Speculation

Why is it that Liberals are sometimes considered naive idealists by Conservatives? And why is it that Conservatives are sometimes considered inflexible and indomitable? Both sides of the political spectrum carry with them biases and generalizations. These generalizations are prominent every single day in every article on Bush or Kerry.
I read an article on CNN.com called “Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote”. The issue is that another Bush ad is coming out that uses one of Kerry’s quotes as fuel to pinning him as unknowledgeable in the area of war. The argument is that the Bush campaign keeps using Kerry’s quotes out of context to unfairly discredit him.
Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Bush campaign, said in this article that Kerry’s views are pre-9/11 and it makes him unfit to deal with the war. Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie held the same tone saying that “[Kerry] demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer.” However Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer stated that “...John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multi pronged approach. It's not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S."
Why is it that what is represented as truth on either side is so opposite? I am confused with the fact that campaigns can take a quote out of context and use it to their advantage, while in the process losing all original meaning of what was actually said. Going back to what I started with... in the media about the debates there is much talk that Bush is so inflexible and Kerry is a flip flopper. Bush seems to present himself as too much of a realist, resisting change of mind and not admitting to mistakes. Kerry has been pegged as irrational and unrealistically optimistic on war issues. Obviously the spin factor comes in, and bias provides for support of the side you are on. My question is what is better in this time of urgency? To be an extreme realist- someone who is practical and pragmatic, or an idealist- a visionary and an optimist? Des being a realist blind you to other options, and does being an idealist cloud the ability to see the problem?
I started to think about what I read in the article in the reader “Christianity and Power Politics”. I never thought I would look at liberalism in this light, but is it too idealistic? Can the optimism focused on human nature impose on logical reasoning? I never thought of democracy and liberalism as different concepts, but I can see how it is thought that liberalism can be “too simple a creed to suit the complexities of our tragic era (p85)”. Possibly too idealistic. According to this reading, democracy is more focused on truth, and government provides a process in which truth can be discovered.
I am starting to see that in such chaos, idealistic views can endanger our country. It is important to be strong and skeptical. Even though I still believe that the way campaigns and media present our presidential candidates is skewed, it makes me tilt my head in another direction to see how those views manifested. I am worried about Kerry’s ability to deal with this war Bush started, but I more concerned about misrepresenting his statements. Who has a better approach to running our country? It is so important to know and understand what each candidate believes and what they have planned, and if we keep getting this spun out coverage, we won’t know what’s really being said by either one.