McCain Falsely Claims He Has 'Supported Every Investigation' Into Katrina Failures»

I've supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I've been here to New Orleans. I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the governor. I'm not familiar with exactly what you said, but I've been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city. Full Story »

Posted by Randy Parson
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: Presidential Election 2008, John McCain
Member Tags: pretentious, facts omitted, met with women only, no men, what deeds accomplished
Stats Help
Number sourcesHelp: 0
Anonymous sourcesHelp: 0
Number viewpointsHelp: 0
Opinions as factsHelp: 0
Number stakeholdersHelp: 1
Stakeholders quotedHelp: 1
Derogatory wordsHelp: 0
Complimentary wordsHelp: 0
Editorial Help

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
2.7
by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 1, 2008

The question was more or less evaded with something of a disingenuous blathering self-aggrandizing prevarication, but more specific information on the exact bills and dates of his votes might have added clarity to the article.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
3.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Oct. 1, 2008

A short, not very well-written article. But its saving grace is that it refutes McCains's distortions about his New Orleans experiences. McCain's major problem is his past haunts him. He flip-flopped on immigration and making permanent outrageous tax giveaways. Today a CNN journalist, wrapping up a story on McCain, stated when McCain says he’s a maverick–and his and Bush’s philosophies differ--it’s hard to argue with facts, one of which is that McCain’s actual voting record supported Bush most of the time.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Douglas Hord
3.8
by Douglas Hord - Oct. 1, 2008

Proof that some members of the media CAN dig into the past, find prior choices inconsistent with current statements and call someone out on it. Short, to the point and clear.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Roland F. Hirsch
1.4
by Roland F. Hirsch - Oct. 1, 2008

This opinion piece is poor journalism. The author did not check on the legislation Sen. McCain refers to or he would have known that McCain was exactly right about the pork added to the bill. He is ignorant about Senator McCain's record of opposing pork and about Senators Obama and Clinton being major earmarkers, a fact which would logically have been part of this piece.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Larry Miller
3.4
by Larry Miller - Oct. 1, 2008

We all know what happened. How can you argue with a video of the man denying his own actions? Not particularly interesting, though.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Floss Shahbegian
3.4
by Floss Shahbegian - Oct. 1, 2008

Good to address the issue. It should have stressed McCain went to Iraq 7 times staying within the well protected green zone. Whereas, he only went to New Orleans a year after the catastrophe. It was weak that there wasn't any response to his fictitious statements. It started out to be a good piece but was a very weak interview with no follow up to his statements.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Sharon McIntosh
5.0
by Sharon McIntosh - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a well documented story of manipulation and lies by John McCain. The story points out the flawed character of the Rebulican candidate. As always this publication is right on the money.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Mark Adams
3.2
by Mark Adams - Oct. 1, 2008

An actual link to the senate vote at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00229 would have been nice.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Randy Parson
4.0
by Randy Parson - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Timothy Howlett
3.9
by Timothy Howlett - Oct. 1, 2008

Needs to point out McCain's actions instead of relying on what he says he did.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.4

Average
from 15 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.3
Facts
3.1
Fairness
3.7
Information
3.2
Sourcing
3.4
Style
3.1
Accuracy
3.6
Balance
3.3
Context
3.2
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
3.7
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!