A column found in Tuesday’s Red & Black, Zach Nikonovich-Kahn’s “Palin lacks logic, intelligence,” highlights a point made glaringly obvious in this election season: injecting hyperbole and extreme partisan bias into one’s argument is a surefire way to destroy all credibility.

Although it appears Nikonovich-Kahn and I will end up voting for the same presidential candidate Nov. 4, I found myself cringing as I read his description of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin: “incompetent and dim-witted,” “a far cry from intelligent and logical,” possessing “backward and self-inflictive logic.”

Although I was, and still am, befuddled by John McCain’s choice of running mate, the hyperbole and derisive language used serves to neutralize his argument, as many readers will dismiss it as the angry words of a partisan extremist.

To hear what the “other side” has to say, I will occasionally turn on Fox News and listen to the likes of Bill O’Reilly.

Although obviously on different sides of the issue, Nikonovich-Kahn’s column ironically reminded me of the talking heads on Fox, shamelessly pushing their ideology (or rather, the ideology of their audience) with no regard to journalistic integrity, and no concept of balance.

When Fox correspondents attempt to portray Barack Obama, a devoted Christian, devoted American and devoted family man, as an unpatriotic and dangerous zealot, how can I believe their analysis of Obama’s tax policy or voting record isn’t likewise slanted?

Like the column, “Palin lacks logic, intelligence,” extremist comments render otherwise effective arguments moot.

The issues of American politics and those running for the highest office are nuanced and complex, deserving of far more than an elementary school playground-esque, “she’s stupid.”

How much more effective would it be to take a level-headed approach to the issue of Palin, backed with facts and logic?

Expose her inexperience. Highlight her contradictions. Reveal her under-qualifications.

But by stooping to the level of an ornery 12-year-old and calling Palin a “moron,” Nikonovich-Kahn reveals his agenda and compromises the several valid points made in his argument.

As these virulent political columns have started to pop up almost daily in The Red & Black, I often wonder, has the magnetic pull of party lines completely destroyed the concept of middle ground and compromise?

Is it blasphemy for an Obama supporter to acknowledge McCain’s vast foreign policy experience and applaud him as a national hero?

Is it blasphemy for a McCain supporter to praise Obama’s progressive view of a new America and give him credit for his rapid ascent up the political ranks from his humble beginnings?

Likewise, are there any Democrats who are a little nervous about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience or his proposed tax plan?

Are there any Republicans who worry about McCain’s admitted lack of knowledge on matters of our economy?

Do they watch Tina Fey’s Palin impersonation and nervously chuckle because they know it’s spot on?

When Nov. 4 comes, by design, our votes will go either one way or the other.

But that doesn’t mean our reasoning has to be polarized into one partisan doctrine.

It’s OK to agree. It’s also OK to disagree.

That’s what makes America great.

- Peter Horn is a junior from Charlotte, N.C., majoring in finance.