Super Special Sunday Edition - MSNBC Dicks Over Kerry::
So MSNBC has an article up on its website about Bush's mad rantings on John Kerry (more tomorrow on the increasingly paranoid right) and John Kerry's slamming of Bush on economic issues. Then, this weird fuckin' paragraph somewhere in the middle, pops up: "A Boston millionaire who has served in the U.S. Senate for two decades, Kerry said he shared the middle class's 'frustration that this administration seems to be in a constant state of denial that neglects the needs of these Americans.'" Seems like it's a far cry from the article's later characterization of Bush as "a fellow Yale graduate with a similar privileged upbringing." Compare those two: "A Boston millionaire who has served in the U.S. Senate for two decades" and "a fellow Yale graduate with a similar privileged upbring." While both are factually true, which sounds worse?
And, really, the Bush description is in the midst of a paragraph of Kerry saying Bush is out of touch with the middle class, thus explaining Kerry's statement. It works to clarify what Kerry is saying. The Kerry description is used to critique what Kerry is saying. It is not criticism attributed to anyone. It is simply stated as a fact to undermine Kerry's words. Nowhere in the article is such a tactic used on Bush.
For instance, imagine if this paragraph, a quote from Bush, "'Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions,' he said" ended with the phrase "despite agreeing to Pakistan's pardon of Dr. AQ Khan, who sold nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea."
Now, which facts undermine an argument better?