If, by "idea" you mean that Cleland's voting record showed him to be soft on national security, yes. But isn't that a valid issue in a campaign?
Again, the implication here seems to be that Cleland's military record, commendable as it was, somehow means that his voting record can't be criticized. If so, that's a scary proposition, the idea that we would forgo our right to free speech when elected officials have ties to the military.
