Temper, temper.
The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
Get Cliff’s The Real McCain today.
Who the hell says trollop anymore?
Holy shit.
Who the hell EVER calls their wife a “cunt”?
Color me skeptical, bitch.
Feh. Anonymous sources.
I’ve got nothing against foul language but I would write off as nuts and dangerous anyone who ever said something that hostile and inappropriate to anyone, much less his own long-suffering wife. My husband, like most people I know, would have to be completely psychotic from at least a week with no sleep AND hallucinating from a poison arrow sticking out of his back before he’d ever say anything like that.
Sean: Only guys who are really good at apologizing.
OliverWillis.com: *THE* destination for discussion of all the relevant issues of the day.
I’m buying one for the McCain Democrats in my family. We need to support Cliff. He makes Republicans squirm on camera during debates.
Farris: Because I promised sober analysis of the issues at all times. Don’t try to make this into the NY Times. It ain’t.
If ya smelllllll what I’m cookin’.
Is that a Panthers shirt you’re wearing?
“Is that a Panthers shirt you’re wearing?”
You’re? Please don’t tell me you think that’s a picture of Oliver Willis.
“Color me skeptical, bitch.”
“Feh. Anonymous sources.”
Three sources who were there and agree with the events. They have no reason to lie, especially given the media’s tendency to overlook McCain’s faults. Additionally, we have plenty of other reports about McCain’s temper.
This is not an extraordinary claim and there’s enough evidence to trust its validity.
This is not an extraordinary claim…
A U.S. Senator who calls his wife a trollop and a c*** in front of a bunch of other people. And the story doesn’t see the light of day until 16 years later. Right.
“And the story doesn’t see the light of day until 16 years later. Right.”
Gee and what is it that could have possibly prompted a reporter to interview people about McCain’s past? Oh yeah, right, he became the republican nominee for president.
Fafaroo…
And these three reporters weren’t interested in sharing the story when he was going head-to-head with Bush in 2000? Or at any time during his service in the U.S. Senate?
Please don’t tell me you think that’s a picture of Oliver Willis.
Please. Any idiot knows it’s Vin Diesel.
Scratch:
Have you been paying attention? You haven’t seen how the TradMed fellates McCain?
Hmmm, “TradMed.” That has a more snazzy ring than “MSM.”
So anyway, these three guys from the TradMed saw this all happen, but because they’re in the TradMed they kept it under wraps. Until now.
Abusing a spouse is fine to the McCainstream media if they get to go on the campaign bus
“And these three reporters weren’t interested in sharing the story when he was going head-to-head with Bush in 2000? Or at any time during his service in the U.S. Senate?”
You mean why didn’t the reporters report this story just like Fox News was going on 24/7 about Rev. Wright during Obama’s run for the Senate? Or just like the New York Times was digging into Whitewater when Clinton was still just governor of Arkansas?
McCain’s anger management problem was actually a big story during the 2000 primaries. It is part of what sunk his campaign then. Why didn’t this story emerge as part of the reporting then that Vietnam may have seriously fucked up McCain’s mental state? My guess is that Rove hadn’t actually gotten around to feeding to the press at the time. You know you have to spoon feed those guys a little bit at a time.
I don’t know if this story is true or not but to suggest that it isn’t based solely on the fact that no one had bothered to write a story about it before is a little, well, stupid.
“Three sources who were there and agree with the events. They have no reason to lie, especially given the media’s tendency to overlook McCain’s faults.”
No, not three sources, one source–Cliff Schecter. We have only Mr. Schecter’s word that he heard it from three people. I could very well tell you that 6,500 people all told me separately and independently that it is raining French fries in the town of Waldo, Florida. That doesn’t mean you have 6,500 sources.
Pertinent question not answered: Why did the purported sources seek anonymity? Why did Mr. Schecter grant it?
Mr. Schecter neglects to tell–that makes his account suspect and easy for McCain defenders to discount. It is for this second reason that I offer my succinct analysis: Feh!
“No, not three sources, one source–Cliff Schecter. We have only Mr. Schecter’s word that he heard it from three people. I could very well tell you that 6,500 people all told me separately and independently that it is raining French fries in the town of Waldo, Florida. That doesn’t mean you have 6,500 sources.”
No, but that’s because your claim is extraordinary. This claim is not. Some fellow GOPers think McCain’s temper to too much for him to be president so this incident is hardly out of place.
“Pertinent question not answered: Why did the purported sources seek anonymity? Why did Mr. Schecter grant it?”
Because telling this story could destroy their chances of covering McCain’s future career. Therefore, if could destroy the reporters career.
Let us also bear in mind that Hugh Hewitt was shocked, SHOCKED! to see profanity used in Barack Obama’s book.
McCain’s behavior is well known and documented.
Because telling this story could destroy their chances of covering McCain’s future career.
You mean to say, these reporters have withheld relevant news about the subject of their reporting in exchange for continued access?
Reliable sort, aren’t they?
“No, but that’s because your claim is extraordinary. This claim is not.”
Plausibility has nothing to do with it. We have one source, not three.
“Plausibility has nothing to do with it. We have one source, not three.”
We have one source who says he has three. Unless you can come up with a reason to doubt his claims, we have three sources. Unless you are willing to claim Mr. Schecter lied, we have three sources.
“Unless you are willing to claim Mr. Schecter lied, we have three sources.”
See what I’m saying? If one discount Mr. Schecter, you have zero sources. If you get to zero by taking away one, you had only one to start with.
As long as the three reporters remain unnamed, Schecter is the only source for this story.
Dammit, Quaker, why do you have to be so fair alla time?
Clearly there is enough anecdotal evidence to go around.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/08/the-real-mccain-fighting-words-and-flip-flops/
Dammit, Quaker, why do you have to be so fair alla time?
Bcuz I don’t like seeing “our” side take up the same nasty tactics used by the very worst of the “other” side. 1) It’s wrong, and 2) anonymous sources are easy to discount and quite embarrassing when they prove to be unreliable.
See also: Rather, Dan.
Returning to Strowbridge’s reasoning as to why the reporters choose to remain anonymous:
There are two possibilities:
1) The three Arizona reporters were the only members of the news media present when it happened. If so, McCain knows who they are and that they are the ones who told Schecter.
2) The three Arizona reporters were NOT the only members of the news media present. If this is true, Schecter should be able to find others to corroborate the story–and possibly someone willing to do so on the record.
Did Mr. McCain call his wife a vile name? I have no idea and neither does anyone else here. However, some are willing to believe it’s so based on very shaky evidence.
“Did Mr. McCain call his wife a vile name? I have no idea and neither does anyone else here. However, some are willing to believe it’s so based on very shaky evidence.”
Shaky evidence?
We have years of evidence that McCain has a temper. We have people in his own party who think he is unfit to be president because of his temper.
And by the way, you are willing to believe Mr. Schecter, or these three reporters are lying, with zero evidence. So what does that make you?
you are willing to believe Mr. Schecter, or these three reporters are lying, with zero evidence.
You make a critical error here. I said nothing of the kind.
We have years of evidence that McCain has a temper. We have people in his own party who think he is unfit to be president because of his temper.
That hardly qualifies as evidence he insulted his wife.
Try it this way, Strowbridge: Suppose we had a writer with a conservative track record who reports, based on anonymous sources, that Bill Clinton is having another affair.
We have previous evidence of such behavior. We have people in our own party who think Mr. Clinton disgraced the party and the office of the President.
Nevertheless, I would remain skeptical as long as those “sources” remained unnamed, wouldn’t you?
Okay, I see what you’re getting at. Let’s put it this way. This story has not been confirmed or denied by any credible source. If it’s true that it happened the way it is described, let’s just say I wouldn’t be shocked.
Does all this mean that every time I read a news article which has an anonymous source I should not believe it? Only those articles where every person is named are valid?
I didn’t realize the front pages of so many newspapers will filled with so many opinion pieces…
“Nevertheless, I would remain skeptical as long as those “sources” remained unnamed, wouldn’t you?”
That depends on where it is found (internet vs. real book), and the level of detail given. It also depends on the credibility of the writer.
It also depends on the credibility of the writer.
I would think that is the most critical point. I’m not familiar with Cliff Schecter’s writings. Can anyone give an un-biased description of how reliable he is? Have his writings been questioned before?
By the way, I heard McCain’s denials. Let’s just say, they were not convincing.
Sean asks a very reasonable question, CSS. How reliable is Mr. Schecter?