Political Abstract

Cheney stated last night that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. FactCheck.org clearly states that nearly half were not for tax increases per se and that many others were on procedural motions that passed practicaly unopposed.

It's a problem that statistics make for great soundbites because they can also be manipulated to serves any purpose. I'm not going to start researching the numbers, but hypothetically speaking, what if Edwards had shot back, well yes, Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes, but he votes 498 times not to raise taxes. Had he said that, where would the public be left? What would mean more to people? Or would everything be rendered meaningless?

Obviously statistics can suport a good argument, for instance an anti-war stance undoubtably should mention that The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded in Iraq. That statement makes for a powerful argument because it quantifies the anger we feel.

But if its not too much to ask the American public for, try looking beyond the numbers at the same situation. Think about Cheney's forceful stance on how Edwards didn't include Iraqi casualties, as if their contributions didn't count. Edwards stammered briefly, seeking a proper and promopostional response. Unfortunately, he didn't realize an interesting fact, which is that this administration doesn't even bother to count the casualties or injuries for the Iraqi people. Now who do you think is disrespecting the people more?

So we're left with two ways to view the situation.

Non-numerically, we can say that an administration that is so morally bankrupt as to not even bother to weigh the sacrifices made by the very people they are trying to free does not belong in office anymore.

Or we can say that as of 2001, there are 0 United States Presidents that respect the sacrifices being made by the people of Iraq.