He Looks Like a Car Bomber

When I saw this, I thought, "Yes, exactly what I was looking for." It follows along what I've been blogging about thus far which is mainly how people take standard arguments and then bring in ridiculous examples or reasons to try and get people to side with them. It is usually a Democrat acting silly because it's hard for me to hate on the people I support, its only normal. I know that it is done by the Republican contingent just as much as the Democratic, but by writing about the Democrats, it is my own piece of rhetoric.

Chris Matthews started his argument very well and I was even thinking, "Shit, I don't want this guy to become the next president." From there it kind of got a little ridiculous for me. Matthews took a very good rhetorical argument and then took and extreme view which changed my thoughts to being against him again. By going from a moderate and persuasive argument, Matthews drew on people who are more middle of the road that watch his show. Once that turned and he referenced that Gingrich looked a like a car bomber, I had my reactions. First, Newt Gingrich does not look like a car bomber. He looks like a nice southern pastor or something of the sort. Also, I am not entirely sure what a car bomber looks like so his argument has less value in that regard too. I know what the Unabomber looked like but Newt looks was more stable than the Unabomber looked. He needs to connect his audience to something that we can all recognize and draw a legitimate comparison to. While his statement may infuse people far to the left (certainly a large part of his viewers), it left fault in a sound argument. I like to believe that arguments made are true and possible and based on fact. Arguments based on fact, but with ridiculous statements just doesn't draw me in as much.