Here’s the money quote from Cochran:
“McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don’t know what attracted my attention,” Cochran said in an interview with The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. “But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever …“I don’t know what he was telling him but I thought, ‘Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.’ I don’t know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy … and he just reached over there and snatched … him.”
Cochran, who has complained about McCain’s temper before, said only a handful of senators took part in the trip, including former Sen. Steve Symms of Idaho. He said he didn’t know who the man McCain grabbed was except that he was an associate of Ortega.
McCain and his campaign are denying the story, naturally – but Cochran’s office has held firm:
Asked about the incident, Cochran spokeswoman Margaret McPhillips told The Associated Press: “I think his quotes in the Sun Herald speak on that issue.”
Of course, this is the same Thad Cochran who had this to say about John McCain in January, 2008:
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Cochran said about McCain by phone. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
John McCain – too hot-tempered to be president, unfit for command. Cross-posted at JohnMcCaingry.com
in 1987, I was a year old. Digging back 20 years to find dirty laundry is pretty desperate.
Last I checked, the Swiftboat attacks on John Kerry were based on misrepresenting events which happened between 1968 and 1971.
<
p>That would be 33-36 years before the 2004 election.
…the Swiftboat liars had no trouble reaching back over 30 years to smear John Kerry’s war record – were you calling them desperate in 2004? And incidents of bad temper on McCain’s part litter his life story, this is just one incident. It’s particularly poignant, in that it happened on a diplomatic mission – we don’t need a hot-headed president in this country!
As for the “perception” of temper, I wish more politicians had some spunk in them. Washington’s laissez-faire attitude (both parties) is killing us. The screaming over the Iraq War has been deafening with 2006 being a banner year for Democratic House an Senate seats and yet the Iraq War funding bill passes yet again. The only “sign” of protest was the lack of anyone’s attendance at the signing of the bill by the President… what mavericks!!! I am glad the bill was signed but how about some of these DC politicians showing some spunk and spirit. Let your voice be heard!
Democrats are not all alike.
I was responding the the idea that JM is perceived to have a temper and I was hoping that many more House and Senate members should be passionate about what they support and what they don’t support. I said right in my comments that this problem is apparent in both parties. The supporters should have been there to stand up with the President (and be counted) and the opposition should have been there to show there opposition. This is a non-partisan complaint.
There has been a lot of handwringing on the left as to why Congress has not done what it was elected to do, viz., stop the occupation and take some principled stands against Bush.
<
p>The link I provided goes into one examination as to why this is. There is a significant faction of the Democratic Party in both the House and Senate that doesn’t vote correctly. In this Congress, that doesn’t mean 100% liberal. That means correct on Iraq and constitutional issues. How to fix that problem remains somewhat of an open question for progressives.
I know Democrats are not all alike and in fact have said that same thing before have pointed to Republicans are being more monolithic.
thank you, I guess.
I called them liars – the hypocrisy I was pointing out was that JoeTS was trying to invalidate this item by citing its age, that’s all. A leader with some backbone is a desirable leader indeed – but a leader without enough self-control that he physically assaults someone at a diplomatic reception? We’ve had a fool in the White House these past 8 years, why would we want another?
I felt you were being misread, Mr 001, too.
Nobody, including BO has doubted the honor of John McCain. In response to this story, John McCain has said…
<
p>Does JM have a long history of lying? I don’t think so. So while this makes great chatter within the BO loving community, maybe you all should consider some of the things BO has been accused of and then denied it. Unsubstantiated accusations do not equal proof! Once again I have to preach about one of the central tenants of our democracy, “innocent until proven guilty” like John Kerry was.
You sure you wanna go there? really?
I’ll go there – yes, he does! Straight talk…out of both sides of his mouth!!
Such hypocrisy. Someone makes a public statement about something and you jump all over it. Since it is against someone you don’t like or want in office, the statement becomes ABSOLUTE GOSPEL!!! Any similar statement “against” someone you do like or support would be immediately dismissed as gossip, innuendo or a “swiftboat attack”. “None” of you addressed the idea that JM denied this event occurred emphatically nor do you believe in the premise of JM being innocent of anything until there is proof. What gives? Have some nags. Don’t be so partisan that you become implausible and unrealistic.
…to a DailyKos diary which contains a compendium of links to McCain’s lies, prevarications, equivocations, etc:
<
p>http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
<
p>Plenty of substantiation for you there, John – he’s a liar, through and through…
Love the all caps and the triple explanation marks. Don’t wear keys down to nubs just for us.
<
p>If a Republican Senator is insistent on an unflattering story about McCain even after he has become the nominee, that’s a significant piece of evidence. No one is taking this as Gospel — given that the Easter story, after all, has four rather divergent retellings in the four Gospels. We’re just taking it for what it’s worth.
<
p>McCain also has a demonstrable history on video that shows him saying something in one year and then denying he ever said it years later. He’s done that enough that a reasonable, non-partisan observer would plausibly be reluctant to put much weight on the Senator’s denials.
<
p>The attacks of the Swiftboat folks were demonstrably false:
“Keeping us honest” does not consist in hysterical denials or dismissals of things plainly in the public record. I submit that you are the one being “implausible and unrealistic”.
Do you have a sideline in straw men?
Must be okay then. Since other countries torture prisoners, I’ll expect you to never complain about Guantanomo ever again.
…while liberals will find this as yet another reason not to vote for McCain, conservatives and those who compose McCain’s base will see this as another reason that McCain is “bad-ass” deserves to be president. The “turn Iran into a parking lot” crowd love candidates with John Wayne swagger and a “bomb first, ask questions later” attitude. I can’t see in whose eyes this will cause damage for McCain.
<
p>I’d want a president who shows more maturity and control, but I’m not voting for McCain anyway. I’m sure this reinforces the attitudes of Red Meat Group types like Eabo who believe America should never show “weakness” and we need an aggressive president like McCain.
I keep getting zapped on this site for lumping Liberals together, but there is no hesitation for bloggers to lump conservatives together. This reminds me of the “Intolerant States of America” posting.
Please allow me to emend my statement. Conservatives in the mold of Pat Buchanan and Andrew Bacevich probably are not impressed by this. Loyal Bushies and neo-con types are more likely to laud McCain’s use of physical force. I think this improves McCain’s image amongst his base and this will not persuade many people against McCain.
When reporting polling data, it seems perfectly fine to say “conservatives vote this way; liberals vote that way.”
My complaint was not against lumping in general.
<
p>My complaint was in failing to see what the differences are. There are indeed commonalities among liberals. Lakoff’s work leads one to expect that conservatives would be more self-conscious of their ideology than liberals. That is confirmed, to a degree, by the sharpness of the differences between paleo-cons and neo-cons. It’s difficult to say what the biggest differences are between liberals. There’s more of a spectrum than the bright line that distinguishes your libertarian conservative from your social conservative.
<
p>Some polling I read a while ago seemed to demonstrate that the left, viewed as voting blocs rather than as an intellectual movement, tended to have more fragments than the right.
<
p>That said, the differences between the politics of The New Republic and the The Nation are substantial. They possibly represent opposite poles within liberalism. So while there’s a lot of gray, there’s no lack of differences.
<
p>Finally, there’s a tendency among some conservatives to blame liberals for the political utterances of movie actors and to imagine — as you seemed to do earlier with CNN — that the media represent liberals. Given that there’s a substantial literature asserting anti-liberal media bias, it’s difficult for me to accept being lumped with CNN. They’re not me. If you’re curious, the place to start on the web is Media Matters. Three prominent writers on the web are Eric Alterman, Bob Somerby, and Glenn Greenwald.
My arguments (if any) against what you are saying would be purely anecdotal and you would shred me for it. I don’t have the time to research this now but will put it on my list. I’ll either have some proof to show the media (including CNN) is liberally biased in their reporting, or I will find to the contrary and fall on my sword!
…on ther real estate tax payments for one of the 8 homes they own? If you didn’t know that, it’s because the media didn’t report it.
<
p>On the other hand, what do you know about Barack Obama’s mortgage? If you pay attention to the media, you’d know that he got a below average rate on his loan, and folks are insinuating that this was somehow unethical – even though, for there to be an average rate, you must have some loans slightly lower and others slightly higher.
<
p>McCains default on taxes – not reported.
<
p>Obama gets an ordinary mortgage at a lower rate than average because he’s a good credit risk – reported as unethical.
<
p>Is that a liberal bias or a conservative bias we’re seeing here?
yesterday. I didn’t know the media was not covering it but it does get 204,000 hits when search google on it (that’s a lot of hits considering nobody covered it).
<
p>Sounds like that bastard McCain was letting an elderly aunt live in the house and the bills were not being forwarded to the bank managing the house.
<
p>As for BO’s loan, it was below my radar and thanks to you I just read up on it. Was a little harder to find since google only found 22,400 hits (vs. 204,000 for JM). Sounds smelly to me, well below a rate for a good credit risk. Sounds like he is just another Rich Wealthy Millionaire Senator like the rest of them, no different, just a rookie version on the high side of the ever widening chasm between the “haves” and the “have nots”. He almost sounds like a Republican when you add his wife’s cushy $315,000 per year “corporate Executive” job as a VP Public Relations.
<
p>At first I thought you were talking about the other Democratic Senators getting insider mortgages…
<
p>
When I hit Google news and search for “McCain taxes default”, 413 articles show up, but 1002 show up for “Obama favorable mortgage” – why do we see different results?
<
p>Be that as it may, the hard facts of the McCain’s defaulting on their property taxes shows what an inept manager of finances he is. Couple that with Cindy McCain racking up enormous credit card debt, $750,000 last month, and I have to ask you why you think this guy can run the country?
<
p>Your opinion as to whether Obama’s mortgage “sounds smelly” is worthless – their mortgage is not out of the ordinary for the fine creidt risk the Obamas were at the time:
<
p>* They had just sold their condo at a tidy profit
* He had just received at $2.27 million book advance
* Their combined income was almost $500,000 annually
* They had little or no credit card debt, and substantial savings
* He had just been elected to the Senate – obviously, he was planning to keep his mortgage payments current!
<
p>Read more of the truth about this mortgage flap here:
<
p>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
<
p>This thread may or may not show liberal bias in the media – but your answer above clearly shows your bias…
<
p>So… Do you know how many US Senators we both could find guilty of missing small things in their personal and financial lives if we look hard enough (Kennedy, Byrd, Dodd, BO…). So you want to point to this late tax bill, with all of its supporting details as an indicator that JM is an inept manager of finances? Don’t you think that is a small leap to say the least?
<
p>
<
p>What office is Cindy McCain running for? She’s a multi-millionaire so how much of her own money can she spend per month in your book?
<
p>
<
p>Wow, they were so lucky. Was this the condo sale involving Rezko?
<
p>
<
p>Another wow, Corporate Executives like MO make good money.
<
p>
<
p>That’s right, his rookie term in the Senate started in January 2005. Thanks for the reminder.
<
p>
<
p>The media certainly is biased. I admit to being biased. I don’t want BO to be President nor will he. This whole issue of his loan being a sweetheart deal is ridiculous, I agree. But when people bring up foolish comments concerning JM (assaulting people, not paying taxes…) then you should expect foolish comments on BO’s life. Let’s stop both of them and concentrate on the important issues.