My Notes

These are just interesting videos and such that I was looking at for my presidential rhetoric paper.
It's really just my notes... Haha.

http://www.mittromney.com/videos

http://youtu.be/YkvN7GCcTVk

 http://youtu.be/erT_1axOAHo

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/mitt-romneys-plan-stronger-middle-class01

At first glance, I'm noticing a huge pattern of families and how Obama has been attacking the average American family. There is a strong enthymeme that Obama just doesn't care about the family and that he is attacking the values of the American family by taking away jobs. These videos show a lot of children. This immediately adds emotion to these videos and adds a pathetic element. Romney is saying that I care about these kids! Obama does not. He does not care about the working man and his family! It has the enthymeme that if you vote for Obama, he will not take care of these families, but Romney will.

I thought that it was particularly interesting that in the first video, they have Obama repeat his piece on how people can open a coal power plant, but it will bankrupt them. They have that in there twice. This clip makes Obama sound as if he is threatening the coal industry in a major way. The video also prefaces the clip for the first time, saying that Obama is attacking the coal workers instead of the actual coal companies. This is very careful word choice on the part of the Romney campaign. It creates this enthymeme that Obama does not care for the individual coal worker and that he is attacking the coal worker specifically. However, Romney knows, Romney understands, and Romney cares. In the video, each shot of a coal mine includes an American flag. This seems to say that coal mining is America. It has powered America for 250 years, and it will continue to power America. Romney cares about families, and he cares about America. Obama doesn't and, therefore, we should vote for Romney.


http://www.barackobama.com/video?source=primary-nav

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1pdgHQcWQvc

The first one, I think, is kind of the core of Obama's reelection strategy. I have done this for America so far, but I'm not done! Let me continue! It has the enthymeme that if Romney wins, he will take away everything that Obama has done. We've come too far to allow this to happen! Obama is a step forward while Romney is a step back. It's almost a continuation of his original campaign; he was all about change, and now he's made the change, but he needs more time!

His speech to Virginia was all about "I am one of you!" He opens with a humorous line "If you didn't pay your cable bill." He seems to be saying, "I've been there! I know how it is! I am connected enough to the world in order to make that reference!" I also immediately noticed the way he's dressed. Usually presidents and presidential candidates are dressed sharply in an expensive suit. Here, however, Obama looks professional, but casual, with no jacket and his sleeves rolled up. He is more approachable this way. Honestly, it reminds me of when I was younger and my dad would come straight from work to the dinner table when he had unbuttoned his shirt a bit and was just winding down from the long work day, and I'm sure it reminds a lot of people of that. This goes along with his "I am one of you" angle. He may be the president, but really he's just  a working man with a family, same as you. It kind of reminds me of the fireside chats that FDR used to host. He had the same idea; I'm just a regular American looking to have a chat with my fellow Americans about the state of our country and where we are headed.

This kind of begs the question, is the presidential image changing? What is now presidential? Until now, the president has always been this being who is kind of above everyone, looking sharp in a suit, surrounded by security, untouchable. But this election both Romney and Obama seem to be trying to be more approachable. They are dressing more casually, more hands-on with the voters, and getting to know "regular people" rather than rubbing elbows with the higher-ups. I just think the shift is interesting.

In this Virginia speech, in particular, Obama's speech style is much more informal. He's cracking jokes, using references the middle class understands, such as the cable bill thing, and seems to be chatting it up with thousands of his closest friends. He has very deliberate word choice, using terms like "we" and "you." He said that the health care plan was all thanks to "you" directing it at his audience. He is very careful not to say "I." He is saying that the American public made everything that he did possible, and that together, we can work together to move forward. It makes him humbled, which makes him even more approachable, and acknowledges that America is for the people by the people. This is what America has always been about and what Americans want to hear and seems to say that Obama is an American president who works for the people. Vote for Obama because he works for you, because he is you.

I also got a kick out of his blatant jab at Romney's whole 47% thing. "We do not expect the government to work for us!" His use of "we" here also seems to say that Romney didn't just insult Obama voters, but Obama himself.

Presidential Rhetoric

I would like to focus my presidential rhetoric paper on audience and how the "flavor" of the argument changes with the audience.

I particularly found the whole Romney and the 47% debacle interesting and entertaining. This occurred because of mixed audiences; Romney intended this speech for a very specific audience, and it all blew up in his face when it was presented to the wrong audience. I want to look at the rhetoric he uses in this instance versus the rhetoric he uses when he is speaking to a wider audience.

I also want to contrast this with Obama's rhetoric towards his audiences. In particular, the video where he shows his support for same sex marriage. Here he also has a very specific audience in mind, however, he is slightly more successful in his address to a very specific audience than Romney was in his. I want to explore why this is and why audience is so important.

Romney and Obama both use completely different rhetoric depending on their audiences. Sometimes this rhetoric is successful and, as we can see in Romney's case, rhetoric to a specific audience can be catastrophic when presented to the wrong audience.

Romney vs. Obama: Battle of the Web Pages

http://www.mittromney.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/

So I decided to compare and contrast the Romney and Obama websites to look at their rhetorical tools side by side.

Visually both websites are kind of the same, showing marvelous, hopeful, patriotic pictures of each candidate speaking to their adoring fans. It's actually kind of funny that both of them are set against glorious blue skies with puffy white clouds. I can only assume this represents the hope and "blue skies" ahead if you vote for this candidate. In their photos, not only do they look strong and powerful (the camera angled from below gives this effect), but their faces are formed in a state of concentration, showing that they have the country in mind... Or something. From the moment you come across the candidates' pages, they scream "Make me your president because I am awesome!"

All cynicism aside, this works to get the voter in the right mindset. A candidate must look presidential and powerful and must be a beacon of hope to all. These photos represent what the candidates will try to bring to the presidency and serve as a first impression for many voters.

The first thing you see on Romney's home page is a giant contest to win a chance to fly with Romney on the campaign plane. I think that this is an incredibly interesting choice. It seems to say, "I care about my voters so much, I want to fly with you!" It gives a sense that Romney cares about the individual. (In reality, I can only guess that this just opens the door to endless spam in your email inbox, but whatever!) Other than that, his home page focuses solely on Romney's plan for presidency. It is a completely logical approach. This makes sense to me; Obama has been president for four years which means that the voters generally know where he stands while Romney is new to the presidential stage and most voters will have had no idea what Romney is all about. He needs to push his issues to gain the voters who agree with him.

Obama's front page, on the other hand, opens with a great big demonstrative banner against the Republicans (take that, Romney!) It's kind of an enthymeme saying that they can do this while the republicans can't. Go team! Obama's front page is dripping with pathetic arguments with pictures of happy people in communities and how much Ohio and Iowa loves him and puppies and butterflies! This also makes sense for his campaign because, as I said before, the public knows Obama as the president. We want to know what an awesome person he is. No one wants to vote a bad guy into office. He also caters to the individual in a much different (and probably smarter and less subtle) way by including pictures of his voters on his page. His page is much more personal than Romney's and makes people think, "Wow! Look at those voters just like me! I can vote for Obama, too!"

Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/us/politics/obama-romney-battle-plans-set-for-final-charge.html?_r=1&ref=politics

I think that it's interesting to watch the tactics of these two candidates as the race is coming to an end. The voter base is so polarized (people tend to vote more for their party rather than the candidate), so their main goal is to try and persuade the voters with the more moderate views who have not yet made up their mind. Now, it seems that it is not just their words that are important, but their audience. Now, it is key for them to choose their speech locations very wisely in order to spread their "fan base" and gain votes.

Socrates Question

So, while reading this piece, the entire time, it was very apparent that Socrates is an incredible rhetorician. He bested Gorgias many times during the course of the discussion, even though many swore that Gorgias was a master of his craft and the greatest rhetorician that could ever be... Blah, blah, blah. Socrates obviously provides a very convincing argument against rhetoric, but he uses rhetoric very well in order to provide his argument. The entire time I read this piece, I had a very hard time following Socrates' argument because it feels hypocritical to me. Why should I believe that rhetoric is always bad and manipulative and questionable ethically when Socrates provides a beautiful example of rhetoric in this piece?

Introduction

Yo! My name is Meghan Amanda O'Neal, and I am terrible at these introduction things... Let's see, then...
I am currently a Senior (yes!) studying writing with a minor in photography. Beyond this year I have no idea what my plan is, so I'm just going to jump off the cliff and see what happens! I'm from La Center, WA (a small town just north of Portland, OR known for its casinos). I came to Montana State University really just for the skiing (although this is the first year I actually have a pass and/or time), but I've kind of fallen in love with the place. I really hope that my future allows me to stick around, at least for a little while. I'm one of those stereotypical "I love to write; writing is my life; ever since I could lift a pen, I have been called to write" writers. Basically, it's my passion and hopefully I can make a career of it (fingers crossed). If not, I guess my cardboard begging sign will be grammatically correct and wonderfully eloquent. My favorite color is purple. My favorite food is anything cooked in under five minutes. I'm a whiskey girl.
Annnnnnd that's about it!