So who you gonna believe?
Asked on NBC’s “Today” if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don’t agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that’s going on on both sides. The American people don’t need it.”
When asked on “The Early Show” if Kerry’s election would compromise national security, McCain responded: “I don’t think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country.”
or Cheney:
“Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting,” Mr. Cheney said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library here, “it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country.”
I was always taught, when assessing which of opposing views points to believe, to consider who has the most to gain (or lose) by lying.
hmmm….
Only one of the 3 principles is a good and decent man. Guess which!
Only one of the 3 principles is a good and decent man. Guess which!
Well, if it’s McCain, then that settles it. I choose to believe him.
McCain’s enthusiasm for maintaining the hygene of political campaigns has driven me from admiration to irritation to near-disgust. The day democratic politics is made squeaky clean is the day a democratic people have succumbed to profound. enervation. The very effort to eliminate it has a neo-Puritan or prohibitionist edge to it.
“the hygene [sic] of political campaigns”
And McCain’s concern for the truth stinks up the place, too.
What do you advocate Paul? Are there no limits to the mud slinging?
I don’t advocate no limits, but calling John Kerry “weak of defense,” and adducing his voting record as evidence, is hardly “no limit mudslinging.”
Put it this way: I generally regard the overwrought denunciations of negative campaign as more worrisome than the negative campaigning itself.
calling John Kerry “weak of defense,” and adducing his voting record as evidence, is hardly “no limit mudslinging.”
No, but as McCain points out, it ain’t accurate analysis either.
“Weak on defense” is a judgment, based on the facts of his voting record — which record includes a very large number of votes against defense systems. It is not, to my mind, out-of-bounds for Cheney to say, “[this] is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country.”
That would be fantastic if McCain could finally get back at Bush for the dirty campaign in 2000. Lord knows that he would have destroyed Gore in the general election if he had been given the chance.
I’m with Paul. If you wanna fight over accuracy, fine. But attacking someone on their record ain’t impermissible or wrong.
“[this] is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country.”
To be specific Bush had and has a zero voting record on defense.
Hmmm… speaking of unimpressive records, who was president during a massive post-war planning fumble, two massive intelligence failures, a war of choice billed as a war of national security, a completely botched war in Afghanistan that’s allowed its principal targets to escape for at least eighteen months, and the greatest terrorist attack on American soil? It is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to remain commander in chief in this time of testing for our country.
Um, i trust the one who isn’t suppressing the truth about the Energy Meetings and the leak of one of our CIA agents. And the one who won’t speak out loud that Scalia should recuse himself. The list goes on and on.
I can’t believe Republicans, based on resumes presented then, preferred Bush to McCain. Wait. Yes I can.
Well, if it’s McCain, then that settles it. I choose to believe him.
Nice to hear you are going to follow his advice and vote for Bush. Welcome aboard Edward.
Oh wait, you’re just going to listen to him when it’s convenient aren’t you? Silly me.
“To be specific Bush had and has a zero voting record on defense.”
A circumstance shared by our last four Presidents, unless George HW Bush broke a tie in the Senate or something (don’t think that he did). Having a voting record didn’t precisely help Dole in 1996 or Mondale in 1984, either. I suspect that the lack of a federal voting record is one of the reasons we keep electing former governors – they have less to explain away.