Mitt Romney & His Sly Smile

As a voter, Mitt Romney appears to have a second agenda that I don't trust. His sly smile of overconfidence after each remark makes him look outright arrogant. Romney desperately needs to consider how he looks to the middle class in particular. He recently made a bet in the amount of $10,000 which is utterly ridiculous that he proposes to have that much money to throw away on a bet when Americans are struggling to just make a living. Mind you, the same demographic that would find this bet offensive provides the majority of voters, silly Romney.

I find it "fishy" that he has yet to release his income tax information even after so many have brought the issue into the lime light. His delay in releasing his tax records leads me believe he has something to hide. I suspect that he is making a ridiculous amount of money by putting into practice every possible loop hole he can, to give himself his own personal tax break. How can we elect a president we can't even trust? As the state of the economy worsened, he helped himself become wealthier by paying a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans. This is not a leader. After the debate I found that Romney allegedly makes millions while paying only 15% income tax rate. Americans in the middle class make far less and yet they pay as much as 25%. Corruption has begun even before he has reached the White House.

I understand it is stereotypical of conservatives to be con gay rights; however, I cannot seem to wrap my mind around this bigotry. For Romney to claim that he believes in equal rights for homosexuals but does not support gay marriage is completely contradictory. Equal rights means that every citizen is given the same opportunities. To deny someone rights that are granted to another, like marriage for example, is not equal rights, plan and simple.

Although the primaries show that Romney is the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination, I will not be voting in his favor unless he shapes up. I understand he needs to appeal to conservatives because that is his only chance in becoming the next president. However, to be a leader he needs to show Americans that he is in this race for their best interest and not his own.

Devoni Novak

Communication Studies 

Wilkes 2013

The No Spin Zone?

Over the past few years, the most prominent news source on cable television has become FOX News.  All other news outlets have decreased in viewers while FOX continues to grow.  The question that everybody should be asking is “why?”  For the past two weeks, I followed the number one rated news show on cable television, “The O’Reilly Factor,” hosted by Bill O’Reilly.  Bill O’Reilly has been in the broadcasting business for over thirty years, and his FOX show has been airing since 1996.  In the very beginning of every show, Bill starts off by saying, “CAUTION!  You are about to enter the ‘no spin zone’.”  Essentially, Bill is stating that during the entirety of his show, you will hear nothing but the political facts that have not been manipulated.  After one objectively watches Bill’s show after a while, they realize that it should be retitled “The All Spin Zone.”  For one hour every night, Bill O’Reilly forces his agenda upon the viewer by making harsh statements with very little logic or reasoning to back it up.  The show is pure opinion.  Bill does bring on people who oppose his views, but never gives them the time to effectively explain their argument.  When it comes to political spin, Bill O’Reilly is the cream of the crop.

“The Factor” is structured roughly the same way every night.  Bill starts off with his “Talking Points.”  He will pick out a big news story of the day, make a conclusion about that news story, then make the same conclusion about a broader topic.  For example, a news story had broken out about a school that forced a student to purchase a different lunch than what she had packed because it did not meet the guidelines set by U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Bill took this story and stated that the country is now a “nanny state.”  In other words, Bill claims that liberals want the government to regulate everything and want the government to tell us exactly what to do in all instances.  He even called President Obama the “nanny state champion.” Frankly, Bill’s conclusion is pure opinion.  It would make sense if he made the conclusion that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going too far with their health guidelines.  Instead, Bill said the government is regulating everything Americans do.  It is a big illogical jump.

Generally, the 2012 presidential race would be the first or second story depending upon whether one of the candidates did something controversial that day.  Through watching many days of “The O’Reilly Factor,” the only two Republican candidates even mentioned were Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.  If one is to look at Bill’s rhetoric hard enough, they will discover that he prefers Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney.  Bill was heard constantly stating that he thinks Mitt Romney is a “nice guy;” but when talking about Mitt’s conservatism, he claims Mitt does not feel it.  If this were a onetime passing comment, one would not think anything of it; however, Bill said these exact words on many different days, even asking interviewees if they agreed that Romney does not “feel it” when he talks about conservatism.  When it came to Santorum, the only bad press Bill gave him was when his millionaire campaign supporter made controversial statements about women and birth control.  Otherwise, Bill would make passing comments about knowing Rick, what a nice guy he is, and even saying that Rick at least feels his conservatism.

Bill tended to use very loaded language when talking about the Democratic Party and President Obama.  One thing people might not pick up on often is that Bill very rarely refers to President Obama with the “president” title.  Instead, he usually refers to him as “Mr. Obama.”  Simply by using the “Mr.” instead of “President,” Bill immediately places Barack Obama on a lower level by not referring to him by his proper title.  His loaded language was not all about Barack Obama.  Whenever referring to democrats or liberals, there was always a snarl or a sense of sarcasm in his voice.  During an interview with Leslie Marshall, in a very snarky fashion, Bill refered to her as a “flaming liberal.”  One of Bill’s favorite words on his show is “pinhead.”  Whenever there is somebody who does not agree with him or uses a different line of logic than he does, he refers to him as them as a “pinhead.”  He even has a segment at the very end of his show called “Pinhead or Patriot” in which he determines if someone who was in the news that day did something stupid.  However, with a title like “Pinhead or Patriot,” Bill is insinuating that if somebody does not live up to his definition of “patriot,” they are lacking in intelligence and is not “American.”

One of the most shocking aspects of “The O’Reilly Factor” is Bill’s interviews with other people.  Typically, Bill will have a Republican and Democrat on to argue an issue, or he will have just a Republican.  Nine times out of ten, when he talked to just a Republican, they were a “FOX News Contributor” with loyalties to the network.  When Bill would talk to the FOX News contributors, he would be much kinder, would allow them to talk more, and there was generally less arguing.  However, when there was a Republican and Democrat, Bill would use the spin technique, selectivity.  First, Bill would never let the Democrat completely explain their point of view.  Generally, he would cut them off before they could get to the point and berate them with his own point of view.  The other thing Bill might do is discuss the topic at hand with the Republican, but when he would get to the Democrat, he would argue something different.  For example, Bill had a discussion regarding whether substance addiction is a disease or a choice.  It became quite clear that Bill believes it is a choice considering the interviewee arguing that side was not berated.  However, when Bill talked to the person who believed it was a disease, Bill decided to argue with her about why she thinks medical marijuana should be legalized.  Bill then proceeded to yell at her about why medical marijuana is a bad idea and would barely let her speak.  This is selectivity because Bill is ignoring any facts that might disprove his beliefs.  He does not want his viewers to hear anything that is an alternate to “conservative values.”

Frankly, “The O’Reilly Factor” is one of the most spin filled television shows on television.  It is intended for extreme right-wing conservatives who believe that anything that does not bear the Republican crest is evil.  This show even goes as far to brainwash its viewers by claiming it is the “no spin zone.”  Bill O’Reilly does not hide the fact that he is extremely biased and right-wing leaning; however, the people who watch his show do not seem to understand that.  It would be my sheer hope that eventually people would realize how biased this show is and would understand that.  Until then, it will be shows like this that cause our country to be so politically split.

Trevor Kurtz
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Brittany Battista's Opinion: South Carolina GOP Debate

Many of the questions asked early in the debate were not high priority topics in my book. They were clearly set for the particular South Carolina audience. I would set three or four key issues that America faces and give a detailed plan of how current plans can be changed, improved or accomplished. I would keep other issues to the side, abortion as one example, all while stating that they are important, but many other changes are needed as well.

As a voter, I find it interesting how Romney adds in how long he’s been married for to sway the voters by pointing out their values. “Only US vet on stage tonight,” was said by Ron Paul purposely. I think Gingrich freaking out and personally attacking CNN’s John King for opening a debate with that question was taking it too far too soon. I agree it shouldn’t have been the first question he asked. I believe Americans will tend to vote for someone who has the same values as their own. Therefore I think it should be a topic that needs to be discussed but not the first question.

I also do not agree with blaming the media for negativity towards them. In a perfect world and if they didn’t react in a negative way to things there would not be any bad press. Charging the media with twisting their words and actions, which I know happens, is a safe loophole that they are using. Within the first 15 minutes there was nothing asked that I really would have liked to hear about. The candidates were asked one question about jobs before they were asked about Romney’s faults as the CEO of a company. They need to be asked the important issues first like jobs, education, healthcare and immigration. Other issues are not as important and they shouldn’t waste their time by answering.

I also do not believe that the Republicans should waste so much energy attacking their opponents and Obama. If they are asked a direct question about their opponents’ faults they can be addresses. Other than that, so many negative remarks give that candidate a negative connotation in my opinion. I would be less likely to vote for them the more they attack others and not building themselves up instead. They only shoot each other in the foot to set themselves apart instead of getting in depth with their own beliefs.

I’m being extremely overdramatic but it appears that every time Romney spoke, he had something to say about Obama. It’s getting very tiresome to hear. I do find that these men have incredible self-control. They bash one another when they are a few feet away from them. No wonder they attack one another, to relieve their stress from previously being publically attacked. It’s amazing to just watch their faces.

The vast majority of the debate was Romney, Santorum and Gingrich with Paul only adding in occasionally. I do not think Ron Paul will be nominated. Even as president he would get eaten alive and walked all over by more aggressive people in the government. Sometimes it’s difficult for me to watch him because I just think of how awkward it would be to see my sweet grandfather verbally attacking someone. I see him as the next one to drop out. Romney and Gingrich will be the last two standing.


Brittany Battista
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Chrysler & Clint Eastwood

This year’s Super Bowl had its share of entertaining and interesting advertisements, with one of the most acclaimed and controversial being the Chrysler ad titled “Halftime in America”. The ad features acclaimed actor and director Clint Eastwood in somewhat of a “pep talk”, speaking directly to Americans about our struggles and our future in overcoming them. The controversy lies in the fact that some believe the ad to be “pro Obama”. Some think the ad spins the audience to want to continue on America’s current path and maintain the policies Obama has put into place, thus supporting and keeping him in office for another term.

After analyzing the Chrysler ad, I have come to the conclusion that the “pro Obama” accusations are in a way true. Firstly, Obama is known for his aid of the American car industry, and to keep him in office would obviously be beneficial to Chrysler and the city of Detroit. Also, all the analogies used in the ad would strongly suggest that Chrysler is somewhat supporting Obama and his policies. Eastwood goes on to say “It’s halftime in America too. People are out of work and they’re hurting and they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback and we’re all scared because this isn’t a game.” I believe this analogy of “halftime” is referencing the fact that Obama is in the middle of his possible second term, thus referencing halftime of a football game, which is something Americans can all relate too.

The controversy that is ad is drawing is also planned I believe. By Chrysler gaining all this attention to their ad, more and more people are checking it out. This is a fantastic tactic in order to gain consumers and viewers. Also, by using Clint Eastwood, a notably anti Obama celebrity who commonly speaks out against the President’s policies as the spokesperson, this somewhat gives the impression that there is no correlation to supporting Obama.

As for the spin used in the wording itself, I feel Chrysler did a great job of catching the viewers attention and somewhat motivating them. I looked over the ad and counted the number of times different words were used. The word “we” was used 14 times, by far the most. This shows that the primary focus was to make the audience feel united as one and feel that America’s problems were all of ours. Repetition is effectively used as a powerful technique.

“Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one. All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And how do we win?” These words echoed in my mind, making me feel like I could conquer the world. They also make me believe that America is on the right path for success, and the success will come from sticking with what America is doing. And that is, in turn sticking with Obama.

Mike Dargatis

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2012

Eastwood spends halftime promoting America

“It’s Halftime in America” was not a promotional speech for Obama. In my opinion, the commercial was simply a reflection of the American nation. The use of American icons paired with metaphorical dialogue represented the United States while addressing the main issues most are concerned about, the economy and jobs. The purpose of the commercial as I interpreted it was to reach out to everyone watching and provide hope for a better future.

I admit Chrysler’s ad didn’t necessarily promote the product. Instead, the commercial became a unifying device that spoke to the nation without bias. The main argument that seems to be presented in the media is that Chrysler’s commercial was favoring Obama. I think those who consider the commercial to be liberal or in support of Obama are fishing for controversy.

Anyone could just as easily see the ad as anti-Obama; however, I can’t agree that bias was present in any aspect. Because the beginning of the commercial states everything that is wrong in America, it suggests that we need to take a different approach in the next half. With the new election coming up, the second half is about to begin and since Obama is our current president, the ad proposes that he is to blame for a rough first half.

Although I point out that some could interpret the ad to be anti-Obama, I don’t think it was meant to be. Chrysler may have purposely made the commercial questionable to bring extra attention to their company. Since the basis of the commercial appeals to each individual American’s main concerns such as jobs, the economy, and the future of the country, I fully believe the ad was meant to be a patriotic inspirational speech, not a campaign promotion for either party.

Don't believe me? Watch it below.

Devoni Novak
Communication Studies
Wilkes University 2013

The South Carolina Debate - My Personal Opinion

As a Republican who will vote in the upcoming primaries, I found that Ron Paul was very much in the background for the entire debate and the other candidates made their stand. I noticed all exchanges between candidates were between the other three on the stage. I also noticed that Newt Gingrich does very well at not only defending himself from questions, but throwing them right back at the moderator and making it look like he is right and the moderator is wrong.

The candidates spent some time talking about each other, but they also spoke about the policy wrongdoings of President Obama, which I thought was a good idea. I did not want to hear them attack each other the entire night, which they did not do. The questions were framed more so about the economy and jobs, which I think everyone can agree this was a good direction to go in, because most Americans are concerned with that at the moment.

Personally as a voter, I felt that each of the candidates spoke about what voters wanted to hear. I think that John King spent more time on the minor campaign minutia, than the candidates. When asked a question, some of them gave a few round about answers, but when a policy perspective was presented, they specifically said what they did not like about it and why it was wrong, or they were able to offer an alternative policy. I think those two things are the most important parts of debates, from a voter’s perspective. That is the real substance voter’s need to influence their choices, rather than talking points and commercials.

Ian Foley

Political Science & Communications Studies

Wilkes 2014

Ron Paul Got My Vote: South Carolina GOP Debate

My main conclusion coming out of the South Carolina debate is that I wouldn’t vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. The main reason that I would vote for Ron Paul is because he seems to be the most realistic out of all the rich, white, married men. As I was watching some of the other people answering the questions being posed to them, I was getting very confused how these men could have gotten this far. Some of the things they were saying made me want to take a step back and just say, “Really? You would REALLY do that? Wow.” One of the main things that just confused me was when they were debating how Apple makes their products in China. Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney stood there and said that they would try to bring the jobs over to America and make these American companies use American workers. Then one of the men mentioned how the jobs could even come right to South Carolina, playing to the home crowd I see.

I turned to my mother, who I watched it with, and started going off about how Americans would never work for such a low wage that wouldn’t make the products prices skyrocket. Americans would want to be paid top dollar while Asian workers would work for much cheaper. Then my savoir Ron Paul stated his opinion on the matter. And he was realistic saying that prices would sky rocket if the companies did come to America. I may have actually applauded my television after that. Another thing was when everyone except Paul said that they would repeal Obamacare within the first few months of their presidency. Then Paul came on and again spoke the truth, that removing it immediately and completely is not reasonable and sensible. So he came out on top of the debate for me. He seemed to have at least some grasp on reality.

All four candidates are supposed to represent America which is known as a “melting pot” but did we really see any diversity? They were all mature, rich, white, Christian, married men. They all shared the basic principles and even throughout someone would answer the question first and then someone else would jockey on their idea, “Well I agree with So-and-so, and if I were elected president, I would also do that.” Basically the country has to choose from the French vanilla candidates of the Republican Party or our current flavor of Obama-chip. Neither option is really appealing to me. I think we need another party that could actually get some votes. Having two mediocre parties running against each other is only going to result in a snafu for four years. America needs a major renovation of their political system so someone of merit can get us on the right track.

Kristina Seiger
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2014