How irresponsible was McCain for picking Palin in 2008 ?

I know it's been over 6 years, but I still can't get over it. Palin, completely unfit for the presidency, could have been a heartbeat away from it. McCain really lost my respect when he did that because it showed how little he cared for the American people. He put political points above what was best for the country. At his age and given his health, it still bothers me how we could have actually witnessed a President Sarah Palin. A woman whose political experience in now way had earned her an opportunity to be Vice President by any account. Oh, did I forget to mention that the FIRST time she ever visited a nation outside of the US was in 2007 ? That's right - John McCain chose a candidate who's only international experience on any level was visiting a military base in Kuwait one year earlier.

This isn't a rant against Palin - she had ever right to accept the nomination when offered. And I've had no problems with all her post-election attempts at punditry with FOX or her aligning with the Tea Party even though I disagree with her on most issues. This is a rant against John McCain who I seriously think is ill prepared for his current senatorial position. Having been a war hero will never excuse his selfish and irresponsible choice of Palin in 2008. It's also why we should ignore anything he has said on any issue since. We can assume with confidence it is coming from a place of ignorance, declining mental health, or winds of the political fare.

* OH, please don't bring up Obama's admittedly mild experience because he ran for the presidency on his own. He gave the American people a chance to vet him and got elected. McCain choosing Palin was an attempt to sneak in an unqualified candidate past the good will of the American people.

 

I think John gambled and lost. Praise Allah for small mercies.

 

Sarah says it best.

 

McCain did not pick her, she was forced on him. That said, thank God those two were not elected, by now we would be in WWIII.

 

if this is her, i must admit it's actually very well said.

but i would take issue with her comment of "This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power."

Because the Tea Party is exactly the result of big business and government colluding against the people's best interest.

 

LOL, when we actually projected strength, we had no WW after WWII. Now that we are projecting weakness the prospect of a WW is much greater.

 

if this is her, i must admit it's actually very well said.

but i would take issue with her comment of "This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power."

Because the Tea Party is exactly the result of big business and government colluding against the people's best interest.

 

I really don't think Palin had much room to complain about people making money when that's obviously all she's worried about doing herself. Hell, she pretends that she might run for president just to get people to give her money.

 

That is just the liberal narrative. Has nothing to do with reality. Smaller government would hardly be colluding against the people unless you think limiting tyranny is a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

She is making the old fashioned way, in the market as opposed to in the government. I know that is a problem for some.

 

Very good quote.

I'm going to preface my comments by stating I am in no way a tes party supporter. To me they are no more part of the solution than establishment Republicans or establishment Democrats.

Palin was and still is the only person on the. national political scene that could garner my vote. She has an anti establishment history with the Republican Party that scared the bejesus out of them as well ask her Democratic party detractors. as for McCain I would never have voted for him until he picked Palin. In my opinion it was the most responsible of picks.

 

you honestly think she would understand the Middle East's history enough to do what is proper in Iraq today ?
she literally, i guarantee, doesn't know why Iraq looks the way it does.

 

I certainly was not thrilled with McCain but in retrospect, at least he would have been involved in the process compared to the current President.

 

Without Palin the net end result difference between Obama and McCain is nominal.

 

Of course it was an irresponsible decision. Still, the irresponsibility pales in comparison to the blatant stupidity of such a choice. I, for one, am glad that he made that choice and subsequently lost the election. We dodged a bullet.

 

Sarah Palin was a Hail Mary, that got intercepted and run back for a touchdown.
But without Sarah Palin, with Mitt Romney on the ticket, a younger, handsomer, Mitt Romney, McCain still loses big time.

If you want to blame someone other than Bush for McCain's defeat, blame Rudy Giuliani and the GOP state committees he convinced to change their delegate awards from proportional to winner take all.
That put McCain over the top very early, and as a result the media coverage of McCain evaporated, while the media focused on Obama and Clinton, not because of some media bias, even FOX couldn't make a McCain event look exciting, and even if they gave the candidates equal time, there was Obama addressing a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin (10 X as many as showed up to see Reagan), and then they cut to McCain, ordering lunch in German Restaurant in Ohio.....
If the GOP primary had been competitive as long as the Democratic primary, there would have been more people at events, there would have been more events and more buzz. Who is going to drive a couple of hours to be in an event for a guy who has already won?
Obama would address 20,000 people and then they'd cut to McCain talking to 20 people.
Those pictures destroyed McCain way before Palin was even thought about.

 

You could speculate endlessly about how McCain might have won that election. Truth is, while he may have been the best candidate that the GOP had to offer, he was a truly bad candidate. Any respect that voters had for John McCain was lost when he kissed the ring of George W. Bush after falling victim to Rove's smear campaign against him back in 2000.

 

Oh, I don't think there was any way that McCain, or any Republican, could have won, absent a complete meltdown by the Democrats, and the Democrats didn't melt down.
Even 2012 was stacked in favor of the party of the people, though no where near as decisively as 2008, and 2016 should be even tougher for the GOP than 2012, the demographics just keep moving against them, and they haven't done anything to address it.

 

Actually, he was the best candidate the GOP had to offer up as a Democrat since the left loved McCain, that is until he ran for President. It was more bowing to the left to try and win instead of actually running someone with party principles.

 

I agree, I can't imagine a McCain presidency would be all that much different. Obama talks up a lot of liberal causes, but almost never does anything about it (aside from a handful of executive orders).

Hell, considering Obamacare was a Heritage Foundation backed idea, we might have McCain-care in this alternate universe.

 

No republican ever tried to force a one size fits all Obamacare on the nation and just because something similar was a Heritage Foundation idea that no one ever tried foist on the nation is no excuse. I do find it funny that no matter what liberals do, when it turns into a complete disaster, they try and blame it on someone else.

 

Iraq is burning today. It is destroyed. All because your incompetent manchild in office that you no eoubt voted for is a selfish evil prick.

Before you pretend to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the middle east, jog on the freeway.

 

I supported getting rid of Saddam to give the Iraqis a chance to form their own country. And that's what is happening.
Most likely a three state solution which makes sense geographically, culturally, and politically.

And for the record, I support us giving military aid to all groups fighting against Islamic hard line militants.

 

Your president is giving military aid to islamic hardline militants.

Do you support that too?

 

hannity, beck, limbaugh and other buffoons like that, aren't good sources for news

that's exactly right

[video=youtube;9oP9ZqcDv5Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oP9ZqcDv5Y[/video]