John McCain voted for the $700 billion buck TARP package — the one used to bail out banks and other financial institutions — and at the time, sure seemed to understand just where all that loot was heading. He now is saying he was "misled" and thought the dollars were going directly to help out folks who couldn't pay their mortgages…or something.
Even folks who generally support the senator from Arizona are a bit mystified that the guy thinks he can get away with distancing himself from his own actions like this. But McCain has always done this kind of thing, trying to appeal to both sides and having it both ways. He's a charming guy with a good, often self-deprecating sense of humor, plus he has that War Hero thing going for him and interviewers generally love him. So he's usually gotten away with it and even somehow got the rep for "straight talk." Or at least he did before he got into the real hardball of running for president. It didn't work so well there and it probably won't work in his current re-election campaign when he has a serious contender trying to pass him on the right.
But never mind that. What I want to know is why "I was misled" is ever a defense for any elected official. Don't we count that as a flaw? As dereliction of duty? If your business manager spent a huge chunk of your money on something and then came back to you and said "I was misled," how much longer would that person be your business manager?