The New York Times
Author: unknown
April 24, 2008
The author explains what has been very distressing to him lately: the promises the potential presidents are making about not raising taxes. Without raising taxes, there can be no improvement in health care, rebuilding the militray, or no other major issue. He says that Sentator John McCain's tax talk is "particularly divorced from reality" because he is offering a "free-lunch extravaganza — hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks per year, on top of extending President Bush’s tax cuts, with no credible way to make up for the money the government will lose. The more criticism he has faced, the more nonsensical his justifications have become." The author is very biased against John McCain and without meaning to do so, he degrades him in two paragraphs of the article. This breaks the attention away from the main topic he is trying to get across, and instead makes the reader not trust him anymore because of the way he talks about a particular canidate. After that, he tries to get back into the real topic by quoting from the other canidates about thier promises of tax breaks. Instead of writing paragraphs of discrimination against the other canidates, he just says their quotes are not possible and leaves it at that. I enjoyed this article up to the paragraphs where he starts degrading a canidate, and then I could not trust him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This proves how hard it is to write about Presidential candidates without showing your biased. The author's main purpose wasn't even to bash McCain, but he ended up doing it. That would've undercut the whole article for me.
Post a Comment