Mitt and The Ford Field Fiasco

I would apologize for constantly writing about Mitt Romney—but I’m not sorry in the slightest.  I can’t help myself; this guy is a machine for bad rhetoric and thus a goldmine for blog topics.  Moreover, I just get a kick out of this disaster of a politician.

Friday, February 24^th, Romney gave a speech at the Ford Field football stadium in Detroit.  In this 65,000-seat auditorium, he generated an audience of 1,200 people.  Not only were the stands empty, but also the ground around the campaign turned up pretty sparse itself.  Talk about embarrassing—it really draws on just how little excitement this presidential-hopeful is producing. 

But to get down to the nitty-gritty of my ever-expanding fascination with this guy, the speech was a total mess.   Not only did Romney repeatedly speak about the supposed appropriate height of Michigan trees, but he alluded to his fortune again when he drives “a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck,” and his wife Ann “drives a couple of Cadillacs.” 

That certainly won’t erase the current public perceptions of Romney as an out-of-touch, unapologetic elitist. 

In a larger context, it was almost ironic of Romney to make a campaign stop in Detroit and call it the “motor capital of the world” in light of his opinion three years ago.  In 2009, he advocated that we “let Detroit go bankrupt” in place of bailing out the failing companies in the auto industry.  Due to the recent speech at Ford Fields, many of Romney’s critics have begun to revive their former arguments against him. 

MoveOn.org released a new ad called “He’d Let America Fail,” and the UAW (United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agriculture Workers of America) rallied to protest Romney. 

I’d joke about how this guy is still in the running for the Republican nominee, but look at his competitors—Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul . . . none of them are praise-worthy in the public eye at the moment.  It’s more than a little worrisome. 

Romney's in the Dog House

If you aren’t up on the current political scandals, I’ll give you a brief rundown.  During a 13-hour car ride from Massachusetts to Canada in 1983, there wasn’t enough room in the family station wagon for Romney’s five young sons and Seamus, their pet Irish Setter.  So the politician put the dog in a crate on the roof instead. 

According to the story, the oldest child pointed out a brown liquid dripping down the back window, emanating from the Irish Setter, who had been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.  At that point, Romney pulled over at a nearby gas station, hosed down the dog and the car, returned the dog to the roof, and continued on the journey.

                   https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKdYtAisytb-S8k42EtpNdaY1AXBe7hNTe64M__tV0oabOEZJnQ4KeWVhZRRmrwH6sKB336PIDnWmHz_oEsi_I9lOChOF2hAxuPKSmc1v-sMUy4QHxYDLNRlEHr24N-8_sfCZ20jroXz2S/s1600/Seamus.jpg

During a 2007 interview, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Romney, “What were you thinking?”  The governor replied that, "This is a completely airtight kennel, mounted on the top of our car. He climbed up there regularly, enjoyed himself; he was in a kennel at home a great deal of the time as well. We loved the dog, it was where he was comfortable and we had five kids inside the car and my guess is he liked it a lot better in his kennel than he would have liked it inside."

Everything about this situation is wrong: morally, legally, and rhetorically.  Even today, Mitt Romney isn’t recognizing the extreme flaws in his behavior, and has done nothing to apologize for his transgression.  While shocking, it is causing an interesting rhetorical response.

There is a small but growing group of protestors who have been following Romney to campaign stops with stuffed dogs in crates attached to the roofs of their cars.  Police pulled over one such protestor in Colorado on suspicion of animal cruelty.

            http://assets.dogtime.com/cel_asset/image/4f33e95a41826967e20011aa/max_400_Dogs-Against-Romney.jpg

Furthermore, a social media specialist named Scott Crider founded a blog called Dogs Against Romney.  He has been documenting protests as well as informing the public about this specific case of animal cruelty.  Supporters of the website protested Romney outside of the Westminster Dog Show last week, which gained a lot of publicity and outcry. 

As people continue to hear about the Irish Setter’s roof-ride, former supporters of Mitt Romney are beginning to question his character.  Some ask, “If he’s going to treat his animal that way, what does he think of people?”

Certainly, his opponents think that this story has potential to be a weakness in his campaign.  Newt Gingrich launched an attack ad called “Pets with Newt 2012.”

Even David Axelrod, President Obama’s campaign communications director, tweeted a picture of the first dog riding in the presidential limousine with the president and the caption “how loving owners transport their pets.” 

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/6599476371/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Clearly this story is gaining more attention as Romney’s campaign continues, and with all the support it’s acquiring, it will most likely do some serious damage his ethos. 

All I can say is that I don’t want an admitted animal abuser to be the face of the United States.  Do you? 

Nicki Minaj and . . . the Pope?

                        http://www.theboombox.com/2012/02/12/nicki-minaj-grammys-2012-red-robe-pope/

I will willingly admit that I have a hankering for those gaudy celebrity magazines and televisions shows during the awards seasons.  I eat it up---who wore an $18,000 Armani suit and who fell in their Christian Louboutin heels, it’s a bit of an addiction.  

But as I watched the stars fawn over the cameras on the red carpet just before the Grammy’s, one celeb’s entrance baffled me.  Musician, Nicki Minaj arrived wearing a long, hooded, red caped Versace gown.  The Little Red Riding Hood getup was shocking on it’s own, but everyone is talking about her date: a man dressed up as the Pope!  

What does it mean?  I’m still trying to sort out what she was trying to convey by attending the Grammy’s with an imposter of the leader of the Catholic Church.  Clearly, she was utilizing visual rhetoric to say…something. 

The most agreed upon statement was that her entrance was “the egg moment of 2012,” comparing it to the awards show that Lady Gaga showed up to, incubating in a giant egg.  Maybe Nicki Minaj was simply showing up Lady Gaga?  Perhaps it’s the crazier the outfit (and entourage) the wilder the statement?

No one knows what exactly that statement is, but we can all agree that people will be talking about until next year’s Grammy awards.  Nicki Minaj didn’t need to say anything in order to call us to respond.  Some are offended, others are making Internet memes, and still others are simply talking about what a mistake it was.

People want to criticize and gossip about Minaj’s wardrobe and choice of date, and that is most likely exactly what she wanted!  If it was all a publicity stunt, she certainly succeeded.  Nicki Minaj was clever enough to realize that a little bit of shock and controversy was rhetorically the right move to boost to star-status. 

Media Attacks Against Dr. Mann

Due to my uncharged iPod, I was subjected to listening to the radio as I sat on the CATA bus last week.  I tuned in and out to the running advertisements until one in particular caught my attention. A deep, authoritative voice commanded attention, saying that Penn State is “going through a rough time” and that the university “needs to be careful as to whom they association with."

 The ad protested Professor Michael Mann, who gave a speech regarding global warming last night (February 9^th), as part of Penn State’s Forum Speaker Series.

                              source: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.php

In case you’re not aware, Dr. Mann is a professor at our university who has been at the center of the ‘Climategate’ controversy.  He allegedly falsified data to support his political views on global warming.  However, Dr. Mann was cleared of all supposed scientific wrongdoings by both Penn State and the National Academy of Sciences (among other investigations). 

The Common Sense Movement (CSM), a coal industry front group with a PAC called the Secure Energy of America Political Action Committee (SEAPAC), sponsored the advertisement.  Essentially, they campaign to implement doubt about global warming and the negative effects of coal and natural gas.

The advertisement attacked the professor’s credibility and called him “disgraceful,” as well as urged the public to call President Rodney Erickson to protest his upcoming talk. 

CSM attempted to invoke our logos, or logic, in order to scare us into believing that this man and his work are a threat to our way of living.  Interestingly, our community has rebelled against the campaign.  The intended audience has found their own exigence or call to make change.  They have attempted to hijack CSM’s letter-writing campaign, gone to their Facebook fan page (which has now stopped fans from leaving comments), and urged WBUS to yank the commercial.  Other people called President Erickson to voice their support of Dr. Mann, and blog posts are popping up all over the Internet about it. 

Our university is challenging the pricy and politically motivated advertisement, and I’m proud to be part of an institution that is invoking such change and support.  One little ad has summoned an entire group of people to speak out and incite rhetoric everywhere.  

After Hours in the Supermarket with my Mom

Based on NPR's This I Believe, I wrote an essay based on one of my beliefs---check it out! I 100% promise you'll laugh (probably until you cry).

Crashing and Burning Rhetorically

source: http://doninmass.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wolverton-4.jpg

As the upcoming presidential election looms nearer and nearer, we are bombarded by the messages and words of hopeful politicians.  Though, some of those politicians might want to brush up on their rhetoric before stepping out in the public eye.    

Last week, Republican candidate Mitt Romney released his income tax return for 2010 and his estimate for his taxes last year on his website.  It showed that his combined income for both years was $42.6 million and that his tax rate was just under 14%. 

This meant that he made an average of $57,000 a day whereas the average American made $50,221 per year.  What was most notable was the fact that he paid a much lower tax rate than most Americans (average is 35% and above) because his income mostly came from investments.

Huh. 

Romney used rhetoric to make his tax records available to the American public, his audience.  But did he think about what his intended audience would react?  Now, he is being politically ridiculed for how he is (or isn’t) handling responses.

During today’s difficult economic times, the audience is perceiving Mitt Romney’s message as him being a man who is capable of working, but has admitted that his sole income is making money off of money and capitally benefitting off of low tax rates.

While there isn’t a problem with being rich and running for president, the American people do care about whether or not a presidential candidate cares about public.  Not only do Romney’s taxes show that he has money in the Cayman islands and Luxembourg, but every time he isn’t scripted, he says things like $374 thousand is not a lot of money, or he tells a room of unemployed people that he is unemployed.

Does that sound like someone who understands the problems of the people of America?

Mitt Romney is digging himself in a hole, and this is something he will most likely carry with him through the election.  He did not know what the rhetorical situation was or who the audience was, and it may cost him the vote.