« Quote Of The Day: On The Clintons And Negative Campaigning
Gallup Daily Tracking Poll: Obama Retakes Slight Lead Over Clinton »
John McCain’s Shinebox
In the classic gangster movie “Goodfellas” the character Tommy (Joe Pesci) is in Henry Hill’s bar when “made” Gangster Billy Batts begins telling a story of how Tommy used to make money shining shoes. This angers Tommy quite a bit, and Batts winds up telling him to “go home and get your f***ing shinebox.” Tommy flies into a rage and rushes out, only to come back later and beat Batts into a bloody pulp on the floor. The elder mafioso is later stabbed, shot and buried in a shallow grave.
I don’t know if Senator John McCain ever had any work in his early years involving a shinebox, but it seems he does have a story involving a milk crate. In this long analysis by the Washington Post, the tale involves a 1986 celebration of McCain’s first Senate election where a youthful Robert Wexler (head of the Arizona Young Republicans) had been in charge of setting up a stage which turned out not to be tall enough to get all of McCain’s face on television during his speech. The incident was witnessed by Jon Hinz, Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party.
A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona’s Young Republicans, which had helped make arrangements for the evening’s celebration. Confronting Wexler in a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz, then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index finger in Wexler’s chest.
“I told you we needed a stage,” he screamed, according to Hinz. “You incompetent little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it.“
Hinz stepped in to keep the peace, but might not have chosen his words very well.
Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and the young volunteer. “John, this is not the time or place for this,” Hinz remembers saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn’t been seen clearly by television viewers. Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: “John, look, I’ll follow you out on stage myself next time. I’ll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on. But this is enough.”
McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several years.
Given some of the other incidents recounted in this article, had Hinz known the story of Billy Batts he might have picked a more tactful approach. There is a laundry list of incidents spanning two decades where John McCain has exploded with expletives and invective at those with the temerity to disagree with him. He has attempted to block the employment opportunities of very low level political actors who had invoked his ire years earlier. The stories describe a man who, once riled, holds a grudge for years on end.
But it doesn’t stop there. He apparently accused a fellow Senator of not being “a real Vietnam veteran” because he had been in the Navy and not serving on land. John Cornyn, Rick Renzi, (McCain’s Arizona co-chair during this campaign, now indicted on multiple felony charges) and Richard Shelby, among others, have all felt the wrath of McCain and been treated to his expletive laden rants. And it wasn’t all just words. A confrontation with fellow Republican Charles Grassley turning in a shoving match during a Senate committee meeting.
Mark Salter is one of McCain’s old friends, has co-written five books with the Arizona Senator and is now a strategist for the McCain Campaign. He provides this in his defense.
“I’m not saying he doesn’t have a temper, but it’s governable,” Salter said. “When he has a heated argument, it’s usually with one of his peers, who are unaccustomed to being addressed that way by anyone, really. Sometimes he can’t govern his tongue.
Notice the lack of past tense in the highlighted sentence. “Can’t govern his tongue?” Coming from one of McCain’s closest current associates, this could give pause to many people. This is a man who wants to be the leader of the free world… who will have to speak in tense situations with world leaders, some decidedly unfriendly to the United States.. the man who will have to answer that iconic “3 AM phone call” when a person running on little sleep might be even more grumpy than usual. And his own friend and adviser said he has trouble governing his tongue? There are incidents of not speaking to people for years after they angered him. What if the Prime Minister of England angers him at some point? Will he close their embassy for a few years?
A story which was once viewed as a few isolated incidents of “riled up, passionate” behavior is building into a much deeper and more troubling tale. Physical violence and incidents of vulgarity and lost temper dating back from the 80′s until at least 2006 are adding up to a very legitimate concern. Perhaps one who can’t “govern his own tongue” should have question marks over their effort to govern the most powerful nation on Earth.
11 Responses to “John McCain’s Shinebox”
See the Economist on McCain. Obviously he's not someone to draw great applause.
When we look at all the critical issues now facing our country,and the world, I think we all realize the importance of electing a leader who isn't going to be encumbered by tempermental reactions or by thinking processes that aren't quite as flexible and fluid as they once were. I respect John McCain for many things, but I simply don't see him being able to meet the demands of the US presidency. We've already seen how bad things can get when an unqualified person is at the helm, let's not see how bad they can get when the person is fighting the challenges of age in addition to the challenges of leadership.
[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona’s Young … [...]
I'm not sure what to make of this.
Bill Cinton'ts temper has also been referred to as 'legendary', although not much reached the press until his politics involved his wife, at ticklish and emotional situation, I can appreciate. In the meantime, he was a most popular president abroad, loved around the globe. During the Israeli war in Lebanon, some Lebanese were appealing to him to intervene.
Of couse, a major difference is that McCain would arrive on the international scene with a ready made agenda and an enemies' list, unlike Clinton's time.
I saw McCain recently fumble on a question about Reagan's economics.
Is that age or is it simply that he hasn't studied up on history enough?
All the attention has been on the Hillary-Obama contest.
We really need to know a lot more about McCain.
JazzShaw said: “Perhaps one who can’t “govern his own tongue” should have question marks over their effort to govern the most powerful nation on Earth.”
What utter rubbish!
Bill Clinton “purple rages” were legendary! EVERY morning of his presidency, the first thing Bill Clinton would do would be to shout and curse at the first aide he enountered…until his face turned “purple” with rage.
George Stephanopolous writes in his book on the Clinton White House that he felt it was his role in the administration to be the one who took the brunt of Clinton's rage first thing, before he could rage and curse at his nice middle-aged secretary or any other unlucky aide.
Stephanopolous became so stressed by this daily experience of Clinton rage that he developed a rash, and grew a beard to conceal it.
Bill Clinton's “purple rages” were widely known in the media and political circles. Did anyone regard it as “disqualifying” him from the presidency?
No. However, when a Republican who shows flashes of temper … NOT Bill Clinton's daily free floating rage … you suddenly regard it as “disqualifying” him from the presidency.
The Double Standard on the part of the Washington Post here is striking. (Oh, and don't forget to toss the age smear into the mix.)
Dem. Bill Clinton can curse and rage…Bill is wonderful. Cover for him!
Repub. McCain occasionally shows flashes of temper … a serious concern. Cover it massively!
Marlosecccan,
There is another, and better to way, to look at it. The rages of both Clinton and McCain are unacceptable, although sometimes understandable.
Part of this is just a matter of changing times re the degree of intursiveness into private lives and habits. Clinton's rages in current times, during this campaign,
have certainly been covered extensively.
McCain is a candidate during current times, not in past eras.
The world is not out to get Republicans.
The media are equal opportunity drive-by killers.
Sometimes, it's going to be McCain's turn to get caught in the headlights.
I'd only be interested in this for two reasons. 1) Can he keep a committed crew of knowledgable and independent people around him; i.e., a good cabinet? 2) Can he negotiate with evil dictators (when needed) and arrogant world leaders when needed without blowing up? If the answer is yes to those two things, then I won't stew on this. I will stew a lot more on things like McCain's abandonment of a balanced budget and other policy matters. Now, if there is evidence that McCain in his professional life routinely runs off people who did their job well due to his temper, then I will take this more into account.
Runasim said: “Clinton's rages in current times, during this campaign,
have certainly been covered extensively.”
I agree. However, the only person we have to thank for that is Sen. Obama.
It was only due to the MSM's interest in Obama that they responded so negatively to Bill Clinton's often uncontrollable anger. It was fascinating to see op-ed pieces by Democrats who were “shocked and appalled” at Bill Clinton's rage, or the Clinton's dirty tricks…as if they were something new.
They were only “new” in that they were now turned on a well-liked Democrat.
Obama's cool (he gets stressed under pressure…but I have seen no reports of rage) contrasted strikingly with Bill Clinton's volcano.
The 1990s weren't that long ago, Runasim. My god…even then, we knew details of Clinton's sex life…but NEVER about his anger. That was kept safely out of the public eye by the MSM.
Will we see reports on HRC's foul language (out of camera range, as with Bill, every second word is “F-this” or “F-that) , or her paranoia (she has Enemies Lists that are positively Nixonian). Both of these are well known.
I support HRC because I think her platform is the best…and she has always been in tight control.
As with Pacatrue…I think this is a non-issue in general.
For all of the above, I feel The Washington Post's huge article on McCain is a partisan hit…as there has never been one (to my memory) on Bill's rage pre-Obama.
I note the WaPo article does make passing reference at the end to Bill Clinton's anger issues. I believe this is only a “fig-leaf” of nonpartisanship, given the WaPo's lack of coverage of the most notorious (D.) temper in Washington of the past generation.
Marlowecan,
You're right in tnat the '90s weren't that long ago. The world changes very quickly, howeverm and i see dramatic changes in how politicians are covered even in the last 4 years. The '00s were pre UTube and cell phone videos, please note. Each successive graduating class of politicians will have more to contend with.
Look at what Britain's royalty has to deal with nowadays, in comparison to the past.
It's not about the Republicans. It's about the times.
[...] [...]
The point has been made that McCain has largely escaped the focus and the picking apart that has gone on with Obama and to a lesser extent, Hillary. I suspect that when the focus does switch to McCain (and it will), many of his supporters will be surprised and somehow think it unfair. As far as I'm concerned, the effects of his age are a completely legitimate issue to be examined, and not to do so out of some misguided sense of political correctness would be irresponsible.