MotherJones Blog: <i>Arizona Republic</i> Forgets About McCain's "Volcanic Temper"

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Arizona Republic Forgets About McCain's "Volcanic Temper"

This is what Arizona Republic's editorial board had to say about John McCain:

Arizona Sen. John McCain has staked much of his claim to the presidency on his character: his status as war hero; his service to his country; his commitment to a cause, his country, bigger than himself.

These are legitimate claims to support by McCain, and worthy of voter attention and consideration.

But there are other aspects of McCain's character, less flattering, also worthy of voter attention and consideration....Many Arizonans active in policymaking have been the victim of McCain's volcanic temper and his practice of surrounding himself with aides and allies who regard politics, in the words of his paid Arizona chairman, state House Speaker Jeff Groscost, as a "bloodsport."

...McCain often insults people and flies off the handle....If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is much there to admire. After all, we have supported McCain in his past runs for office.

But the presidency is different. There is also reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States.

That sure is some tough straight talk from McCain's home-state paper. But it's from an editorial that ran in 1999. A few days ago, the paper published an editorial endorsing McCain. It said,

Anyone surprised to learn that The Arizona Republic judges U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona the best Republican choice for president in 2008 simply hasn't been paying attention.

In recent months we have extolled McCain's virtues and defended him against his many critics. In our judgment, McCain is the class of the GOP contenders, and we are proud to encourage his pursuit of the nation's highest office....

He gives his party integrity. And principle. They cannot improve on such attributes. And they should not try.

What a difference two election cycles make. The endorsement says nothing about McCain's "volcanic temper" and worrisome temperament. It seems the Republic has made its peace with McCain—especially since he became a front-runner. Or maybe its editorial board members believe his meds are now working.

Comments

Since we may be stuck with Hilary or McCain for dictator, I want to get my two cents in for the real issues. Energy Independence Now! No more Oil Wars! We need to stop paying our adversaries with oil money. It is unseemly for an American President to beg a Saudi despot for cheaper oil.
We need to drill in ANWAR and we need to build more nuclear power plants.

Posted by: poetryman69 on 02/01/08 at 4:13 PM Respond

ANWAR is a knee-jerk right-wing blind spot. According to the USGS estimated ANWR 1002 Area has reserves between 5.7billion barrels (95% chance) and 16.0 billion barrels (5% chance). On average, most consider a total reserve of 10.3 billion barrels. Under this scenario:
• It will take between 7 and 12 years from approval of drilling to actually producing oil.
• Over another 20 years, production will increase to a maximum of 1.4 million barrels per day.
• After that point (27 to 32 years after initial approval to drill), production will decrease over the next 20 years to 0.2m barrels per day.
Considering that it will take 27 to 32 years for ANWR to provide 5% of our CURRENT oil demand, you got to be kidding me!!! Bad science = good right wing agenda.
Better yet, revoke all the oil tax credits, pull the carrier groups out of the Persian Gulf, bring our kids home from the Mid East, close our bases in Saudi, spend $0 on the Jews and put ALL that money into renewable energies.
On May 25th, 1961, President Kennedy committed the country to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade.
What do you think is more difficult: President Kennedy’s commitment to reach the Moon or America gaining total energy independence within the same period of time?
Which do you think is more important?

Posted by: kirkbrew on 02/01/08 at 4:30 PM Respond

no, no, no, not Nucular Powah, poetryman69, you still don't get the point:

* nuclear requires a fuel, and produces a dangerous waste.

* oil, gas, coal, biofuels are all fuels, with drilling mining or growing the sources.

* fuels are a simple way to have stored energy, but we can no longer afford such simplistic mechanisms.

* there are *thousands* of non-fuel energy sources, many of which can provide baseload power.

* electricity is our preferred energy form in this society.

* electricity can be stored in many ways, look them up.

Nuclear Power is an evil obscenity ... shun it!

Posted by: eleanor on 02/02/08 at 11:02 PM Respond

"Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations."

from Guardian UK

******

We should not be bested. America can make a plan and we can create new industries and many people can still get rich without making more of a mess.

A 100 by 100 mile solar panel using current technology could provide enough power for the USA.

We have to break the hold big oil (now big energy) has over the future. They might have us today but they can't own the future - that belongs to the next generation of better and smarter technologies.

Posted by: capt on 02/03/08 at 12:43 AM Respond