The reason McCain voted against the funding bill was because it included a timetable, that is an importent component that no media outlet, or media watchdog group, should leave out.

So? They each have conditions about how the troops should be funded but you like McCain's conditions better.

Tommy,

I agree...but...

This is an outrageous example of dirty campaign tactics by McCain. No one...and I mean no one...is for denying funds to our military while they are in combat.

It's also repugnant to accuse McCain of denying funds to combat troops.

It's a sad example of the lousy character exhibited by the leading pols...shameful. 

I would have to agree.  These votes are put out by the party leadership specifically to be used as a cudgel in elections against the opposition party.  The party in power usually does this.  It is pretty stupid and I am tired of it.

Regardless, if both Senators have voted for and against various versions of these bills, it should be noted that both have done so if one of them is using the other's vote to attack.  That is balanced journalism.  MMFA was simply pointing out the failure to provide that balance, and was under no obligation to dig further.  McCain's reasons had no bearing on the failings of the AP and LA Times.

Points noted by both, thanks Wes and Bill.

The reason McCain voted against the funding bill was because it included a timetable...

In other words, he was FOR the bill before he was AGAINST it.....

Bottom line? In "The World According to Tommy", any reason Gramps McCain has for opposing a bill is valid, while any reason Obama has for opposing a bill means he hates America and hates the troops.

WZ-

Don't you get it?  In repubspeak, 'timetable' is synonymous with surrender.

McCain has always been consistently AGAINST surrendering to our enemies.  (at least he's consistent on something!)

But I thought McSame was anti-anti?

There are always reasons why you vote for bill, but not for another substantively similar one.  The meda should ALWAYS report those reasons, even if the american public is allergic to details.  What they shouldn't do is allow one guy who does it to claim that he's 100% consistant, etc... while blasting the other guy for doing the same thing.  Both McCain and Obama should be talking about the REASONS the voted for or aginst things.  That will reveal more about them than just the voting record will.  (And I hear Obama talking more about how he reasons and what he believes and McCain jsut keeps sayig "look at my record."  Well, we have Johnny, and it's moved to the right, and it has sold out your rep as a party maverick.)

I think the electorate has finally figured out that the Republicans have milked the "support the troops cow" dry.

Americans are smart enough to understand that supporting the troops requires more than just denouncing others for not supporting the troops.

Americans want the troops home, they want their wounds healed and benefits provided to those who've served their country.

If McCain insists on continuing to politicize patriotism and support for a war, he'll be one of the loyal opposition in the Senate next year and not the president.

If McCain insists on continuing to politicize patriotism and support for a war, he'll be one of the loyal opposition in the Senate next year and not the president

That is exactly what McCain will insist.

Essentially, the Repuglicans have used the phrase "support the troops" as shorthand for supporting their Iraq War policy. Anyone with the good sense to oppose their imperialist stupidity are shouted down and acused of "not supporting the troops". They've even gone so far as to insist that criticizing President Numbnuts "hurts the morale of the troops." It's a rhetorical fig leaf which they shamelessly use to shield their asshat in chief from any and all criticism.

I think the electorate has finally figured out that the Republicans have milked the "support the troops cow" dry.

Especially in light of how the Republicans cut funding to the VA and left Walter Reade Army Hospital - once a great medical facility - a mere shell of its former self.  That's why they lost big in 2006, and why they'll lose even bigger this November.

Sure, so he can stand with shrub and somehow distence himself from same.

Evidence shown indicates McFritters is not a good friend to veterans, nor  future veterans.

Will any of these bozos ever show this, ever indicate where his protective influence has been most effective, and for who?

To much effort involved with swiming against the narrative that has so many media enablers I suppose. 

The issue Republicans have with Obama is that he tried to use his vote on War Funding in 2007 as a political statement because it did not include timetable for withdrawal. 

We all know Obama's position and we all know McCain's position. This dustup is simply part of that skirmish.

This is one of the reasons why Senators generally have a hard time getting elected. Their opponents can go to the candidates' voting record and use some of those votes against the candidates.

It is a legitimate tactic but a frustrating one just the same. It causes the candidate to go on the defensive.  

 -- It is a legitimate tactic -- AA

I'll have to disagree. It is certainly a tactic that is used repeatedly but it is dishonest to willfully mis-characterize a person's vote. 

I'm not playing pollyana with the issue...but it is not legitimate...it's sleazy. 

It is not mis characterizing someone's voting record to say he/she voted a certain way if in fact, that is how they voted.

So, then you agree that the article should have pointed out McCain's votes against the funding of the troops and veterans' benefits as well?

Not "should have" but doing so is legitimate. I understand that it can be used to mislead, and I am not for that. But that is not the issue.

The issue is using the candidate's voting record in a political debate. Is that legitimate? Yes.

The sidelight is if it is used fairly. In many cases, but not all, it is not. That is the gutter politics that turns off so many. The problem is who can decide what is fair and what is not? MMFA?  Of course that is what they have set themselves up to do. But we can see that they are pushing their own agenda and daily post thing that I feel are unfairly biased. Oh well. MMFA and our liberal friends here are of the opinion that much of what is in the media is unfair. Oh well.

I guess the bottom line is that it is fair game to use the voting records in election debates. Everyone complains about it, but everyone does it.  

 

 

"Not "should have" but doing so is legitimate. I understand that it can be used to mislead, and I am not for that. But that is not the issue."--AA

I haven't seen such descriptions of votes used any way other than to deceive.

Don't play games with me AA...you know exactly what I meant.

It is ok to report anyone's vote. If it is a single issue it will explain itself. If the bill has many aspects...as almost all do...then it is not ok to mis-characterize the vote without an explanation.

 

Wes,

I understand your point and I agree. But we don't live in a pefect world. The cleanliness of theory is no match for the mess of reality. :-)

That mess of a reality would not be there if people did not tolerate it so much.

The devil is in the DETAILS.  The WHY they did or didn't vote for it, and the HOW they go about their reasoning and WHAT PRINCIPALS MATTER to them.  The inherent problem with this kind of campaining is that the media does not have the patience to report (and the public does not havethe patience to listen to) the DETAILS.  It shoudl be interesting though - one way of the other a Senator IS getting electied this year.  And whomever it is he'll probably pull in some seats fro his party in congress as well.

We never expect fairness out of the LA times of late.  They are in the pocket of Republicans, most notably, Senator McCain.  Senator McCain used to be a straight shooter.  In fact, as a Republican I wrote in his name twice when the alternative was George W. Bush.  You see, I used to live in Texas and I know all about GWs frat boy mentality.  I expected him to behave exactly like he has, like a belligerent bully that he is.  His really, really stupid invasion of Iraq though, goes beyond his frat boy image into the truly deranged and self centered decisions he has ever made.  There is something very strange about his attempt to outdo his Daddy's Iraq war, but even so, remember that Bush 1 ripped through Kuwait with the support of so many Gulf countries and won the war in no time at all.  GW on the other hand, has mucked the entire region year after year and we are still in a muck mess after all these years and we definitely are not safer now nor are our friends in the region.  In fact, everything GW has touched has turned to a wreck and a ruin.  This war is such a blunder in comparison to his father's Gulf war, or even in comparison to the Kosovo war which had true international cooperation under Clinton.  So GW's best laid plans to outshine his predecessors have flunked out miserably and nothing the LA Times can say can change that FACT!!!!! 

Dat's da bunnie!