But if he's learned any lesson from all of this, it should be to shut the hell up for a little while. For god's sake:
Shorter Joementum:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e3ea1/e3ea14b7719d7b80012f258e0d901983a89b80d0" alt=""
Not nearly as dumb as it could be!
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed...By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.-Federalist #10
Is it possible that the McCain campaign (and more likely, the RNC) chose Palin as a means to save the Alaska senate seat for the Republicans?
I just saw Chuck Todd and John Harwood on MSNBC saying that the McCain campaign is touting a post-Palin bump in the polls in Alaska. They wondered why the campaign would have spent money on a poll in a state as solidly red as Alaska. But it occurs to me that even if the presidential race isn't exactly tight there (and the polls have been tighter than anyone would have guessed), putting Palin on the ticket would get Alaskan Republicans out to the polls, and potentially create some coat-tails for Ted Stevens.
Even if McCain loses, this could prevent the Democrat Mark Begich from capturing what before Senator Stevens's indictment, was considered a long shot victory in the Alaska senate race. I guess it makes some sense for the NRSC to stem the bleeding wherever possible.