# What is up with John McCain? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751 "2010-12-03T02:52:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/81 "2010-12-05T20:07:32Z")
IIRC, that slight uptick in the polls after the VP pick was mostly from polling that was in the field before the pick, wasn’t it? Quoth **Little Nemo** : > [@](#): > > And I don’t see how announcing a Vice President can turn a faltering campaign around. Suppose Palin had actually been an intelligent well-spoken statesman. Would that have helped get McCain elected? Were people going to decide to vote for McCain in the hopes that he would die and the candidate they liked would become President? I don’t think it’s so much that people were _hoping_ that McCain would die, especially not folks who would have any chance of voting Republican in the first place. Rather, the simple fact is that McCain is old, and the Presidency is a dangerous job, so whether they hoped for it or not, people had to consider the very real possibility that he might die in office. Plus, of course, a candidate picking a vice-president is signalling that they are, in some way, like the person they’re picking: A McCain who would pick a right-wing fundamentalist would presumably be friendly to right-wing fundamentalist policies. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/82 "2010-12-06T17:42:07Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] The next best choice is to go with somebody who’s **bland but solid** - a second man who won’t excite voters but won’t scare them either. [/QUOTE] That was part of the thesis of the excellent book on the Veeps: [Bland Ambition](http://www.amazon.com/Bland-Ambition-Quayle-Criminals-President/dp/0156131404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291657237&sr=1-1), by Steve Talley. It was recommended to me by some poster on the Dope a decade ago - great book! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/83 "2010-12-06T18:59:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t see them using this for political cover. I think the press is not going a good job of explaining what the survey was and what it wasn’t. Gates was crystal clear in his testimony that this survey wasn’t supposed to ask whether but how. Obama has been behind this change from the beginning, and even if he hasn’t made it big priority, I don’t see him being duplicitous about it. > > This is a no brainer. Change the policy, and just tell the military to do it. End of story. It really is that simple isn’t it. That’s why McCain’s position seems so out of step on this issue. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Lieberman accusing somebody else of moving the goalposts is like Paris Hilton complaining about somebody else being famous for nothing. In this case it may be more of a sign of how far out McCain is. Maybe he’s just being the lightning rod for this one, freeing the rest of the opponents to keep mum on a subject that no longer fits neatly into ideological lines. The issue has become one of rights, practicality, and inevitability instead of a referendum on homosexuality. Lieberman may be the real conservative on this issue. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IOW in the future. > > “Yes, of course the Negroes should have equal rights, but as a society we’re just not ready for that yet.” :mad: Well the military brass provided reasons why it was better to do it now than in the future. The ‘we’re not ready for that yet’ argument is falling flat. McCain’s position seems to be purely political, otherwise he’d be concentrating on setting a distant target date and ambiguous goals to achieve instead of trying to throw a monkey wrench in the process. In general, McCain is a complex man, at least behaviorly. He’s written and spoken often about his life, and there is a lot of material available about his post-war life and political career. This guy has a lot of baggage, and an unpredictable nature (thus some truth to the maverick label), but at the same time he is notorious for following the pack after some initial protest. This case where he’s leading a large minority (or small majority) in his party isn’t typical for him. He’s usually a part of a small minority, and ends up voting with the clear majority. I find it hard to dislike the guy personally, even knowing about all the background, but he does seem to be totally politically jaded, and now acting on political interests without even a nod towards principle. Palin was just a dumb choice though (not much in his background shows McCain to be a good decision maker). He probably thought she was more capable and skilled than she turned out to be. Had she been, he would have been labeled as a political genius for choosing her. He simply revealed his own lack of skills and capabilities by making the choice. At least it was a change from the ‘unimpeachment insurance’ practised by Bush I and Clinton (in his mind anyway, would have worked out that way had he won). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/84 "2010-12-06T20:50:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Palin was just a dumb choice though (not much in his background shows McCain to be a good decision maker). He probably thought she was more capable and skilled than she turned out to be. Had she been, he would have been labeled as a political genius for choosing her. He simply revealed his own lack of skills and capabilities by making the choice. At least it was a change from the ‘unimpeachment insurance’ practised by Bush I and Clinton (in his mind anyway, would have worked out that way had he won). I think it was a panic reaction. From everything I’ve heard the decision to name Palin was made in a surprisingly short time period which didn’t leave a lot of opportunity for thinking it over. My guess is that McCain had planned on naming somebody else but when Obama began pulling ahead in the polls, people in the campaign started worrying and throwing out ideas on how to turn the numbers around. Somebody suggested making a play for Clinton’s supporters by choosing a female running mate. The idea took on a life of its own and people were scrambling to find a reasonably acceptable female candidate. Palin’s name came up and phone calls were being made before anyone stopped to think to consider whether or not this was a good longterm idea. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/85 "2010-12-06T22:04:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think it was a panic reaction. From everything I’ve heard the decision to name Palin was made in a surprisingly short time period which didn’t leave a lot of opportunity for thinking it over. My guess is that McCain had planned on naming somebody else but when Obama began pulling ahead in the polls, people in the campaign started worrying and throwing out ideas on how to turn the numbers around. Somebody suggested making a play for Clinton’s supporters by choosing a female running mate. The idea took on a life of its own and people were scrambling to find a reasonably acceptable female candidate. Palin’s name came up and phone calls were being made before anyone stopped to think to consider whether or not this was a good longterm idea. This is definitely how it was portrayed _Newsweek_’s excellent election-wrapup issue in November 2008, and they had people embedded in the McCain and Obama campaigns (on condition of writing nothing that would actually be published until after Election Day) all along. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751/86 "2010-12-06T22:24:55Z")
> [@furt](#): > > It’s an amazingly stupid thing to think, and I hope you are the only idiots who do so. > > A United States Senator, if he is so inclined, can get waaaay better than a 46-year-old mother of 5. This city is awash with ambitious 24 year old women looking to advance their careers. Sarah Palin is quite hot on the “mid-life mom” scale; she’s nothing special on the “females available to a congressman” scale. > > Not to mention that Todd Palin doesn’t seem the sort of guy willing to be cuckolded so his wife can get power. > It’s a fantasy born of hate. Wrong, wrong wrong. A woman’s appearance has piss all to do with whether a man would have sex with her. I could google up images of Elizabeth Hurley and Divine Brown if you’d like confirmation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-up-with-john-mccain/562751.md?page=4)