I realize that you think you're being terribly clever here. But you're not. You're just displaying your partisanship.

According to CBS, the contract was given to the most qualified vendor. I wish it had been a US company but it wasn't. I don't believe in protectionism, and I certainly don't think it should trump the safety of our armed forces. Likewise, it appears that McCain's involvement was to see that quality, not political connections, were considered in awarding the contract.

As such, you're attacking a McCain for advocating that a government contract be awarded to the most qualified vendor.

Not only is what you're attacking a good practice, but it's generally the law. Typically, when evaluating a contract, the government has to award to the lowest "responsible" bidder. This means the bidder with, for example, the best track record for quality.

There have been a lot of stories over the past few years of our troops sometimes having substandard equipment. I'd like to think you agree that is wrong, no matter what party occupies the White House.

In fact, take the troops out of the equation. Do you really want any human beings flying in aircraft of lesser quality?

In short, you're advocating that a candidate put his own interests (in this case political) over the safety of human beings and the finanical interests of the taxpayers.

McCain, on the other hand, is putting the taxpayers and lives ahead of his short term interests. That's the type of thing we should admire. It's also the type of thing you used to claim you admired him for...before he became the nominee, of course.