You talk a lot about how bad his votes are, but you demonstrate no knowledge of why he voted a certain way. Usually, you say something like "he voted _for_ the war", when the truth is he voted "for the authority to go to war if necessary". Things like that.
You try to make his votes look black and white by discussing small riders as though they were the whole bill, or the main part of the bill as though certain nasty riders didn't exist. And then you say he made the wrong choice.
You allow for absolutely no reasonable doubt about his votes, thus trying to paint him as dangerous or reckless or anti-American or whatnot.
At least, that's my impression of your usual tactics.
So, given that point, your response was not to show where he voted on something clearly wrong, but to say that "if he had a good record he'd be running on it".
Either you know his record is bad or you don't. If you know it's bad, you should probably be able to show how. Since I don't believe you know and I challenged you to prove you did, your switching the argument around _was_ an evasion.
And it's fairly good, too.
But, no, I'd rather stick to his votes right now. Keeping it simple. |
