John McCain's Wicked Huge Let Down

"McCain told a blunt lie that became so obvious, the public and even the Media even began crying out for a retraction and an apology. McCain began accusing Romney of wanting to pull out of Iraq. His phib was based on an interview with Romney" If something is a lie, it cannot be based on an interview with romney. Here is what Romney said: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement," Romney told ABC in April." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... The same source cites the following as a summary of Mccain's claim: McCain has suggested for days that Romney once supported a timetable for withdrawal, though he only recently began naming the Massachusetts Republican by name. Stating that there is "No question" that you "have to have" a series of timetables, means you support a timetable. I agree with Romney on that point actually, and with the lack of public pronouncement of them. But the fact that he states he'd keep the timetables secret does not demonstrate that he does not support a timetable. It is, in short, TRUE. A timetable means that one will withdraw from Iraq at a specified time. That is what the term "timetable" means in the politics regarding present-day Iraq. " How can I vote for John McCain when he runs an ad claiming obama does not understand the housing problem because he owns a million dollar house when John McCain himself owns 8 mansions, 7 of which are worth over a million dollars!?" That is not dishonest either. You see, Mccain admitted on a separate occasion that he does not understand the domestic economy. Obama has never made such an admission, so, Mccain's statement serves as an argument that they are on even ground there. It is of course not entirely accurate to say that one's understanding of the economy is proportional to one's pocketbook, but a weakness in one's argument is not the same as dirty tactics. I am not of course Keep in mind the burden of proof lies on you. May I seek to condense your position into a resolution that captures the essence of what we are arguing over? It seems to be a three parter- You want to argue that Mccain's tactics are unduly "dirty" (based on lies), you want to argue that this is not true of Obama, and you want to argue that this is a "let-down," i.e. not predictable (I for example have gotten precisely what I expected out of Mccain so far this campaign- A general sense of inconsistency mixed with stupidity, but all in enough of a mix to make his proposed policies somewhat less harmful than Obama's. You see, little things like insulting, lying, etc, are really rather... little when it comes to determining who one should support. It's expected, it's part of the point. The real meaning of "Dirty politics," the kind that must be exterminated, is the kind where candidate's promise voters money that doesn't belong to them. Obama's proposed expansions of taxes: " Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans. OBAMA: On wealthy Americans. CLINTON: That's right. OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it. CLINTON: Absolutely " http://www.ontheissues.org... in order to expand government handouts, such as health care, and prop up current handouts, such as social security. There is nothing dirtier in politics than open robbery, except perhaps burglary or assassination. Neither of the latter two are discussed by either major candidate, but the amount of robbery (taxes) Obama proposes is higher than the amount Mccain proposes. Mere mudslinging is negligible in comparison, thus, Obama is the dirtier politician.