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

One Republican to Rule Them All

Last Thursday’s Southern Republican debate was an interesting one.  It separated the men from the boys, the winners from the losers, the strong from the weak.  The obvious front-runners were Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts.  Though, Romney didn’t come anywhere close to Gingrich, in my opinion.

In the meantime, Ron Paul, current Congressman for Texas’s 14th District and former dilation measurer, and Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania Senator, spoke their minds, sure, but they just weren’t as strong or well-liked.

This debate demonstrated that pandering to your audience is key.  Gingrich was spouting out details specifically related to South Carolina, as well as sporting his oft covered-up Georgia accent, like all he was focused on during this campaign was South Carolina.  He mentioned specifically their potential for oil-drilling as well as the utilization of their various ports.

He was prepared with background information on all of the others, including Romney’s stance on abortion and Paul’s military service.  The man had done his research.  He obviously practiced his answers thoroughly.  His team has got to be impressive, considering the fact that his life is riddled in affair-related scandal, yet those most religious are leaning toward him.  This is in spite of Santorum’s decidedly more conservative views on issues such as contraception.  But then, civil rights are not really the focus of this campaign season.

Gingrich’s dodge of the question of his alleged affair and then request for an open-marriage with his second wife made a powerful statement.  It showed that he is confident enough to at least give the image he can rise above such absurdity.  The audience agreed, as well.  The majority of people seemed to be on his side and he really was right in stating questioning of that subject to start off a political debate on a supposedly reputable and serious new station such as CNN was disappointing.  It seemed as if the moderator was trying to pull some kind of a shock-value stunt to make himself look like he asks the hard questions or something, but it completely backfired on him.

The tax discussion was interesting.  Their views on taxation didn’t stick out to me much, but their views on releasing their records definitely resonated with all watching.  Gingrich was the only one who didn’t avoid the question or make an excuse. Not only that, but he was the only one willing to release his tax records and in fact had earlier that day.  The discussion around this made it sound suspicious of the other candidates to withhold this information.  Even Paul—who had the most legitimate reason not to publicize his taxes—claimed he didn’t want to look bad compared to the other guys because he doesn’t make as much, just appeared to be making a lame excuse.  Romney said he’ll release them when this tax season is over, which made him appear to have something to hide, especially since the nomination could be won by then.  Santorum’s “my computer is home” argument was by far the most ridiculous.  It’s not 1980.  People can access their computers from other places.  Plus, there are other ways to obtain these records.  His excuse was an obvious dodge.

Overall, this debate was an effective one.  A lot of good information was provided, character was tested, and in the end, Paul, Romney and Paul were left to walk home with their tails between their legs.  Gingrich, on the other hand, was triumphant and I believed offered up much to be admired in a candidate.  Even if the majority of his views are not congruent with my views and values, he made it clear he has a plan, he has conviction and he isn’t taking anything from anyone.

Cathryn Frear

Communication Studies 

Wilkes 2012

2012 South Carolina Debate: Obamacare = Romneycare

Barack Obama was made out to be a villain, a devil and someone to immediately get rid of during the debate Thursday in South Carolina. Heated words did little if anything to help current presidential hopefuls, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

All four wannabe presidents slated blows against Obama and his current
administration, which could easily be detoured with common sense.  The debate started off with a bang, when Gingrich responded to a question by John King about his ex wife.

Gingrich said to King, "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.” This self-pronounced hate for the media is not necessarily a good thing being that most of our country bases their perception through the media. What would this heated anger to do for our country? Gingrich might have merited respect of voters in South Carolina, but do we want an easily irritated president; a president that can’t manage to maintain his composure? It seems that Gingrich has consistently shown this irritability throughout the primaries thus far. His inability to control himself will inevitably hurt him down the road.

Gingrich spoke out against Obamacare and spoke of his experience in that aspect leading the charge against “Hilarycare” in the house.  Then made a jab at Obama by saying, “I'd love to do a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debate with Obama,” “He can use the teleprompter. I'll just rely on my knowledge." Even though reading a teleprompter speech versus a memorized speech has little to do with anything.

Much of Rick Santorum’s attacks focused on a person from his own party, Mitt Romney. Santorum grilled Romney about his Massachusetts health care legislation bill, calling it “Romneycare.” “When he was governor of Massachusetts, he put forth "Romneycare," which was not a bottom-up, free-market system. It was a government-run health care system that was the basis of "Obamacare." And it has been an abject failure, and he has stood by it,” said Santorum. This nit picky fighting between parties will inevitably divide Republicans and the rest of our nation when it comes to a Republican nomination. It is easy to see that Santorum is just trying to claw back into the race with low blows. This constant fighting between candidates leaves an easy weakness, their lack of loyalty to their party.

Mitt Romney repeatedly used his all too familiar go-to strategy of focusing everything back on Obama. Romney said things like “I know we're going to hit it hard from President Obama, but we're going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong.” When asked if there was anything he would have done differently in his campaign he said,  "I wish I took all the time I spent talking about one of these guys on stage and spent it talking about Obama." Romney looked a bit off when trying to relate to American people, he said, "I've lived in the real streets of America." This statement is a bit off-putting because Romney is a multi-millionaire, multi-millionaires don’t live on the real streets of America.

Ron Paul barely had a voice during this debate. At one point the crowd started screaming when John King skipped him on an abortion question. Paul was allowed little say in this debate but when he was given a chance, he shouted out to his military donors.

Overall, the winner of this debate was definitely Newt Gingrich led solely on Gingrich’s ability to react very hostilely toward John King at the very beginning thus creating momentum throughout the debate. Romney was overshadowed by Gingrich’s aggressive behavior and attacks at his own expense regarding similarities between Romney’s “Romneycare” bill and Obama’s “Obamacare” bill.

Bryan Calabro
Communication Studies/Integrated Media
Wilkes 2013