Friday, October 01, 2004

GOP View on Debate

This guy - Joseph M. Knippenberg is Professor of Politics and Associate Provost for Student Achievement at Oglethorpe University - points out some of the inconsistencies in Kerry's arguments:
The $200 billion he says we’re expending in Iraq includes funds for Afghanistan, where he says we’re not doing enough. So we should do more in Iraq to get the job done, but spend less to do it. How?
Much of this is valid critisism. But what happens if you apply the same standard of logic to Mr. Bush's direct statements? It seems to me that you can take the words of any pollitician, especially when they're running for office, and much of it just doesn't make sense.

The bigger point, which Knippenberg doesn't address at all, was that Bush was defensive and annoying while Kerry was presidential. Why is it that these right-wingers have such a hard time looking at two sides of an issue? Most liberal articles I read point out one or two things that Kerry did badly, yet conservative writers and blogs (with the exception of Andrew Sullivan) don't even try to sound balanced. I wonder why that is. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that the Republicans are much more "extreme" in their views. That is; Michael Moore is a one on a scale from one to ten, Bill O'Reilly is a ten, and George Bush and most Republicans are an eight. John Kerry and most blue state "liberals" (like myself I suppose) are a four or a five. Maybe even six (post 9/11).

No comments: