My hope is that all of us learn to accept justified criticism and comments about our candidates with grace. One thing that irks the heck out of me is the 'your guy is worse' argument that seems to crop up on all sides. I just saw another one, which made me want to bring this up.
If your guy does something stupid - and hell, all of them do something stupid from time to time - it would be refreshing if you just acknowledged the goof or flaw and got on with things.
It's one thing to argue that your guy's actions weren't stupid or tacky. But, if you agree that yeah, your guy did something boneheaded, it just makes you look defensive and combative if you try to counter with something unrelated that somebody else did.
Example: Edwards spent WHAT on a haircut?!
Yeah, but Nancy Reagan spent xxx on china and ....
Uh, no. When somebody does something
a good defense is not that somebody else did something
(And no, I don't want to talk about the haircut
and if it was boneheaded or not. I just used it as an example argument cause it was an easy one that came to mind)
My point is this. If you are such a party fanboy that you can't admit that your party guy could POSSIBLY be doing anything moronic, you risk losing all credibility. Candidates are human. Nobody expects them to be perfect, and if you insist on snarking at the other guy when your guy's faux paux is brought up, it brings the level of discourse down to mudslinging and bickering.
So please, don't counter a point with the whole snark deflection thing. It's not necessary and it just makes you look petty, uninformed, and like a kid whose primary argument is that his daddy can beat up your daddy.
Linear Mode
