Not sure what to do this November.

[LaiSteve66]

I'd rather eat out the rotten asshole of a roadkill skunk than vote for John McCain. The only problem is, he's already got my state won. So what do I do? Do I "waste" my vote on Obama, or on Libertarians like I normally do? If I lived in a swing state, than I would definitely vote for Obama, but no, I live in a hardcore red state in a country with a worthless electoral college "system". The same bullshit system that got Bush elected eight years ago.

Not that I'm a big fan of Obama. I mean, out of a pool of dipshits, n00bs, neo-cons, retards, politically correct tools, and creationists, Ron Paul was the only candidate I liked. But nevertheless, I hope Obama hands that senile, uninspiring, dipshit his ass in November.

Voting in Texas sucks.

[Yeahman]

Obama's won my state. I'll probably vote for Barr. I'm note a big believer in voting so I'd recommend voting third party or not voting at all.

[AngryABCGirl]

I'm voting for Obama even though he'll obviously win CA just to rock the youth vote.

[SunWuKong]

i still want to see them campaign and debate first, but with McCain's hawkish foreign policy, i'm already leaning Obama.

[thaite]

Can't say i like any of 'em. Obama's a joke. I piss on Ron Paul.

[SunWuKong]

Can't say i like any of 'em. Obama's a joke. I piss on Ron Paul.

yeah i don't really like either of them either. but i'm technically a Florida resident so my vote actually counts. can't throw my vote away on third party.

[VV o n g B a]

mccain's got my state pretty clearly. i'd vote for barr w/o reservation except for his views on abortion. but i'll prolly still end up voting for him.

[kimpossible]

I was willing to consider McCain even though I don't normally vote Republican but there's no room for senior moments in a political climate like this so I don't see why I won't vote Obama at this point. I don't think he'll be a horrible president and he may be a fairly good second term president. My husband is fairly staunchly for McCain now that Hillary is out and I don't see that changing unless Obama makes it quite clear Hillary will be Secretary of State or similar.

[didu]

I'd rather eat out the rotten asshole of a roadkill skunk than vote for John McCain.

Hahaha, sig worthy!!

[deez nuts]

Obama isn't that great of a candidate for me to pay more taxes. With the possibility of getting married within four years and with a combined household income of double what I make now and under an Obama adminstration and with the possibility of me joining a private group; I don't even know how that's gonna work out under Obama. I can barely comprehend what my financial adviser and CPA tell me already. I'm gonna ask them who I should vote for. LOL.

[Paradox]

I really don't like Obama's stance on capital gains tax. Since a portion of my income is derived from the stock market this could really effect me. I'm sitting on the fence but i'm still leaning towards Obama because it'll be very difficult for me to vote for a Republican.

[tommyhtown]

Obama isn't that great of a candidate for me to pay more taxes.


You and I share a similar view on that even though my income is dwindling now that I am working in public sector. Still, Obama's economics/tax plan is not to my liking compared to McCain. Having said that, I need to look into both more.

[USCTrojanzNo1]

No more drama,
vote for Obama,
he'll capture Osama!

[SunWuKong]

yeah it concerns me what'll happen with taxes and the economy if Obama gets in office (would have the same concern if it was Hillary), especially with a Democrat-majority Congress.

one thing i can count on though is that Obama won't pour as much money into Iraq as McCain would. if i'm gonna get taxed up the ass anyway, i would rather that money be spent domestically. on the other hand, there's really no guarantee that Obama is really able to withdraw from Iraq, and we could still be spending billions there with Obama in charge - maybe not as much as McCain would, but still tons of money anyway.

[Paradox]

Honestly at this point I think any alternative is better than what the U.S. has now. The fundamental problem I see with guys like McCaine is that he'll maintain the status quo and so far the Republican status quo has been grossly incompetent and unhealthy for the average U.S. taxpayer. I think it's worth the gamble to bet on Obama. He's new blood and I don't see him doing worse than Bush.

[VV o n g B a]

i'd be fine w/ obama if not for taxes and trade. i don't care if he raises capital gains but hearing that he might touch 401ks really got to me. he's also against the korean free trade deal and he also made that chinese toy banning statement.

the only thing that i really like about him is that he attended that crazy church and his wife is so militant. the idea that we could have a guy as president who is so skeptical of american motives and power is really really attractive. that's the only real change that i feel about an obama presidency.

mccain... well iraq is of course a major negative. and his gas tax thing was disgusting pandering. and the fact that more supreme court judges will come in under a republican really stings. only positive thing is that he's more a free trade and lower taxes guy. but that's a very powerful positive.

only other thing is that i think obama would be someone i could listen to and watch for 4 years. mccain's speech on the night obama won the nomination was just horrid. not quite unwatchable as bush is to me now, but quite horrid nonetheless. obama's speech was awesome comparatively. if there's a guy that could actually inspire americans to give back to the country, obama's the guy.

[AngryABCGirl]

Everything about McCain disgusts me. Actually, almost everything about the Republican party disgusts me. WTF is tax breaks gonna help me if the economy is a fucking shipwreck. Luckily my family is all in foreign business so we've been untouched, but this recession is wrecking havoc on even the very wealthy. Anyone in the know knew that this meltdown was coming and did nothing to stop it, hell no to voting in the same party who has us trapped in this endless war that should have never been fought that we will be paying consequences for years to come even if we left Iraq tomorrow.

[Yeahman]

Everything about McCain disgusts me. Actually, almost everything about the Republican party disgusts me. WTF is tax breaks gonna help me if the economy is a fucking shipwreck. Luckily my family is all in foreign business so we've been untouched, but this recession is wrecking havoc on even the very wealthy. Anyone in the know knew that this meltdown was coming and did nothing to stop it, hell no to voting in the same party who has us trapped in this endless war that should have never been fought that we will be paying consequences for years to come even if we left Iraq tomorrow.
What would you have wanted the GOP to do to prevent an economic slowdown?

[AngryABCGirl]

What would you have wanted the GOP to do to prevent an economic slowdown?

Intervene during the sub-prime lending. It was obvious to financial experts what was going to happen.

[Yeahman]

Intervene during the sub-prime lending. It was obvious to financial experts what was going to happen.
Intervene how?

[AngryABCGirl]

Intervene in financial institutions doing predatory lending, placed limits, acted on unethnical practices of mortgage lenders (many of which took advantage of immigrants), and have Fed Reserve act faster.. etc?

If you're unhappy with me not being happy with the Republican Party and wanting to get into some endless debate, I'm not gonna waste my time. Either way, I will not vote for McCain the party for countless reasons.

[BillHoo]

Intervene in financial institutions doing predatory lending, placed limits, acted on unethnical practices of mortgage lenders (many of which took advantage of immigrants), and have Fed Reserve act faster.. etc?

If you're unhappy with me not being happy with the Republican Party and wanting to get into some endless debate, I'm not gonna waste my time. Either way, I will not vote for McCain the party for countless reasons.

Vote your conscience, right or left.

I think we saw it coming, but no one democrat or republican wanted to do anything about it because it would have been unpopular at the time.

- I'm a single mother with 4 kids. The subprime mortgage was my chance at home ownership. The (insert political party here)s are trying to keep me down!

- Just when we've recovered from the last recession, the (insert political party here)s try to derail our economy!

- I'm an unemployed black man. The government should stay out of my business! If I want to buy a home beyond my means I should be able to do so! They OWE me that much!

- They're taking the food out of our mouths! Without this mortgage, I won't be able to own a home AND eat! The subprime is a GODSEND!

CRAZY LONG-HAIRED GUY FROM THE FIRST ROBOCOP MOVIE: "It's a free society. Except there ain't nothing free, because there's no guarantees. You're on your own. That's the law of the jungle."

[Paradox]

Intervene in financial institutions doing predatory lending, placed limits, acted on unethnical practices of mortgage lenders (many of which took advantage of immigrants), and have Fed Reserve act faster.. etc?

A lot of this is actually Greenspan's fault. He had a big influence over the loan industry and was actively encouraging these types of sub prime loans at the time. The whole industry was and probably still is highly unethical.

The Bush administration just exacerbated the inevitable fallout from sub prime. If the U.S. didn't go fuck around in Iraq it would have saved trillions and possibly allowed the country to spend on other infrastructural needs in times of crisis. Bush also doesn't have a handle on OPEC because nobody takes him seriously. They look at him as a warmongering incompetent. He's terrible at foreign AND domestic policy so the result is that any problems due to sub prime have just been compounded.

[Yeahman]

Intervene in financial institutions doing predatory lending, placed limits, acted on unethnical practices of mortgage lenders (many of which took advantage of immigrants), and have Fed Reserve act faster.. etc?
Why didn't the Democratic Congress pass any bills doing what you wanted?

You want to turn the Fed into a political football?! The whole reason we have the Fed is to separate monetary policy from politics.

If you're unhappy with me not being happy with the Republican Party and wanting to get into some endless debate, I'm not gonna waste my time. Either way, I will not vote for McCain the party for countless reasons.
I'm not happy with the Republican Party and I will not vote for McCain so I'm happy that you agree with me on that. It's your surprising (and seemingly willful) ignorance of economic policy that I wanted to point out. It's like me saying "I will not vote for Obama because he hasn't found a cure for AIDS." That is exactly how ridiculous you sound.

A lot of this is actually Greenspan's fault. He had a big influence over the loan industry and was actively encouraging these types of sub prime loans at the time. The whole industry was and probably still is highly unethical.
Greenspan encouraged it in the sense that he kept interest rates low. Any economic problem related to interest rates would have been blamed on Greenspan regardless of what he did. Had he kept interest rates high, he would've been attacked for exacerbating the 2000-01 recession.

The Bush administration just exacerbated the inevitable fallout from sub prime. If the U.S. didn't go fuck around in Iraq it would have saved trillions and possibly allowed the country to spend on other infrastructural needs in times of crisis. Bush also doesn't have a handle on OPEC because nobody takes him seriously. They look at him as a warmongering incompetent. He's terrible at foreign AND domestic policy so the result is that any problems due to sub prime have just been compounded.
How has Bush compounded the subprime meltdown?
What does "handle on OPEC" mean?

[AngryABCGirl]

Why didn't the Democratic Congress pass any bills doing what you wanted?

You want to turn the Fed into a political football?! The whole reason we have the Fed is to separate monetary policy from politics.


I'm not happy with the Republican Party and I will not vote for McCain so I'm happy that you agree with me on that. It's your surprising (and seemingly willful) ignorance of economic policy that I wanted to point out. It's like me saying "I will not vote for Obama because he hasn't found a cure for AIDS." That is exactly how ridiculous you sound.

I do realize you were trying to quiz me on economics, which is why I didn't bother to further answer. It seems you've already made up your conclusions on what economic policy you want, there wasn't any point in me to talk about policy because no matter what I could have said you wouldn't have been happy with. Boo fuckin hoo.

[Yeahman]

^ I have made up my mind on what reality is. That is true. I was just shocked that you were so brainwashed. This isn't Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative. We could be talking about the plight of pandas and you'd still blame the Republicans. You're blaming me for pointing out how irrational you are?

[deez nuts]

You and I share a similar view on that even though my income is dwindling now that I am working in public sector. Still, Obama's economics/tax plan is not to my liking compared to McCain. Having said that, I need to look into both more.

I don't know how it's gonna work out. I don't care if I pay more taxes if it was just me or even with a kid coming along the way and possible wife. Between her and I, we make more than plenty. But, it's money away from my parents. My brother and I support them and by support I don't mean sending them a couple of hundred bucks a month; I mean completely.

My brother and I aren't some privileged ABC kid where English is our first and only language with white collared parents retiring off their retirement savings and nice company health insurance. Sure we provide the best that money can buy for their peace of mind and our own peace of mind. Sure we can scale back. But, why should we? They're our parents. But, I will wait and see what my financial adviser and CPA says. If Obama is better for my wallet, I want Obama to win. Though the last time we talked about this and those two being Obama supporters, their words to me were along the lines of "you don't want Obama to be President."

And Obama hates the Chinese so what the hell is the point? :biggrin:

[tommyhtown]

I don't know how it's gonna work out. I don't care if I pay more taxes if it was just me or even with a kid coming along the way and possible wife. Between her and I, we make more than plenty. But, it's money away from my parents. My brother and I support them and by support I don't mean sending them a couple of hundred bucks a month; I mean completely.

My brother and I aren't some privileged ABC kid where English is our first and only language with white collared parents retiring off their retirement savings and nice company health insurance. Sure we provide the best that my money can buy for my parents for their peace of mind and our own peace of mind. Sure we can scale back. But, why should we? They're our parents.

Right on! Because it's not only us. It's our parents' interest as well. My mom is close to retirement now. Whoever the candidate that will less negatively affect me and my mom's golden years is the candidate for me. It's all about economics and tax in this election.

And yes, my mom does not have 7 figure retirement savings either. I will have to help her out once she'll retire from our family business.

[Yeahman]

I'm more liberal in the sense that I, and my parents, don't mind paying higher taxes. Maybe it's the Catholic ethos. We'd rather live in poverty than prosper under a socio-economically unjust system. But neither I, nor my parents, are certain that Obama will be better for the country.

[AngryABCGirl]

^ I have made up my mind on what reality is. That is true. I was just shocked that you were so brainwashed. This isn't Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative. We could be talking about the plight of pandas and you'd still blame the Republicans. You're blaming me for pointing out how irrational you are?

If that's how you wanna roll it, sure. God will always love me. :-)

[Zdrav]

My husband is fairly staunchly for McCain now that Hillary is out

How in the world do you go from Hillary to McCain unless you accept that they're ideologically similar (which is a disservice to Hillary)? As both Hillary and Obama said in their campaign trails, their plans are pretty similar except on health care, which is one of the few areas that Hillary is to the LEFT of Obama. So how in the hell do you go from supporting a candidate who wants government-mandated universal health care to a geezer who wants to privatize social security and cut taxes for the wealthy?

"Experience" (aka being old)? Or god forbid, "patriotism" (come on, we all know what that REALLY means)?

[Yeahman]

^ Ann Coulter was a Hillary supporter because she believed Hillary was to the right of McCain. Her reasoning was that McCain has actively introduced "liberal" legislation like the guest worker program and the prohibition on torture. Meanwhile, Hillary had been very hawkish up until the Democratic primary which Coulter believes means that Hillary needed to soften her rhetoric on the war during the primaries but that she's really a neo-con at heart. As for health care, Hillary failed once and there was no reason to believe that she'd prevail on her second attempt.

[snailpoo]

How in the world do you go from Hillary to McCain unless you accept that they're ideologically similar (which is a disservice to Hillary)? As both Hillary and Obama said in their campaign trails, their plans are pretty similar except on health care, which is one of the few areas that Hillary is to the LEFT of Obama. So how in the hell do you go from supporting a candidate who wants government-mandated universal health care to a geezer who wants to privatize social security and cut taxes for the wealthy?

Taxes. A McCain presidency would advocates the least of the taxes of the three; Hillary means more taxes, and Obama as president would mean the highest taxes of the three. Take, for example, Hillary's and Obama's different approach to social security taxes, and the rather hefty difference for people making more than the current cut-off.

I may have dislike the now non-maverick version of McCain enough to pay for Hillary's tax increases, but am I that enamoured with Obama that I'm willing to pay an arm and a leg in taxes? Hrm.

[Zdrav]

A few dollars saved with McCain taxes is going to be lost to his marriage to oil interests.

[Yeahman]

^ A few dollars? Tens of thousands of dollars.
How is his supposed marriage to oil interests going to cost taxpayers? He wants to drill offshore which would mean cheaper oil. He wants to investigate speculators but that's not gonna get anywhere.

So we will benefit from both McCain's lower taxes and his supposed marriage to oil interests. Personally, I care more about other issues like Iraq though.

[VV o n g B a]

^ A few dollars? Tens of thousands of dollars.
How is his supposed marriage to oil interests going to cost taxpayers? He wants to drill offshore which would mean cheaper oil.drilling in all of the areas off limits right now would affect our gas price by about 10 cents. i'm not sure if this part is true, but i heard we wouldn't even see that benefit until 2030 if we started now. also, oil companies aren't exploiting large parts of the offshore areas they've already got for some reason.

i don't oppose offshore drilling, but it's not gonna save us much in the short term.

[Yeahman]

Sort of off topic but since I started investing in energy, when I hear about energy policy proposals, I don't think about the effect it'll have on gas prices anymore. I rarely drive anyway. When I hear "more offshore drilling" I hear "XOM."

[Arex]

I agree that McCain's apparent desire to appease Big Oil isn't really going to adversely affect me in the wallet, but I'm not quite understanding the point of easing restrictions on drilling when, as wongba pointed out, a) we won't stand to benefit for at least a decade (or two or three); b) any benefit we receive is likely going to be pretty small in the grand scheme of things; and c) oil companies are already under-utilizing their existing drilling rights.

If the above is more or less true (I don't necessarily know that it is), McCain's bringing this up as a campaign issue shows his priorities are not where I would like them to be and/or that he's disingenuous. After all, it plays on people's mistaken beliefs that increased drilling will lead to relief at the pump in the short term (I doubt he means we should allow more drilling today so we can increase our oil supply 10 or 20 years from now, when everyone--including himself--agrees our goal should be to reduce our reliance upon oil).

I don't appreciate it when politicians try to score easy political points by preying upon people's lack of information (like Bush/Cheney's successfully gaining public support for the Iraq war by falsely tying Saddam to 9/11).

[Zdrav]

How is his supposed marriage to oil interests going to cost taxpayers? He wants to drill offshore which would mean cheaper oil. He wants to investigate speculators but that's not gonna get anywhere.

So we will benefit from both McCain's lower taxes and his supposed marriage to oil interests. Personally, I care more about other issues like Iraq though.

The few gains made by offshore drilling won't save the average consumer much, but it will pad the pockets of oil businesses. Moreover, the oil in the Gulf of Mexico won't even be able retrievable for another 10 years. You think oil drilling is like picking gooseberries?

And as long as America is wedded to oil, every consumer is going to feel the torture of $4-a-gallon gas. You think that price is going to drop significantly because Republicans want to drill in Alaska or off the coast of California? Ha! Until a better energy source is developed, oil prices will continue to rise and hurt the average American.

IMHO, thinking about one's taxes while there's a global energy crisis and severe misdirection in American foreign policy is selfish and narrow-minded.

[Yeahman]

^ You still failed to explain how McCain's marriage to oil companies will cost Americans money.

IMHO, thinking about one's taxes while there's a global energy crisis and severe misdirection in American foreign policy is selfish and narrow-minded.
To think about a global energy crisis or misdirection in foreign policy is selfish and narrow-minded when there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa and earthquakes in China.

Some people are capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time. Besides I'm still waiting on your answer to why McCain would be worse on energy than Obama.

[Zdrav]

You still failed to explain how McCain's marriage to oil companies will cost Americans money.

I just said it: oil dependence will only continue to financially cripple the average citizen due to the unstoppable rise of oil prices (i.e. supply and demand). While oil supply contracts while demand (especially with the rise of China and India) rises, where are prices going to go? Soon, $4 for a gallon of gas is going to seem like a pretty good deal. Obviously, oil interests are having a field day with high prices, and as long as a politician is allied with them, the impetus for an energy revolution will be slow if not outright suppressed.

To think about a global energy crisis or misdirection in foreign policy is selfish and narrow-minded when there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa and earthquakes in China.

No it's not. The global energy crisis affects everybody, from the urban motorist to the farmer who can't grow crops anymore due to droughts caused by global warming. Foreign policy affects stability in all geopolitical circles.

Your taxes, on the other hand, affect mostly you and your dependents.

[Yeahman]

Oh I forgot to mention that McCain supports cap-and-trade. How is he married to oil interests again?

Is it just that if the Huffington Post repeats "Big Oil," "GOP," and "global warming" enough, people get brainwashed into thinking the three are synonyms?

[snailpoo]

Obviously, oil interests are having a field day with high prices, and as long as a politician is allied with them, the impetus for an energy revolution will be slow if not outright suppressed.

How do you "slow" or "outright suppress" an economic sea change that high oil prices will bring? If an alternate energy source can be found with the equivalence of $2 a gallon, how can any lobby suppress that?

Hybirds are being produced. Gas guzzlers are being scrapped. The entire Hummer line has been sold. SUVs are being cut to miniscule production. You seem to be implying a vast conspiracy, or at least a vast conglomerate, is capable of controlling the economy, and one man, even the president, can ...



A few dollars saved with McCain taxes is going to be lost to his marriage to oil interests.

Someone hasn't done the math. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I make an absurd amount of money, but if you go through Obama's speeches and some of his proposals, the amount of just his quantifiable tax increases, excluding everything he has not yet fleshed out, and you know how vague he is, is staggering.

Personal selfishness aside (and it would be a HUGE tax increase for me, far more than I would ever spend on gas or even the rising costs of items related to gas), tax increases like this stifle small business, deter growth, decrease spending, decrease savings, and eventually results in decreased revenues. Simple proof? After the Bush tax cuts, same quarter tax receipts grew even though the tax rate decreased. We continue to have a deficit because same quarter tax expenditures grew even greater, but that's another story about my disappointment that there's no true economic conservative left.

[Yeahman]

After the Bush tax cuts, same quarter tax receipts grew even though the tax rate decreased. We continue to have a deficit because same quarter tax expenditures grew even greater, but that's another story about my disappointment that there's no true economic conservative left.
That does mean that the Bush tax cuts were the primary cause. In fact, you won't see the Bush Administration or anyone in Congress making that argument because the CBO says that the Bush tax cuts reduced tax revenue. It could've been the improving economy due to steep interest rate cuts. There's inflation and a growing workforce. It could've been the increased government spending.

[snailpoo]

That does mean that the Bush tax cuts were the primary cause. In fact, you won't see the Bush Administration or anyone in Congress making that argument because the CBO says that the Bush tax cuts reduced tax revenue. It could've been the improving economy due to steep interest rate cuts. There's inflation and a growing workforce. It could've been the increased government spending.

Actually you see many people in the Bush Administration, Congress, random think tanks, and economic forcasters making that argument. While the CBO took the stance that the tax cuts only produced a short economic stimulus, the CBO even used those tax cuts in their now infamous 10-year projection of a tax surplus.

You site other factors as contributing to the increased tax revenue, but all of the factors are intertwined. Tax cuts causes inflation. Tax cuts expands small business, which grows the workforce. Tax cuts are a form of government spending (especially if you're arguing Keynsian deficit spending as an economic shock). What are the tax rebate checks that everyone said would stimulate the economy?

[sandra]

i heard about this on NPR as well. i wonder if he's ever hit her.

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'cunt'
Nick Juliano
Published: Monday April 7, 2008

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

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.

The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.

Schecter, who also blogs at The Agonist, said in an interview the anecdote is "an early example of his uncontrollable temper." In the book he outlines several other examples of McCain losing his cool and raises the question of how that would affect a McCain presidency.

What should voters make of this pattern? In February 2008 Tim Russert succinctly described McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A devilish grin spread from ear to ear as Russert, no McCain hater, leaned forward and spoke in a whisper, "He likes to fight." Russert got it right. But the big question isn't whether McCain likes to fight: it's who, when, and how.

The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.

McCain is well known for his rapport with the national media covering his presidential bid (he's jokingly referred to the press as "my base"), but Schecter said this incident was buried not out of fealty to the Arizona senator. Rather, it was uneasiness about how to get such a coarse exchange into a family newspaper, and he didn't fault the local press for not covering the incident.

"Members of the media are squeamish covering stuff like this so they let it go," Schecter told RAW STORY in an interview Monday. "Back in '92, when people use naughty words, [reporters] don't know as much what to do with it."

Much has changed since then. President Bush's reference to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole" was reported in at least 47 newspapers during the 2000 campaign, when the off-color remark was overheard, according to a database search. And more than a dozen newspapers have reported Dick Cheney's recommendation that Sen. Patrick Leahy "fuck yourself."

McCain and his aides have brushed off suggestions that his temper could impede his ability to perform the sometimes-delicate tasks asked of a president. The candidate was asked about his legendary temper last week on "Fox News Sunday," where he cited his ability to work "across the aisle" while in the Senate.

"You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want," McCain said. " The second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. ... When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry."

McCain's campaign did not return a call from RAW STORY seeking comment Monday morning.

Schecter says McCain's anger is much more than a passion for the issues. One can only imagine what would happen if McCain were to try to squeeze that temper into the tight confines of diplomacy.

"The public certainly has to know what this guy might do as president," Schecter says. Examples like the ones in his book "should worry people, quite frankly."