General Question

skfinkel's avatar

Am I right to think that McCain's pick of Palin is a sign of his own hubris?

Asked by skfinkel (13511points) September 3rd, 2008

Most would admit that Palin’s backround has not prepared her to be head of the U.S.—but if McCain lives forever, she won’t have to be.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

susanc's avatar

At first I joined all the other Obama/Clinton people in making jokes about Governor Palin, but she’s a force, not just a symbol.

No, she’s not prepared to be President. Therefore McCain chose her on the assumption that he would never die. If that’s not hubris, I don’t know what is.

flyawayxxballoon's avatar

I would have to agree. There’s no way Palin will be able to step in for McCain, and he’s barely smart enough to know that. He’s pretty much just announcing to the world, “Nothing’s ever going to happen to me, so I don’t even need a good vice president! I’ll take this inexperienced one instead…”

Like susanc said, “If that’s not hubris, I don’t know what is.”

JackAdams's avatar

Didn’t George H. W. Bush have essentially the same attitude(s), when he selected that moron/doofus, Dan Quayle as his running mate?

September 3, 2008, 1:12 PM EDT

allengreen's avatar

Hubris is a perfect explaination. 4 more years of Bush is what McCain will give us, with the same nut cases.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

What makes a person prepared to be President? I hear the argument that she is not prepared, but what has Obama done to become prepared? Most of the time he has been in the Senate he’s been running for President. Frankly, I think just about anyone with a lick of sense could run this country…and do a pretty damn good job.

JackAdams's avatar

I’m reminded of a quote from the late (and legendary) William F. Buckley who said:

“I’d sooner entrust the governance of America to the first 400 names in the Boston phone book, than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

September 3, 2008, 2:41 PM EDT

kevbo's avatar

I don’t believe McCain had the operative role in choosing Palin, and I think she was chosen by a consensus of party leaders. From what I’ve read, he wanted Lieberman(?) or some other old, white guy. I suppose one could still argue hubris given his assent.

As a charter member of the tinfoil hat caucus, I think there’s a puppetmaster pressuring McCain to throw the election. Far fetched, I know, but less so if you consider that Gore cried uncle before all the votes were counted and the 2000 election was ratified by a Democrat-controlled congress.


controlled congress. NOo SSUcLDGGGHFDDDDG

allengreen's avatar

Kev—then Obama gets handed a flaming bag of shit in 2009, and everything will be the Democrat’s fault?

JackAdams's avatar

@allengreen: According to the GOP, everything “bad” that has happened in this country since 1776, is the fault of the Dems, even when the GOP controlled the congress and the Presidency.

I used to be a card-carrying GOP member, and I quickly left the party, based on their characteristic inability to ever admit to their own errors and short-comings.

September 3, 2008, 4:44 PM EDT

BirdlegLeft's avatar

@kevbo, I had entertained that notion as well. The GOP/McCain sit out the next four years, drag their heels passing any sort of legislation, and point their fingers at the Dems failure. They then use that “failure” to get another eight years.

kevbo's avatar

No, I think the net effect will be that the populace will be so grateful to have a functioning economy that we’ll be willing to overlook investigation of Bushco’s war crimes and the fake war on terror, which Obama plans to continue. Clinton put a smiley face on NAFTA and other NWO building blocks, so perhaps Obama’s popularity will be used for similar effect, such as info consolidation via national ID or medical history via healthcare reform. Just MHO.

If you buy this line of thinking, part of it is that an illusion of choice is maintained to keep folks from getting too concerned about the man behind the curtain.

vectorul's avatar

So, Obama has almost 4 years in the U.S. Senate and Palin has 2 years as Governer of Alaska. The way I see it niether of them are qulified to run this country.
At Least Mccain fought for his country…...

skfinkel's avatar

I don’t know what’s more depressing: to think the GOP is using Palin on purpose to lose the election or to think they think they can win using Palin as an energizer.

allengreen's avatar

McCain bombed civilians, got shot down and spend 5 yrs in a box. He is not ” qulified to run this country”, to use your words and your spelling.

JackAdams's avatar

The GOP won an election with a doofus/moron (Quayle), so why not with Palin?

Quayle was so stupid, he thought that “TACO BELL” was a Mexico City phone company, and that a “MEXICAN BORDER” pays RENT every month.

He also thought BURRITOS were tiny donkeys.

September 3, 2008, 5:06 PM EDT

marinelife's avatar

Rather than hubris, I think it was political expedience. She plays very well with the Christian right. She pushes that ticket even farther right than it was.

I think the decision was a mistake.

breedmitch's avatar

She has been on the radar of the RNC for a while now. They were grooming her for something. I just think they rolled her out way too early in her career.
We’ve all been part of some brainstorming session where an idea “from left field” is proposed. For the next half hour you can convince yourselves it’s a good idea. Then everybody wises up and moves on to a more sensible thought. Yeah, they should have kept brainstorming.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther