The New York Times analyzed the state of the union address delivered by president Obama. The title displays the general message of the analysis “Obama to Party: Don’t run for the hills”. Obama was very critical of the republicans, who he claimed were merely trying to delay anything he put on the table. He also told the democrats to get behind him and get this bill passed.
The article lets us look deeper into the speech. Obama is hitting a tipping point. His initial election steam is dissipating. He has to get some major legislation under his belt in order to maintain his momentum. That is why health care is so important for him; if he fails he will loose a lot of support and have very little inertia to get it again. Should he get it passed, and it works, he will have enough credibility to make other changes to the nation. His biggest problem with getting the bill passed is the falling support in the senate. Republicans have always stood in opposition, and many democrats have started to loose faith. This speech was an attempt to motivate both parties into action. Other wise he may be stuck on the rocks.
The statement about Obama was being critical of the republicans to me appears to be a rhectorical fallacy. He is attacking the motives of the republicans as a whole. There may simply be some who don't want he health care bill to pass and not just becuase they are intentionally trying to delay everything Obama puts done on the table. Obama is overgeneralizing.
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't the only rhetorical fallacy I think President Obama made. When he spoke about the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns I feel (and so does Justice Alito obviously) that Obama oversimplified the stance, or maybe even used a straw person argument, the Supreme Court took.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Obama oversimplified his stance when really these problems can't be solved with a simple answer. IF they could would have already done it.
ReplyDelete"IF they could [they] would have already done it."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that an equivocation fallacy, though? I'm inclined to believe that the answers are simpler than lawyers and politicians and lobbyists would have us believe.
kevin, the question is not so much what is the simplest answer but rather what is the simplest answer that we can get enough people to agree on. And that is where things get complicated.
ReplyDelete