I don't worry that an out of control, hotheaded President John McCain would lose his temper and order the Air Force to nuke Iran or that he'd blow his top at Russia or China or North Korea and reach for the button. I don't even worry that he'll provoke a diplomatic incident by calling a foreign leader names he usually reserves for other Republicans or his own wife.
I worry that his tantrums and his habit of bullying will intimidate his own staff and cabinet and keep him from getting the kind of advice that would prevent a diplomatic incident or head off a military confrontation with Iran, Russia, or China. Who's going to want to approach him to tell him he's wrong or deliver some bad news if it means having to endure one of his foul-mouthed tirades which will inevitably end with humiliation, dismissal, possibly a firing, and all to no avail because the President will probably do just the opposite of what's advisable out of spite and a self-righteous sense of personal aggrievement?
We've had eight years of that, thank you very much.
We had four years of it, in a slightly milder form, between 1977 and 1981.
Jimmy Carter couldn't stand to be told he was wrong by other politicians either. One of the first things he did as President was offend Tip O'Neill and Ted Kennedy. Carter was another self-anointed reformer who had a bad habit of thinking of his fellow Democrats as his main opposition. From a Democratic point of view, I suppose, it's a good thing that McCain can't stand other Republicans. They embarrass him with their hypocrisy and their god-bothering and their pandering to the yahoo vote---which is one of the things that makes his choosing a Right Wing Fundamentalist for his running mate such a forehead slapper---but more than all that, what really pisses him off is that they won't do what he wants his way. A President McCain who does things just to spite the likes of John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, and Christopher Bond could be a boon to Democrats coming to him with bills to sign that the likes of John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, and Christopher Bond opposed, although the benefits of his spite and malice would probably work the other way. When he goes to Congress with bills to pass and judges to appoint that Democrats oppose, it won't have helped him to have spited and insulted and attempted to bully and belittle the likes of Cornyn, Cochran, and Bond.
I don't even want to think about what it'll be like when his temper gets the better of him when he's dealing with his admirals and generals.
McCain has been saved from his own bad temper time and time again by the willingness of the targets of his wrath to put loyalty to their party or commitment to particular pieces of legislation ahead of their own feelings. Mostly though, all they've had to do up till now is ignore him. See how they feel when it's a matter of putting their careers on the line to save his floundering Presidency.
Four years of a President making snap decisions out of spite and vanity will not be a good four years for the country. Nothing will get done, lots will be left to slide, and our foreign and domestic policy will be entirely reactive and decided by expedience and whim and a desperate need to keeping plugging holes and heading off disasters caused by his latest tantrum.
In other words, four more years of more of the same.
I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation, no matter how monstrous, that could cause an actual voting rift within the Republican legislative block. Somebody help me out here...what would these people find so repugnant that they would forego party loyalty to try to stop it?
Posted by: Ken Muldrew | Sunday, September 07, 2008 at 01:14 PM
what would these people find so repugnant that they would forego party loyalty to try to stop it?
This is a rhetorical question, right?
Posted by: KC45s | Sunday, September 07, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Temper? What @#$%$^&* temper?
Posted by: The Heretik | Sunday, September 07, 2008 at 07:03 PM
I can't see an instance where McCain's temper would prevent him from advancing an agenda, even as watered-down an agenda as he'd be forced to submit. He'd manage to co-opt a third of the Senate from red states, doesn't matter whether they are Dems or Repubs, and that would give him enough skin in the game to force legislation thru.
Posted by: actor212 | Monday, September 08, 2008 at 10:18 AM