I think you misread what I wrote. I said they failed to read what was behind the bill. They may have read the bill but not the source material used to make the bill. Did you read the syllabus? I read the bill, the syllabus, and the FactCheck article. My claim is that they didn't read the syllabus behind the bill. It's the syllabus that defined the details of what "age appropriate" meant. They gave no indication that they did since it wasn't mentioned. I found a hole in their research. While it doesn't invalidate all of their research, it does leave them open to the wrong conclusion.
If I had only read the bill and FactCheck, I probably would have come up with the same conclusion they did, but they didn't go deep enough.
And if you had read my disclaimers, I gave Obama an out, recognizing he may not have read the syllabus. If he had, perhaps he would have voted no, or perhaps not. I don't know. My point was only to prove the ad wasn't false. No more, no less. If this had been ideology driven, I wouldn't have given him the out.
Here's the relevant disclaimer I posted earlier:
Whether Obama read it, I don't know so I cannot read his intent, seeing as he wasn't a co-sponsor. But given the syllabus used to formulate the bill, McCain's ad is accurate.
Starting to get personal, are you?
