This article shows the opposing views of columnists Beth Quinn and Douglas Cunningham on the 2004 Presidential Election. While Quinn makes very good points supporting Senator John Kerry and the democrats, Cunningham argues those points supporting President George W. Bush and the republicans. Both writers practically use mudslinging to gain the readers' support for each presidential candidate.
Quinn's column, Election Primer for Undecideds, endorses Senator Kerry by pointing out the errors of the president's ways. She explains each of the candidates' positions on such things as scientific research, honesty, schools, sex education, health care, Medicare, soldier and veteran care, the national deficit, and the response to Osama bin Laden's attack on the United States. For example, Quinn indirectly states that Bush believes that "providing health care to all Americans is socialism," whereas Kerry wants to "find a way to help the nation's 45 million uninsured citizens." Each point she makes describes Kerry as the good guy and makes Bush look like the bad guy.
As good as Quinn's points are, Cunningham's column, Difference of Opinion, undermines her column by making one thing very clear, "Bush is driving both sides." Although Cunningham agrees with her on certain issues such as gaining respect of our allies and having things go more smoothly in Iraq, he does a little mudslinging himself. He mocks Kerry on issues like big business, wealth, and oil drilling. The statement, "Bush is driving both sides," is referring to the fact that the Democrats are only voting against Bush and not for Kerry.
I wonder if both these columnists forgot to consider that most republicans are conservative and that most democrats are liberal. Rather than throwing their views in each other's faces, they should take into consideration that each party runs off of an extremely different platform. I feel...