Mitt Romney is an American politician who served as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Following his last term as governor, Romney ran for president in the 2012 election as the Republican party’s nominee. In Romney’s campaign speech held in Chillicothe, Ohio on August 14th, 2012, he argues that President Obama should not be elected for his second term, and advocates for his own presidency. His argument can be refuted through the analysis of several fallacies used in his speech, including the ad-hominem fallacy, the post-hoc fallacy, and the slippery slope fallacy. The ad-hominem fallacy is defined as “an argument or reaction that is directed against a person, rather than the position they are maintaining” (source). Governor Romney …show more content…
uses the ad-hominem fallacy several times throughout his campaign speech. He asserts that President Obama is “small-minded,” and “angry and desperate” (source). These words and phrases are direct attacks on President Obama’s character as a person, rather than any of his policies or practices as President; he does this in order to to put doubt in the minds of Americans and to discredit Obama not only as the President, but as an opponent. These attacks make it easy for Romney to undermine Obama’s campaign without actually engaging with it. It is a faulty and illogical way to make the opponent seem less qualified, but in reality the attacks on character hold no relevance to the stand they take on the issue. As well using the ad-hominem fallacy against the President himself, Governor Romney goes after Obama’s cabinet in his speech, stating that they are “intellectually exhausted and out of energy” (source). Since Romney has no facts or numbers to back the statement up, it is again a clear demonstration of the ad-hominem fallacy. Romney is simply going after the character and integrity of President Obama’s cabinet, an easy way to get citizens to begin to doubt the faith they put in Obama. His statements do not truly hold any worth, since the character of cabinet members does not have a bearing on whether or not they, and President Obama, are actually able to run the country. In addition to his use of the ad-hominem logical fallacy, Romney commits the post-hoc fallacy.
Post-hoc comes from the Latin phrase “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates to “after this, therefore because of this” (source). In layman’s terms, the fallacy is committed when it is stated that one event causes another, when there is insufficient proof or evidence that the two are actually correlated. Romney shows use of this fallacy when he states that “unemployment has been over 8%,” and that “half of our college graduates don’t have jobs” (source). While these issues do exist, Romney is implying that they only arose specifically because Obama was elected president. In reality, the American recession started before President Obama even took office. Therefore, pinning the crash of the American economy entirely onto President Obama is faulty and illogical, and a demonstration of the post-hoc fallacy. Governor Romney goes further and states that “after four years [of Obama’s presidency], one in six Americans is living in poverty” (source). Here he is no longer implying, but directly stating that the impoverished class has gone further into poverty specifically because of President Obama’s administration. Considering that Romney has no evidence or statistics to back his statements up, claiming that Obama’s administration is completely to blame is invalid and fallacious, specifically in regards to the post-hoc
fallacy. Not only were the ad-hominem and post-hoc fallacies present in Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign speech, but he also clearly demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy is committed when a person states that one small event will lead to a larger, more catastrophic event without any argument or evidence presented as to the inevitability of that catastrophic event. In the middle of Romney’s speech, he vehemently states, “Obama has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. [Obama] and his allies are pushing us further apart by dividing us into groups. [Obama] demonizes some, and panders to others. [Obama’s] campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51% of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we would all lose” (source). Romney is asserting that should Obama be reelected, every person in the country would suffer indefinitely. Governor Romney had no backup or further examination into Obama’s plans, and gave no logical reason to support his claim that Obama’s reelection would lead to the doom of Americans everywhere; therefore, this is a representation of the slippery slope fallacy. There are no facts to support the idea that one event would inevitably lead to the next, and certainly no evidence presented to lead one to believe that Obama’s reelection would mean the destruction of the country.
In the “George Bush’ Columbia” speech, George W. Bush used a variety of ways in order to make his mark and effectively assemble his dialog. One of the most prominent strategies Mr. Bush used was his sentence structure. He did a great job shaping his speech by initially addressing the problem at hand. He first stated what happened, who it happened to, and gave his condolences to the ones who didn’t make it, along with their families. Mr. Bush also seemed sincere throughout his speech as he made sure to mention each hero apart of the crew. Another technique George W. Bush displayed was the diction and tone he used while delivering the speech. From listening to the audio last week, I remember the passion behind Bush’s words and the sincerity
Many would argue that President Obama is one of the most effective speakers in the decade. With his amazing speeches, he captivates his audience with his emotion and official tone.
McCain starts off his speech by using self-disclosure and describing his time as a young man as a navy liaison, and eventually senator, on the senate and working alongside former vice president Joe Biden. “Joe was already a senator, and I was the navy’s liaison to the Senate. My duties included escorting Senate delegations on overseas trips, and in that capacity, I supervised the disposition of the delegation’s luggage, which could require – now and again – when no one of lower rank was available for the job – that I carry someone worthy’s bag” (McCain 2017). Self-Disclosure is the the speaker telling the audience of their personal experiences and tells the audience why they have the personal convictions that they have. (Hamilton 2017)
Rick Santorum’s departure heralded the beginning of the general election. Mitt Romney, with the backing of the Republican establishment, and the growing support of the base, can now devote his resources for a one on one showdown against President Barack Obama. Recent polls indicate that he is behind by only a few points in a head to head match-up against the President. High employment rate, skyrocketing gas prices, ballooning national debt, and an exhausting war in Afghanistan created animosity against the President’s administration. Therefore, the President must decisively address these issues in the months ahead to ensure reelection. He must pull the jobless rate below 8%, and lower the price of fuel. The President must not prolong the war in Afghanistan and must not escalate tension with Iran. In essence, a President seeking reelection will need to embody Niccolo Machiavelli’s acumen and Desiderius Erasmus’ deferential image. Now, I will outline what the President must do to handily beat Romney.
43rd President of the United States, George Bush, in his speech, “9/11 Address to the Nation” addresses the nation about the day of September 11, 2001. Bush’s purpose is to convey the events of September 11, 2001 and what was and will be done about them. He adopts a serious yet somber tone in order to appeal to the strong and emotional side of the public and to his listeners around the world.
A straw man fallacy, in its most lucid form, is executed when a person not only disregards an opponent’s counterarguments, but also distorts them into exaggerated versions of themselves in the interest of making them easier to refute. In many cases, the adversary’s arguments are skewed to such a severe point that they wind up being completely different than what the adversaries were actually fighting for; however, this is all for the convenience of the proponent. An innumerable amount of politicians and authors are infamous for using this problematic method of disproving opposing arguments, even notable celebrities like George W. Bush. The straw man method of persuasion is a proficient way to make a personal stance sound factual, but it
In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.
Imagine your son or daughter holding a gun, and accidently shoot his family member. Person shows up to a school building armed and shot 20 innocent children who would’ve had bright future ahead of them. This situation happened multiple times in the past. It is an alarm, sounding for us to create better gun control. America is a huge nations and gun control became a major problem as mentioned in the speech, fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun monthly. Everyone can deliver a speech, yet not everyone can draw the reader’s attention, sell their words, and gain attractions from the audience. A great speaker is known for his usage of appeals. LaPierre called
George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation” is a speech in which he talks about the catastrophic event on September eleventh, 2001. Two airplanes crash into the Twin Towers in New York City on this day, shocking the entire world. He addresses this speech to the people of America on the night of the disastrous event, to let the people of the United States know what is going on. This speech explains how the United States is a strong country, the motives behind the event, as well as to bring the United States together and stronger.
President Barack Obama has been a well-known political figure for just over 8 years; he has served two terms as the President of the United States. There has been controversy surrounding the first African American president, after his first term Obama failed to prove to America that he would fix all the things he promised to fix upon election. With his second term he has set in place his views and goals for the country. Obama’s views have been trying to benefit the overall population of American, from the poor all the way to the rich with a few subclasses in-between. During the Inauguration of his second term, won against Mitt Romney. His opponent stood for many things that were conflicting to Obamas platform, while Obama stood for rehabilitating the poor after the recession, Romney wanted to focus on tax breaks for the rich. Throughout the speech given by President Barack Obama, he outlines necessary changes in the system to benefit the people and the need for people to come together as one to have an effective country.
After the October rush ends election season begins. On November 6, 2012 the people of Texas were headed cast their vote for the new president. The two runners were Barack Obama the incumbent and Mitt Romney (NBC, 2011). The people of Texas were in favor of the runner up, Mitt Romney. Romney had fifty-seven percent of the state’s vote compared to Obama who had a measly fourth-one percent (NBC, 2011). Texas was only one of the fifty states fighting for Romney. The end resulted with Barrack Obama winning the 2012 presidential election. During that same time there was another election that was taking place in Texas. The people of Texas were awaiting to hear the news of their new senator. There were two different candidates attempting to win the
In 1992 the incumbent president George Bush was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had defeated the incumbent by a landslide! How could this be? How did the commander and chief of what could be considered the greatest victory in modern American history defeat the Iraqi army and one year later lose the election for the presidency? The answers to these questions as well as explanations for the outcome lie within the campaign strategies and tactics used by each candidate. There were various major political events and public opinion data that occurred throughout the general election stage of the campaign. This paper will analyze both the political events and the public opinion data, in hopes of developing a better understanding as to what helped shape the overall outcome. There were three candidates in the race for the presidency, President Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), and Ross Perot (I). Each of the three, to a greater or lesser extent, focused their campaign on the economy. President Bush focused more of his campaign on criticizing his opponents primarily Bill Clinton. He would often compare the economy to that of other nations, claiming it wasn't all that bad and resumed attacking his opponents. Bill Clinton on the other hand focused his campaign strategy on implementing the need for 'change.' At that time the national debt and unemployment was rising. Clinton vowed to improve the economy and the quality of life for the American people by bringing about change. Ross Perot was more of a crusader against Washin...
The American Presidency Project. 10 January 2014. The "Democratic Party Platform, 2012. " The American Presidency Project. 10 January 2014.
President Obama’s Address to the nation was presented on January 5, 2016. His speech was shown on all of the major network stations. The main goal of his speech was to get the point across to the nation about the increasing problem of gun use. His speech really focused on the issue of gun control and if it would benefit the country. Overall, the biggest idea of his Address was that gun control is a large issue in the United States. The way to prevent deaths caused by firearms can be prevented in other ways than taking peoples guns away. The examples brought up in this Address really stood out to me. The use of personal, national, and global examples really made his speech stronger on the topic of effectiveness.
First, we should understand what Ad Hominem is. An Ad Hominem fallacy has many different meanings depend on the situation and the people in that case. The online dictionary states that this fallacy means "appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason, "or "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.". According to Glen Whitman at Northridge University, "Ad Hominem is argument directed at the person. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater." But in philosophy study at Lander University, Ad Hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." Based on what I see in my personal life, this fallacy means that people judge each other's action by their emotions, experiences and what they are told about others rather than their actions, ideas or their abilities.