Author Topic: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style  (Read 1855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« on: February 04, 2008, 10:25:50 AM »
GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain
His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style


By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 4, 2008; A01



John McCain once testified under oath that a Senate colleague inappropriately used tobacco corporation donations to sway votes on legislation. He cursed out another colleague in front of 20 senators and staff members, questioning the senator's grip on immigration legislation. And, on the Senate floor, McCain (R-Ariz.) accused another colleague of "egregious behavior" for helping a defense contractor in a move he said resembled "corporate scandals."

And those were just the Republicans.

In a chamber once known for cordiality if not outright gentility, McCain has battled his fellow senators for more than two decades in a fashion that has been forceful and sometimes personal. Now, with the conservative maverick on the brink of securing his party's presidential nomination, McCain's Republican colleagues are grappling with the idea of him at the top of their ticket.

"There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Mitt Romney's who has clashed with McCain.

Many Senate Republicans, even those who have jousted with McCain in the past, say their reassessment is underway. Sensing the increasing likelihood that he will be the nominee, GOP senators who have publicly fought with him are emphasizing his war-hero background and playing down past confrontations.

"I forgive him for whatever disagreements he has had with me. We can disagree on things, but I have great admiration for him," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee who has often argued with McCain over government spending.

But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. McCain could find himself the victim of Republicans who will not go the extra mile for him on legislative issues because of past grievances.

"John was very rough in the sandbox," said former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is outspoken in his opposition to McCain's candidacy. "Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . . He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."

Santorum was a fierce advocate for the GOP's social conservative wing -- a group particularly hostile to McCain because of his apostasy on immigration and same-sex marriage -- while Cochran is considered one of the more genteel senators. Both men back Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, for president.

To McCain's allies, his fiery personality is part of the "Straight Talk" lore, and a positive quality in a passionate fighter who will tell you to your face how much he dislikes an idea.

"When he's arguing about something he believes in, he's arguing about it," said Mark Salter, a top aide to McCain. "It's an admirable trait, the capacity to be outraged."

Salter scoffed at the idea that McCain is not fit to be president and said most stories about his temper are "wildly exaggerated." He pointed to McCain's success at "across-the-aisle cooperation" with Democrats as an example of how he would deal with Congress if elected president.

Those legislative wins include a major campaign finance law in his name in 2002 and a deal with 14 Democrats and Republicans in 2005 that broke Democratic filibusters on judicial nominees. "That resulted in a lot of good, solid, conservative jurists being confirmed," Salter said.

McCain's battles with colleagues have often gone beyond the ins and outs of policy, taking on a fierce personal tone that other senators do not often engage in, at least not in public.

Stevens, for example, has long stuffed the annual Pentagon spending bill with earmarked provisions for his home state that draw the ire of McCain, who has crusaded against such pet projects. In 2002, Stevens inserted an unusual provision in the defense appropriations bill that allowed Boeing Corp. to lease fuel tankers to the Air Force for $21 billion.

McCain regularly took to the floor to criticize the provision and tried to steal jurisdiction from Stevens's subcommittee so he could kill the deal. "This is the same kind of egregious behavior we often rail against here on the Senate floor when it comes to corporate scandals," he said.

While he has lost almost every earmark fight with Stevens, McCain won the Boeing battle by using his perch atop the Commerce Committee in 2003 and 2004 to investigate the lease deal, uncovering corruption inside the Air Force procurement office.

As president, one of McCain's most critical relationships would be with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a necessary ally in the conflict with a Democratic-led Congress. But their relationship has been gravely tested.

In 2003, after McConnell challenged the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in court, McCain gave testimony that almost accused McConnell of breaking federal laws. Under oath, he said that in 1998 McConnell tried to scuttle McCain's legislation to settle lawsuits against the tobacco industry by informing GOP senators that Big Tobacco would spend millions of dollars supporting candidates who opposed McCain's bill.

McConnell has denied the nature of the allegation, but that deposition culminated a five-year fight between the senators over the tobacco bill and the campaign finance legislation. But McConnell said last week that he would have no trouble with McCain as the nominee or as president.

"We've had a great relationship since," McConnell said. "All of them [McCain's fights] have been respectable and entirely within the traditions of the Senate."

McCain's relationship with House Republicans has been strained for years. After stumping for more than 50 GOP candidates during the 2000 campaign, McCain dramatically scaled back his efforts in 2002 out of pique toward House Republicans who opposed his effort to overhaul campaign finance law. In 2004, while McCain was objecting to GOP-backed tax cuts, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the senator, a former prisoner of war, should go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to see what "sacrifice" meant to the nation.

Nevertheless, many House Republicans now view McCain as the best possible nominee. Despite the senator's heresies on taxes, immigration and campaign finance, Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the Republican campaign committee, said McCain could appeal to independent voters.

"You'll have more Democrats running away from Hillary Clinton than you'll have Republicans running away from our nominee," he said.

In his first run for the presidency in 2000, McCain's temperament became an issue as campaign aides to George W. Bush questioned whether the senator was a suitable occupant for the Oval Office. Only a few of McCain's Senate colleagues endorsed him then.

But the past few years have seen fewer McCain outbursts, prompting some senators and aides to suggest privately that he is working to control his temper. This time, 13 senators have endorsed his presidential bid, more than for any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.

"We all get a little bit mellower," Salter said. "But he doesn't get up every morning saying, 'I must control my temper.' "

Last spring, however, McCain's confrontational side reappeared during a closed-door meeting of senators from both parties. After spending six weeks away from the Senate, he showed up for final negotiations on a fragile immigration bill, leading Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to question where he had been. McCain responded by swearing at Cornyn loudly and repeatedly, according to witnesses.

Cornyn, who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, doesn't expect to befriend McCain anytime soon but said he will happily stump for him as the nominee.

"We've had our moments, but we've gotten over that and moved on down the road," Cornyn said. "You're talking about people who are professionals. You don't have to link arms and sing 'Kumbaya' to get things done."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020303242_pf.html
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2008, 12:56:42 PM »
 
Quote
"McCain has battled his fellow senators for more than two decades in a fashion that has been forceful and sometimes personal."

Yes!

Imagine a State of the Union speech in that style!

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2008, 01:18:08 PM »
It would be nice to have a president that would tell lobbyists to take a hike, but a president that might fly off the handle and push the red button, that would be most uncool.

The people need to be aware that many military services include in their training soldiers,sailors, airmen and marines who are assembled and told to shout "KILL! KILL! KILL!", and some take this quite deeply to heart.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Rich

  • Guest
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2008, 02:18:47 PM »
>> ... but a president that might fly off the handle and push the red button, that would be most uncool.<<

Can liberals come up with anything original? You're stupid ... you're a war monger ... you're a fascist ... For Goodness  sake, turn the record over or something.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2008, 03:12:14 PM »
Can liberals come up with anything original? You're stupid ... you're a war monger ... you're a fascist ... For Goodness  sake, turn the record over or something.

===============================================
It's not a lack of originality. Juniorbush is stupid, he is also a warmonger. Dick Cheney has Fascist tendencies. I was just saying it because it's true.

-----------------------------
Is it a lack of originality that Rush never says anything nice about Hillary?

You no like to hear this, please to not read.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2008, 04:40:03 PM »
It would be nice to have a president that would tell lobbyists to take a hike, but a president that might fly off the handle and push the red button, that would be most uncool.

The people need to be aware that many military services include in their training soldiers,sailors, airmen and marines who are assembled and told to shout "KILL! KILL! KILL!", and some take this quite deeply to heart.


Trueman did just that , no president since then has tried to tell the world that under no circumstances would the bombs be dropped. It is even speculated that Trueman dropped the first bomb on a downtown area , rather than a sparcely populated area , or a strictly military instalition in order to impress our enemys present and future with an attitude of ruthlessness rather than to leave the impression that the bomb was too scary for us to really use.

I can't pretend to know.

I just speculate that our enemys still have the impression that Americans elect guys just a little nutz so that our atom bombs wount be a wasted investment.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2008, 04:45:19 PM »
>>I just speculate that our enemys still have the impression that Americans elect guys just a little nutz so that our atom bombs wount be a wasted investment.<<

Wait ... wait now ... that can't be possible. Truman was a democrat.

Maybe his wife made him do it?

lol ....

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2008, 05:27:46 PM »
Truman (no, not Trueman) knew only what they told him about the A-Bomb. It had never been used before, anywhere. The military had two designs,( Fatman and Littleboy) and wanted to try out both of them. Clearly, only one bomb would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender, but the Airforce (Army Air Force at the time) wanted to try out both of its bombs and that was what it did.

No one could do more than speculate about the eventual consequences, as the White Sands test was not designed to study the longterm effects, only whether the fool thing would work at all.

McCain has said that the US needs to stay in Iraq pretty much forever, so long as the (puppet) government does not ask us to get the Hell out, which they are not likely to do, because they are out of a job if we aren't there to keep them in power. So I am not voting for McCain, because I am not at all in favor of us pissing away millions of dollars daily on Iraq and still hearing that we can't afford to provide medical care for small children, and 14? per citizen is too much to pay for PBS or CPB.


His temper would probably not be a major concern of mine. Certainly not compared with his being such a war lover. He is rather Strangelovian when it comes to war.

The Iraqis have had some sort of government intheir country for over 6,000 years, Never, until Mohammad Chalabi decided to con the State Dept., did any Iraqis seriously contemplate the concept of a pluralistic democracy such as we are purportedly trying to foist on Iraq.                                 


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2008, 08:23:28 PM »
<<It is even speculated that Trueman dropped the first bomb on a downtown area , rather than a sparcely populated area , or a strictly military instalition in order to impress our enemys present and future with an attitude of ruthlessness rather than to leave the impression that the bomb was too scary for us to really use.>>

Yeah, speculated.  As you yourself admit.

Well, here's my speculation.  Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima because we were at war with the fucking bastards, who had behaved worse than a bunch of fucking animals and needed to be shown in no uncertain terms exactly what was going to happen to them if they continued to fight and force the Allies into a bloody invasion of the Home Islands.  Then he reinforced the lesson with Nagasaki.  Then they got the message.

Hard to imagine an age when Amerikkka was the victim of unprovoked military aggression rather than its  perpetrator, but that's how it really used to be.  And they had not only the right but the duty to strike back at the aggressor with every ounce of their considerable strength.  Now thanks to Bush, we have billions of human beings who believe with considerable justification that the shoe is on the other foot.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2008, 08:30:29 PM »
>>The military had two designs,( Fatman and Littleboy) and wanted to try out both of them. Clearly, only one bomb would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender, but the Airforce (Army Air Force at the time) wanted to try out both of its bombs and that was what it did.<<

So the Japan actually surrendered after the first bomb, but the evil Amerikkkan military industrial complex wanted to test both bombs and dropped it anyway.

Are you alright?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2008, 09:16:43 PM »
Truman (no, not Trueman) knew only what they told him about the A-Bomb. It had never been used before, anywhere. The military had two designs,( Fatman and Littleboy) and wanted to try out both of them. Clearly, only one bomb would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender, but the Airforce (Army Air Force at the time) wanted to try out both of its bombs and that was what it did.


You are probly a better speller than I am so I defer to your correction on President Truman's name.

But there was a single test of an Atomic bomb at Trinity , the power of the bomb was known to Truman .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test

http://www.dannen.com/decision/trin-rad.html

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2008, 04:14:43 PM »
The military had two designs,( Fatman and Littleboy) and wanted to try out both of them. Clearly, only one bomb would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender, but the Airforce (Army Air Force at the time) wanted to try out both of its bombs and that was what it did.<<

So the Japan actually surrendered after the first bomb, but the evil Amerikkkan military industrial complex wanted to test both bombs and dropped it anyway.
=======================================================
No, what happened was the Japanese offered to surrender, but not unconditionally, and because of the way that Japanese negotiate, their de facto offer of surrender was misunderstood by the US State Dept., which did not understand. The military did in fact want to try out both bombs, and when State did not report a surrender, they took advantage of the situation and bombed Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands more.



The Japanese surrender was advertised by the US as an unconditional surrender, but it was not without conditions, the most important of which was that Hirohito would remain emperor and would not be tried or suffer any sort of judgment for the attack on Pearl Harbor and other assorted atrocities, the most grievious of which was the rape of Nanking.

Truman knew that the A-Bomb was a very powerful weapon, but he did not know how powerful, nor did he know of the lingering effects of radiation on the survivors, as this was not really known to anyone. He certainly had no way of knowing how the ghastly deaths of the survivors would provoke anti-American resentment and fear in the following years.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2008, 04:48:35 PM »
No, what happened was the Japanese offered to surrender, but not unconditionally, and because of the way that Japanese negotiate, their de facto offer of surrender was misunderstood by the US State Dept., which did not understand.

Quote
After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.)

The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government and the War council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation, and delegation to the Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals.

The Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact on April 5. At two minutes past midnight on August 9, Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces launched an invasion of Manchuria. Four hours later, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan. The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

they took advantage of the situation and bombed Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands more.

The death toll at Nagasaki was 40,000 direct and an additional 40,000 from radiation effects. Not "hundreds of thousands."
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2008, 10:09:26 PM »
The military had two designs,( Fatman and Littleboy) and wanted to try out both of them. Clearly, only one bomb would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender, but the Airforce (Army Air Force at the time) wanted to try out both of its bombs and that was what it did.<<

So the Japan actually surrendered after the first bomb, but the evil Amerikkkan military industrial complex wanted to test both bombs and dropped it anyway.
=======================================================
No, what happened was the Japanese offered to surrender, but not unconditionally, and because of the way that Japanese negotiate, their de facto offer of surrender was misunderstood by the US State Dept., which did not understand. The military did in fact want to try out both bombs, and when State did not report a surrender, they took advantage of the situation and bombed Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands more.



The Japanese surrender was advertised by the US as an unconditional surrender, but it was not without conditions, the most important of which was that Hirohito would remain emperor and would not be tried or suffer any sort of judgment for the attack on Pearl Harbor and other assorted atrocities, the most grievious of which was the rape of Nanking.

Truman knew that the A-Bomb was a very powerful weapon, but he did not know how powerful, nor did he know of the lingering effects of radiation on the survivors, as this was not really known to anyone. He certainly had no way of knowing how the ghastly deaths of the survivors would provoke anti-American resentment and fear in the following years.

The Trinity test was one type and the Hiroshima blast was the other type. Should there have been conditions on the surrender?