McCain on a Veep Candidate: Looks Count

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


Historians and political writers will for years wonder and write about what moved John McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. But perhaps a newspaper clipping from 1988 offers a bit of insight into how McCain thinks about a veep pick.

Two decades ago, another GOP vice presidential nominee was also something of a puzzling choice: Senator Dan Quayle. Many questioned George H.W. Bush’s decision to tap a little-known senator as his running-mate. But some observers thought that Quayle’s looks (he was compared to Robert Redford) would help the ticket with the ladies–female voters, that is. Was that a sexist? Whether or not it was, McCain accepted this perspective. According to a Newsday article from that time, McCain said, “A guy that good-looking just has to be attractive to women,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Twenty years later, did McCain take a similar view when searching for his ticket partner?

YOUR GIFT DOUBLES THROUGH FRIDAY

Right now, every dollar you give goes twice as far—but only until Friday’s midnight deadline. This is the moment to make your support count double.

In a climate where journalists face mounting pressure to back down, stay silent, or soften their reporting, Mother Jones refuses to flinch. We’re pushing back against intimidation and delivering fierce, independent journalism that holds power accountable—no matter who’s trying to silence us.

But here’s the reality: We’re a nonprofit newsroom with zero corporate backing and no financial cushion. We depend entirely on readers like you to fund the investigations that matter most.

Friday’s 2X match deadline is coming soon. We need you on the team right now. Please chip in and double your impact.

YOUR GIFT DOUBLES THROUGH FRIDAY

Right now, every dollar you give goes twice as far—but only until Friday’s midnight deadline. This is the moment to make your support count double.

In a climate where journalists face mounting pressure to back down, stay silent, or soften their reporting, Mother Jones refuses to flinch. We’re pushing back against intimidation and delivering fierce, independent journalism that holds power accountable—no matter who’s trying to silence us.

But here’s the reality: We’re a nonprofit newsroom with zero corporate backing and no financial cushion. We depend entirely on readers like you to fund the investigations that matter most.

Friday’s 2X match deadline is coming soon. We need you on the team right now. Please chip in and double your impact.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate