Thanks to John McCain, The Spokesman-Review published 105 letters last week. However people feel about McCain, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has given us something to talk about. And talk about. And talk about.

Democrats especially have mobilized forces so that anti-Palin letters make up our largest proportion of letters received, followed by pro-Palin letters. Rounded out by various local topics that must also claim our attention, the Roundtable page is too small to hold all the contributions we’d like to run.

In my opinion, that’s a terrific problem to have. We’ve received mostly positive feedback in appreciation of what one writer aptly termed the “tug-and-pull thought and discussion from our region.”

But the Palin kerfuffle does have its minor irritations. I, for one, could do with never again hearing the following phrases:

“Pit bull with lipstick.” Palin’s somewhat hackneyed joke introduced the word “lipstick” into the political vocabulary of the masses. But in light of ongoing local discussions about the possibility of banning pit bulls entirely, perhaps the image invoked by this aggressive hockey mom is too vivid to be attractive.

“Lipstick on a pig.” Obama’s unfortunate employment of this cliché has given it a new, zombie-like life. It’s become the unappetizing symbol of what another cliché calls a tempest in a teapot.

We’ve editorialized several times now in favor of a substantial, issues-based campaign. We’ve seen several letters pleading for sanity and substance from both candidates and their supporters.

However, after denouncing the substance-free campaign style, the hard part is yet to come: producing and processing that substance. It’s easy to denounce and hard to pronounce. Can we as an electorate bring the campaign back on track simply by lamenting its being off-track? Probably not. There are some conversations we must walk away from, some inflammatory bait to ignore, some unpopular subjects to bring up and difficult questions to ask.

I commend our writers in general for sticking to the point. While few of them could resist employing a lipstick zinger one way or another, most focused on qualifications and policy for the bulk of their letters.

“A heartbeat away from the presidency.” As a part of the young, single demographic I can’t help but notice McCain doesn’t look much like his former strong, good-looking self. Despite receiving the best possible medical attention, he is not guaranteed life or health for another term – or month or day. None of us is.

In 1841, Vice President John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison when Harrison died of pneumonia a month into his term. In 1881, Chester A. Arthur succeeded James Garfield upon his death, nearly three months after Garfield was shot by an assassin – six months into his term.

Theodore Roosevelt replaced the assassinated William McKinley six months after becoming vice president in 1901. Roosevelt, as the two-year governor of New York, had been reluctant to accept the nomination because he thought the office rather trivial. But he was popular and, like most vice presidential nominees, was selected in large part because he would draw voters to the ticket.

Many factors contributed to these presidents’ untimely deaths, and their successors had mixed success on the job. In none of these cases was the nation plunged into irreparable chaos and confusion. The image of one of these accidental presidents is hewn into Mount Rushmore.

Even if gloomy projections of McCain’s death after election come true, Palin would not be the youngest person to assume presidential duties. The youngest was Roosevelt. The second-youngest was John F. Kennedy, whose heartbeats were cut short on a day millions of Americans remember. Fifty-five-year-old, seasoned politician Lyndon B. Johnson took the country’s reins, and reviews are mixed about how well he performed.

The only pattern we can glean from history is that anything can happen, anytime. Age and health are slippery factors in choosing candidates; repeating the same “heartbeat” cliché won’t make them less so. And while the experience question cannot be ignored, it is one among many elements to consider when voting.

“Maverick.” This poor word has been so overused by McCain fans and detractors alike that even unbranded cattle will soon wish to buck the appellation. As attractive as pooh-poohing the party sounds to independent voters, there are still plenty of party faithful eager to pull the irony out of the fire and make the “maverick” brand a party-sanctioned badge of honor.

And while the Democrats and the Republicans (don’t forget the “the”) assiduously pack blame into neat boxes, true mavericks might go looking for free-range forage and never come back to either barn.

Of course, I know we’ll keep hearing these phrases until November and beyond. All in all, it’s a small price to pay for a vibrant and stimulating Roundtable page. Thanks, John McCain.