Presidential Throw-Down Part II

As always, I have a lot of opinions about the debate....I was surprised by how different this time was compared to the first debate. I think a lot of that could be related to Biden's display at his debate. The democrat's stepped up their game in my opinion and did a lot of good things rhetorically speaking. But I, of course, want to talk about Romney. 

Let me begin by saying that the binder full of women comment was one of the most offensive things I have ever heard a politician say. Seriously. Why? Firstly, it's a made up story. Secondly, it is completely out of touch with the lives of modern women. He made a big point of addressing women's role in the workforce in reference to their families. 

"I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you."

I am a woman. I am NOT a baby factory. I am NOT a housewife. I am a woman that desires to be taken seriously in the workforce and Romney's sexist stance masquerading as concern for equality is not winning me over.

That aside, I couldn't help but notice the two very different debate styles emerge. Obama came to this debate much stronger than the last. He answered questions with details and outlined plans. Romney didn't (although at this point we shouldn't expect anything else). 

His tactic was interesting rhetorically. He relied heavily on anecdotes. For every issue brought up there was some struggling American who had personally asked Romney for help. And he definitely wants to help them. How? Hell if I know...

I think this has something to do with relating to the average person. Romney has a hard time with that for obvious reasons. He's a very rich man and he can't just deny that. So he talks about all of these average Americans that came to him in an attempt to say, "I am not quite like you, but I can understand your concerns and fix them for you."

That's always the answer. "I can fix it". "I know what it takes to fix it." How, Mitt? What exactly is your five point plan? Now, I am a biased voter, but I do not want to totally ignore Romney. I want to know what his plans are. I want to decide if I find them valid. In fact, I haven't cast my absentee ballot yet just in case some miracle happens and I become an undecided voter again. But so far these debates have not been at all educational. 

This worked well for Romney in the first debate. In fact, rhetorically it was not all that bad of an idea. But now that fact checks have been done and Obama is more prepared is just fell apart. He needed to come with a new strategy. 

Body language was also a huge factor, especially for Obama. The first debate made his seem very standoffish and reserved. This time? Wow, the difference. He was confident. (some say arrogant, but I am inclined to think those people are stupid). We gain so much by looking at someone when they are NOT speaking. I imagine that this debate would be interesting to watch muted. 

Interviewing Notes on Writing (Sci Writ)

Yesterday, I did my interview with an old friend of mine. He is a paleontology student who is involved in some really great research outside of class. (And yes, he's a real person!) 

When I had asked him all of the questions that I had about his life and his work, I decided to ask him about writing. He said some interesting things in regards to science journalism that I thought I would share with all of you...

He stated that science is about absolute truths. It is about facts and what can be proved.   Therefore, the amount of debate within scientific communities is small. For instance, of all the paleontologists in the entire world there are only 8 who do not believe that birds are not dinosaurs. And most of them are slowly dying off. It's a small, small percentage that is considered by most in the field to be sort of ridiculous. Nevertheless, he said that when journalists write about birds and paleontology they almost always include quotes from these 8 alongside the others.

The person I interviewed said that he does not understand why writers are so intent on providing multiple angles. There just aren't multiple angles in science, he said. A lot of things are taken as undeniably true by majorities. His example was of intelligent design and evolution. There is little debate at all about the truth of evolution, but journalists will often present the two as BOTH completely reasonable options. 

He also said that there should be more science education for writers and writing education for scientists. It seems as though a lot of the problems with science journalism could be solved by a greater understanding of both fields by both parties. In the meantime, he said that he was content to write everything instead of having writers mess it up for him. 

Rhetoric Project (450)

Mitt Romney and the Catholic Vote

When the gender-specific preventative services provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare") was enacted, controversy raged at the hands of Catholic institutions that believed that their religious freedoms were being denied. The was because--with the exception of houses of worship--the mandate required insurance coverage of contraception to all employees including those of religious institutions like hospitals and schools. This was termed the "contraception mandate". 

After harsh criticisms voices by multiple republican candidates for presidency that the mandate was a, "direct attack on religious liberty," it was amended. Contraception coverage would be handled directly by insurers--thus bypassing the religious institutions. This compromise was not met with great enthusiasm. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the amendment saying that catholic insurance agents were still being denied their religious rights. 

This issue has been central to the upcoming presidential election. The United States has the third largest Catholic population in the world with 68 million registered members comprising about 22% of the overall population. There are approximately 230 Roman Catholic universities and 625 Catholic run hospitals. The ability of a candidate to secure the "Catholic vote" is pivotal to the success of their campaign. And recently, this has meant addressing the contraception mandate. 

As a result, some interesting rhetorical tools have been used in ads specifically targeting this formidable demographic. As the republican candidate, Mitt Romney's best possible move is to completely decry the birth control mandate and to appeal to those staunchly in opposition of it. His running mate, Paul Ryan, illustrated this when he stated that the contraception mandate would be eradicated on day one of a Romney administration. Romney also put out a Catholic-centered ad addressing the issue:

Ethopoeia

The very first line: "Who shares your values?" immediately makes the watcher aware of the moral theme of the ad. Moral values are very important to most voters, especially Catholic voters. The enthymeme presented in that very first title card is that Mitt Romney is the one who shares your values. This already gives Romney a certain relatable quality. In rhetorical terms it is called ethopoeia -- or putting oneself in the place of the other to understand and express beliefs more effectively. 

If a voter believes that a candidate shares their values and thinks similarly to them then they more inclined to support their campaign. There is a very personal element to voting. For example, the "who would you rather have a beer with?" angle that worked so well for George W. Bush. If a candidate like Romney can find common ground with the American people it is advantageous. 

While increasing Romney's appeal, the ad simultaneously discredits Obama's moral basis. It claims that a war was declared on religion as a direct result of the Obama presidency. The video highlights the polarity of the candidates in a way that is designed to directly benefit Romney. He shares your values. Obama does not. When stated in such simplified terms, it makes a voter's choice seem much less complicated than previously perceived. This is even further emphasized by the cinematographic choice to have Obama shown in black and white while Romney is portrayed in full color.  

Borrowed Ethos
Romney's ad quotes the San Antonio Express News as saying, "Obama's Insurance Decision Declares War on Religion." However, the quote was part of an editorial written by George W. Bush's former speech writer. By attributing the quotes directly to the publication, Romney is able to exploit some of its credibility. It is a way of increasing the ethos of a position by misrepresenting its original origins. When information looks like it comes from a supposedly unbiased source it is a lot easier to pass it off as certifiable fact. 

In fact, the Romney ad borrows credibility multiple times. He does this with a specific Catholic angle when he quotes Pope John Paul II's famous, "Be not afraid". This resonates well with a populace that is loyal to the pope. There is an unspoken conclusion that, because Romney is using what the pope said in a speech, he must agree with the pontiff's position. And if he agrees with the pope then he must naturally align with all Catholic points of interest. 

It's much easier for Romney to lay out his position when it is through the words of others. Of course he is going to react negatively towards Obama and the contraception mandate. After all, he has an election to win. But when he utilizes quotations of others that align with his own agenda then he makes his position seem more accepted and logical than those presented in opposition. Suddenly, Romney isn't the only one that's saying these things. A major publication and a well-respected pope are fantastic outlets for the Romney campaign to utilize, especially when appealing to Catholics. 


Red Herring 
The rhetorical tools being used are even more impressive when Romney's own personal religious position is taken into account. He is a vocal Mormon. There is no conceivable way in which he would personally recognize the authority or credibility of John Paul II. Mormons and Catholics are traditionally at odds with one another so Romney's ad is all the more impressive in its ability to mask this fundamental discrepancy. It's a fantastic example of a red herring, or the intentional misleading from an actual issue or point of interest. 

All of the major points of the ad hinge upon Romney's ability to relate to the Catholic populace. If the red herring tools were to be extracted then it would not be nearly as possible for him to claim that he shared the same set of fundamental values that the ad relies heavily upon. 

Pathos
The quoting of John Paul II also employs pathos. He was a pope that was very well liked in Catholic communities. Since his death, there have been an abundance of movies, books, and other paraphernalia dedicated to remembering a pope that was considered so wonderful he is going to be named a saint. His picture is an immediate emotional appeal to a Catholic sense of pride, inspiration, and sadness. There is no greater endorsement than a figure that is universally recognized to have such a powerful impact. 

Romney's voice in the ad claims that John Paul II's words, "brought down an empire." There is, however, no direct explanation of what empire was brought down. Although, there is a hidden message in the man that is pictured alongside the pope and Romney. Lech Walesa was a major factor in ending communism in the country of Poland. Those that recognize him, such as many Catholics with a solid understanding of famous Catholic historical figures, would immediately understand the symbolism of freedom associated with his image. To those that view Obamacare as a threat to freedom, the endorsement of an historical symbol of freedom is encouraging and powerful. 

Anacoenosis
The ad concludes much in the same way that it began. The question "Who do you want to stand with?" once again implies that Romney is the assumed answer to that question. This is called anacoenosis--or asking the opinion or judgment of an audience and implying a common interest with the speaker. And if Catholic websites and chat rooms are any indication, then the tactics used in this ad are indeed gaining him significant ground with Catholic voters. 

Randomness (450)

I came across this today and thought I would share in case someone feel like wasting 4 minutes of their life today. 

Romney: Soft on Wall Street, Hard on Sesame Street

My Thoughts on the Presidential Debate...(less rhetorical, more politically ranty)

I am vocal about my support of president Obama. I have already planned on moving to Canada if Romney wins the election. That being said, I am not surprised by the fact that most polls are claiming that Romney won the debate. Historically, challengers almost always "win" the first debate against an incumbent. 

Romney was able to dominate a lot of the debate through basically being obnoxious. He interrupted, lied, and insisted on having the last word. Poor Jim had a rough time trying to keep the governor quiet. 

That being said, I don't think Obama did nearly what he could have. A lot of Romney's claims about the president's policies were not correct (that's fact check speaking, not me), but Obama did not do enough to refute the incorrect claims. He also did not bring up the 47% thing which I find completely surprising given how detrimental to the Romney campaign that was. Obama has done this before. He acts way too nice in a debate and ends up coming out on bottom when his opponent doesn't play by the rules. 

Romney has yet to talk about the specifics of his plans. I kept waiting for some sort of outlining of his tax and healthcare plans, but he never said anything that I hadn't head a million times before. No seriously man, where are you planning on getting all of this money!?! (Other than from PBS, of course). He also continually misrepresented his own platform. It's like he didn't know his own policies. I can't even count how many times he said things that were against all of his own campaigning. Especially in regards to healthcare. Apparently, he wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare. 

It is so strange to see all of the news reports claiming that Romney dominated the event. It just goes to show his rhetorical prowess. Yea, if you lie about everything and won't stop talking you're going to look a little better. But the facts speak for themselves. Just because it looks like a president and it talks like a president doesn't mean it should be elected. And I can't believe that after an hour and a half of discussion, Obama leaving the stage first is what people wanted to talk about in the post-debate coverage

All that I got out of the actual discussion was that Jim Lehrer needs to stand up for himself. And according to Romney, it's more important to fund the military unnecessarily than help me with health insurance as I get older. If you can afford not to die then the terrorists will win! 

Presidential Debate Drinking Game (450)

While we were making a lost of probable debate topics today in class, my thoughts went to how we could turn our list into a drinking game. I found this online and thought I would share. 

Take one sip of beer when:

• Someone mentions “Obamacare” or “Romneycare,”
• If Obama says “47%,”
• If Romney says “Fast and Furious.”
• Anytime Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton get mentioned.
• Anytime Michelle Obama or Ann Romney get mentioned.

Take two sips when:

• Romney says “47%.”
• Obama says “Obamacare.”
• Obama talks about Ann Romney.
• Romney talks about Michelle Obama.
• If the candidates talk about dogs.

Chug your beer when:

• A candidate goes over their allotted time. Drink until they finish speaking.
• If Obama starts singing.

Finish your beer when:

• Romney starts singing.

From inquisitir.com