While Democrats often complain that Travel Office firings or cattle-futures bonanzas or old church sermons or old illegal drug use aren't relevant issues to a presidential campaign, The Washington Post splashed across its Sunday front page today a 1992 squabble on Vietnam policy between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Charles Grassley to illustrate how some feel McCain's "volcanic temper" is "disqualifying" for the presidency (so says conservative former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire to the Post).
It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."
McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.
You can bet money this will take off as a Sunday and Monday news topic.
I'm betting that the other "participant" Post source is former Sen. Kerrey. Grassley declined to comment, although the Post noted he recently said elsewhere that they did not speak for some time after that fight. Michael Leahy's story is headlined simply "McCain: A Question of Temperament."
Sen. Joe Lieberman comes to McCain's defense, saying his anger never blurs his judgment, but makes him more effective. Bob Smith then 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."
Deeper in the article, Leahy acknowledges that Smith doesn't like McCain much:
Smith admits to not liking McCain, a point he has often made over the years to reporters. "I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts," Smith said. "For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close."
There's the traditional sentence of media concern: "According to aides, McCain's frequent comments about his temperament reflect a recognition that the issue persists for some voters and the media." The issue particularly persists for media outlets that don't want the ongoing Democratic primary fight to hurt Democrats too much.
Leahy recalls McCain's Virginia high-school nicknames of "Punk" and "McNasty," details ABC loved highlighting when McCain revisited his high school a few weeks ago.
The Post calls his temper volcanic without quotes:
Part of the paradox of McCain is that many of the old targets of his volcanic temper are now his campaign contributors. Former Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson is one example. In 1992, during a private meeting of Arizona officials over a federal land issue that affected the state, a furious McCain openly questioned Johnson's honesty. "Start a tape recorder -- it's best when you get a liar on tape," McCain said to others in the meeting, according to an account of their "nose-to-nose, testosterone-filled" argument that Johnson later provided to reporters.
But Johnson, who once was quoted as saying that he thought McCain was "in the area of being unstable," today says that he has mellowed, citing a 2006 face-to-face apology that he said he received from his old adversary. "He's not the same guy, as far as I'm concerned," Johnson said. "And nothing has happened during the course of this year's campaign."
The latter part of the article is Leahy recycling old tales from Arizona from the 1990s about McCain's "vindictive streak" and how people claim he yelled at them. A skeptical reader can begin to wonder how much of this level of detail would be applied to a Democratic nominee:
In 1994, McCain tried to stop a primary challenge to the state's Republican governor, J. Fife Symington III, by telephoning his opponent, Barbara Barrett, the well-heeled spouse of a telecommunications executive, and warning of unspecified "consequences" should she reject his advice to drop out of the race. Barrett stayed in. At that year's state Republican convention, McCain confronted Sandra Dowling, the Maricopa County school superintendent and, according to witnesses, angrily accused her of helping to persuade Barrett to enter the race.
"You better get [Barrett] out or I'll destroy you," a witness claims that McCain shouted at her. Dowling responded that if McCain couldn't respect her right to support whomever she chose, that he "should get the hell out of the Senate." McCain shouted an obscenity at her, and Dowling howled one back.
Woods raced over, according to a witness, and pulled Dowling away. Woods said he has "no memory" of being involved, "though I heard something about an argument."
At the very end of the article, Leahy acknowledges something a conservative thinks about at the beginning. Bill Clinton had "purple rages" at aides like George Stephanopoulos. But when did the Post report that? Safely after Clinton was President. It's in Bob Woodward's first Clinton book.
