boston Globe]

Olberman does a great job of reviewing this issue in the YouTube video to the right. This begs the question of whether this type of behavior is appropriate for a President. It is fellow Republican Senators that do not agree with McCain’s approach. In fact that is why most of them did not support him during his bid in 2000. Those actions speak loudly. People that know him well and interact with him on a daily basis are turned off by his behavior. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican claims, “His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." McCain has even admitted that as an “angry 2-year-old, he would hold his breath until he lost consciousness.”

We dealt for 8 years with an incompetent President . . . can we really afford an someone that can not control their emotions? If the qualifications for U.S. President are someone that can not control their temper and is a geriatric . . . then all of sudden folks across America that live in retirement homes have become front runners for the GOP.

Darren Manzella, a homosexual Army Sergeant, was discharged from duty due to his sexual orientation/lifestlye. Last December, “60 Minutes” featured Manzella in one of their stories pertaining the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

This Army medic was deployed to Iraq twice and earned a combat medal for rendering treatment under fire. He was open about his sexual orientation and introduced his partner to his Army  friend. He did not hide his lifestyle when his battalion commander initiated an investigation into Manzella’s private life. The investigation’s report claimed that there was no evidence of homosexuality and he was sent back to work. This happened even after Manzella provided photographs and testimony of his relationship with his boyfriend.

Cholene Espinoza, an Air Force Captain who flew combat missions, explained, “Darren is in a critical field. He’s a medic. His commander needs him. He’s a known quantity. He gets along with others. He does what he’s supposed to. He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose Darren?”
John McCain recently said gay people in the military represent an “intolerable risk” to unit morale, cohesion, and discipline.

As Steve Benen notes, “Which poses the great risk, Manzella being deployed and serving honorably, or Manzella not being deployed? Which is better for the troops? Which does more to help those in uniform? Which leaves the military stronger, and which leaves it weaker?”

I agree with Benen. This policy is flawed but more importantly it inherently undermines the military. If a qualified individual that is willing to scarify their life in order to defend this country . . . isn’t the bare minimum for the military leave these troops’s personal life alone. Do we discharge individuals for their religious views or their infidelities in their marriage? Is it really supporting the troops when you take away talented services members due to their sexual orientation? No, it weakens our military and sends the wrong message about the “freedom” we promote.

Sometimes it is hard to explain to friends why anyone would vote for a Republican. Then there comes a video with a witty message and post-production that is impeccable.  Of course I will not be voting for any Republicans this November, but at least it makes a bit more sense now.

This video relies on hyperboles and extremes that would make anyone cry. Perhaps a website claiming, "Why I'm Voting Democrat" would suffice. The stakes are high and there is no reason why you should not be registered and ready to vote this November. Pass this video along to friends and family and spread the word! 

A quick search in Wikipedia has this to say about the Psychology of Torture and its effects:

Other psychological consequences include cognitive impairment, reduced capacity to learn, memory disorders, sexual dysfunction, social withdrawal, inability to maintain long-term relationships, or even mere intimacy, phobias, ideas of reference and superstitions, delusions, hallucinations, psychotic microepisodes, and flat affect.

I have reason to believe McCain shows signs of post-traumatic disorder. I have included this video as well to illustrate my point. You see, I always thought that McCain deliberately lied and made up facts or events. Now, I have reason to believe that it is just an effect that he is suffering from the 5 years of imprisonment and torture during the Vietnam War. McCain's hair turned white due to the trauma he endured. His capacity to learn has been reduce for example earlier this week he claimed Putin was the President of Germany.

He also has many superstitions like lucky shoes, a compass, feather, and flattened penny. This should not come as a surprise. John McCain is known to have a temper and being impatient. His phobias may extend themselves to foreign policy and his approach to the War on Terror but in particular Iran. The question now is . . . can America afford to have a man with these personal problems to lead our nation. Is this the America we want?

McCain loves to toot his horn on how he is an "expert" when it comes to Iraq. He even has the audacity to criticize Senator Clinton on Obama on their position on the War in Iraq. He claims that they do not have what it takes to lead this nation in the struggle. Surprisingly, it is McCain who has been wrong about Iraq this whole time. Anyone that has been this incompetent for this long cannot and should not be trusted with leading our military through this war. Rosa Brooks of the Los Angeles Times illustrates with some examples of how wrong has been about Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein [is] developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can," he informed Fox News in November 2001. By February 2003, McCain had upgraded Hussein's capabilities and was warning Americans that "Hussein has the ability to ... [turn] Iraq into a weapons assembly line for Al Qaeda's network."

This statement was far from truth, in fact 5 years after the entering Iraq, we still have not found any weapons of mass destruction. Instead of acknowledging a mistake, McCain and the GOP have shifted the debate to Hussein could and would have developed weapons of mass destruction, if allowed to.

"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting," he scoffed to Wolf Blitzer in 2002. "We're not going to have a bloodletting." In fact, by March 2003, McCain was positively giddy with Rumsfeldian enthusiasm: "There's no doubt in my mind ... we will be welcomed as liberators."

This would be excusable from 23 year old with no military experience but McCain made these claims so it is not okay. How can someone who claims to be knowledgeable about the military? Because, McCain, like Bush, is incompetent and would not know the difference between Iraq and Iran if someone did not spoon feed him the talking points.

When it came to predicting the sectarian conflicts that have wracked Iraq since we "liberated" it, McCain was equally off target. "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias," he explained confidently on MSNBC in April 2003, "so I think they can probably get along."

There is absolutely NO excuse for this claim. In fact, all McCain had to do was open up a textbook about the inner conflicts that Iraq experienced in the 50s. Oh wait, he was alive during that decade, perhaps he should have been more keen on foreign affairs. The ongoing issue between Sunnis and Shias is not new, in fact it has been a source of problems for a while.

Brooks offers other examples of how off McCain is from reality. How can McCain be so wrong about Iraq? How can someone with the "decorated" military service be so unqualified when it comes to war- in Iraq? But, that is not as important as how can half of the country still buy into his crap and support him? Am I suppose to entertain the idea that Americans are just as incompetent as McCain? Perhaps, stupid people do deserve a stupid President, but not again . . . four more years of this nonsense is uncalled for.

It may seem that Obama is invincible or that his charm may just be enough to carry him through the general election but if one reviews the lead that either Democratic candidate has, one would think that nothing has really changed since 2004, let alone 2000.

Recent polls put McCain behind both Democratic hopefuls but by not a large margin. In fact, McCain is only a handful of percentage points behind which translates to not much of advantage for the Democrats. The last eight years under the GOP have been dismal. Americans are concerned about every aspect of American life. The mortgage crisis, national security risks, economy, weak dollar, ill-managed war efforts, dubious justification for the war in Iraq and gasoline prices increases have devastated Americans trust in the competency of our government. The GOP has made a great case to literally hand over this election on a silver platter to Democrats. So, why is that McCain even has a viable chance. Logic would indicate that Americans are ready for change, yet half of the country seems to think otherwise as they support McCain. That means that half the voting population have not been sold on the concept that four more years of Republicans rule will result in negative ramifications for everyone.

I would surmise that the longer than usual primary has hurt Democrats from hitting home with the message that Republicans are incompetent to be trusted with another 4 years. If Obama were to win the nomination, he would have to initiate a campaign that illustrates how McCain is not different from Bush.

McCain has actually made it easy for Democrats to portray him as a continuation of Bush’s dismal policies. McCain makes it no secret about his  fondness of the Bush doctrine and Democrats need to explain how this means bad news for Americans. Polls indicate that McCain's biggest issue are his ties to President Bush. If you thought the last 4 years got pretty bad, well entertain the possibility of another 4 years of the same.

This election has landslide written all over it only if the Democrats can capitalize and are successful in branding McCain as a continuation of Bush. This election should not be hard for Obama or Clinton to win but if they are not able to logically illustrate how the last 8 years have been detrimental to Americans then we risk another 4 years of GOP ineptitude and we have Democrats only to blame for.

Hillary Clinton should not quit the race. I made this argument last month but this time I will entertain it with a different approach. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times wrote a great piece on this perspective arguing that Obama has benefited from the Clinton rivalry.

Obama’s campaign has been tested and prepped for a challenge from McCain (if Obama is the nominee) in the Democratic Presidential nomination by Clinton. Over the past weeks many have claimed that Clinton has had a negative impact on Obama but most importantly the Democrats opportunity to take back the White House in November. The negative ramifications imposed include but are not limited to prolonging the Primary debate and weakening Obama’s chances of beating McCain. I beg to differ. Obama has been trained by the best rival in order to overcome the GOP opponent this fall.

The challenge that Clinton has posed has made Obama stronger and a more formidable candidate. Obama has held his own against Clinton, helping him prepare for what ever McCain will bring for the Presidential election. Clinton is and was not an easy candidate to compete with. Obama has been able to establish his own base and support to garner the support to edge out Clinton. Obama has learned a lot and this was all due to his opponent. I recall advice from a high school coach that recommended I always train with people that are better in skill than me in order to improve my own skills.

Clinton has legitimized the Obama campaign. For the first time in countless years, Democrats have had two strong candidates to choose from. This has caused both Clinton and Obama to work harder to attract and retain voters that they would otherwise not seek if challenged by weaker opponents. Whoever ends up with the nomination, the other will benefit from the voter support garnered due to the Primary.

The Wright Effect should be non-existent in November. Obama should benefit from the Wright issue being an issue during the Primary season then in November. This has allowed Obama and company to prepare and orchestrate an effective damage control strategy should it come up in November. The McCain camp would be foolish to bring up an non issue again in November but if they do, at least Obama will be prepared.

Obama has indeed benefited from Clintons challenge. Let’s not forget though, Clinton has done a tremendous job in order to compete with Obama. Even though she was a favorite at the beginning, Obama was the populist once the Primary season began. One may claim that Obama was the underdog but it was Clinton who had work harder to get the support and funding for her campaign. Clinton has been scrutinized and under a microscope as the presumed nominee by the media. Clinton has had to overcome many obstacles in order to stay float with Obama. Obama like McCain may have benefited from a love affair by the media. Clinton has also had to distinguish herself from the former President Clinton and shine by herself. Whatever the outcome this June, one thing is for sure . . . the Democratic nominee will be better prepared for the general election than McCain.

Republicans are concerned about McCain's claim stated multiple times about a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years. The National Republican Congressional Committee have issued a press release claiming that Democrats are "falsely accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of “promising” 100 years of war in Iraq." The NRCC justifies the claim as a desperate attack to capture the November election.

There is no secret that McCain stated that if required the U.S. should remain in Iraq if needed another 100 years, in fact he added 1000 years and 10,000. One only needs to do a quick YouTube search and they will find videos containing the clip.

These comments should enlighten the general voting population of McCain's distorted view of the Iraq War. It should frankly scare those that hear his comments into registering to vote in order to demonstrate their opposition to McCain's flawed opinion and perspective. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo adds, "McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won't cost any money. If that's the explanation for why we shouldn't be concerned that he's happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world."

Joe Klein of the Time Magazine Blog claims that the issue at hand with McCain's point of view is that, "he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam." I concur with Klein's assessment of McCain's distorted view of Iraq. Unlike Germany or Korea, the reason why we are in this mess is the reason why we are in this mess. Our presence in Muslim nations is not appreciated by those that attack us. Until we understand that, their attacks will not cease. Iraq as nation has not been stable like Germany or Korea either. The Saddam Hussein rein was the longest time period in recent history in which the region was stable.

Steve Benen theorizes that this, "is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts." That explains why the GOP is pro-active about the issue.

But, what is the true significance of 100 years? Just to put it into perspective . . . in the last 100 years:

• Women gained the right to vote in the U.S.
• Segregation in the U.S. was outlawed.
• Cars, Radio, Television and Airplanes just to name a few were invented.
• The World Community participated in 2 World Wars.
• The U.S. has seen 18 different Presidents in office and prior to that 25 had served (almost half).

This list can go on and on about what 100 years truly mean. The U.S. has only been around since 1776, that just 232 years. The way McCain intends to scare us into accepting this scenario is by claiming that Muslim extremist will attack us at home. They love to use the recycled Domino Effect Theory (once applied to Communism) about terrorists and the reason why we should remain in Iraq. McCain apparently believes that if we depart from Iraq, the country will become a terrorist haven and then the whole middle east will fall prey to the ideology. According to McCain and the GOP, we should dedicate the next 100 years to Iraq, 1/3 of the U.S. lifetime, to combat such scenario. Don't get me started on his statements of a presence of 1,000 or 10,000 years . . . Jesus died just over 2000 years ago.

McCain’s tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. today lets voters reassess their opinion of the GOP hopeful. McCain did not always have the admiration for King as he claims he does now. Just 24 years ago as Congressman he voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a recognized Federal Holiday.

McCain states, “I voted in my first, I think it was my first year in congress against then… I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me and I not supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a Governor who was against my own party.” Let’s not forget that McCain was 47 years old at the time so it was not like he did not know what it was like to live in a segregated society where Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to gain the civil rights and equality minorities deserved.

Steve Benen notes:

“The vote wasn’t the only problem. In his home state of Arizona, conservatives in the state legislature blocked a measure to create a holiday honoring King, prompting then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt (D) to declare one through executive order. In 1987, Republican Gov. Evan Mecham’s first act in office was to rescind Babbitt’s order on the King holiday. John McCain endorsed Mecham’s decision. Complicating matters, McCain, no doubt embarrassed by his previous positions, is being less than truthful about them now.”

McCain justified his 1983 position in an ABC News interview in 2000 by claiming, “it was not necessary to have another federal holiday, that it cost too much money, that other presidents were not recognized.” McCain may claim regret for opposing the holiday but it does not explain why he did so 15 years after the assassination nor why he opposed the 1990 Civil Rights Act.

Benen claims, “If McCain “began to learn” and “studied” after his opposition to the King holiday in ‘83, he was a very slow learner. Four years later, he didn’t fight against a governor or his own party; he endorsed the governor’s move to eliminate a King holiday.”

So how does McCain’s actions speak for his record when it comes to civil rights issues:

• Honoring the Confederate - In 2000, McCain called the flag “offensive.” Later, he lauded it as a “battle flag” and a “symbol of heritage.”

• Honoring racists: In 2000, Richard Quinn, McCain’s South Carolina spokesperson in 2000, called the MLK holiday “vitriolic and profane.” McCain defended Quinn, calling him a “respected” and “fine man,” refusing to fire him. McCain’s current campaign has paid the firm Richard Quinn and Associates $180,000.

• Skipped African-American debate to campaign: McCain joined Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson in September 2007 in skipping PBS’ presidential debate, which featured “a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color.”

For a Presidential candidate running on his history one should not romanticize the character and forget his flaws. The media may not touch on the subject but that does not mean that deep down McCain may have some issues at hand. Donklephant has a video of McCain giving the tribute today so you can see how some reacted.

I had to share this video. I love to see spoofs but this was just brilliant. It was well thought out and executed. For a second I was really hoping to watch this movie until I realized . . . whoops I have front row seats already. It's great to see the clips of Bush and McCain claiming other wise about the recession. These moments sort of remind me of what I have read in the text books about the way Hoover handled the situation. Bush and now McCain are taking the same approach of denying the fact that something is wrong with our economy. There is a fine line between optimist and realist . . . I know because I fancy myself as both. As a realist I state we are in or heading into a recession and as an optimist I can claim that we will get out of it if we play our cards right. On the other hand Bush and McCain are just plain delusional!