One cover up that Mitt never handles well, is his income tax returns. Instead of just releasing them all, (as he must very soon anyway, if he has ANY hope of being elected), he stumbles, and stammers, becomes angry, and as jumpy as a cat on a hot tin roof.

Sound bites, taken out of context, and lies from both candidates that distort
the message, are troubling enough. What concerns me more is the average voter
seems apathetic towards both, to the point there are no consequences for their
actions. The public continues to display a serious lack of intellectual
curiosity. In the end we get the government we deserve, although not necessarily
the one we like.

President Obama’s new slogan is “Forward”. That’s a hoot on a few levels.

In the last 3 years the GDP has dropped, gas prices have risen, more people are out of work, there have been 21 tax hikes, he has accelerated the defunding of Social Security (Payroll tax cut), his regulations are costing business $46 billion a year, there’s a drilling moratorium, no pipeline and we are more divided than ever. Regarding Obamacare, at first we could keep our plan if we liked it, now we can’t. At first it was going to save money, but it’s costs have risen, so have health insurance premiums. Is that forward?

Another hoot: He sure doesn’t want America to look back at his record.

Level three hoot: It’s okay to look back at Bush and blame him.

The photo of Romney addressing how Obamacare is more like the British form of socialized medicine than Romneycare: “Well, nooo, it won’t be all raspberry scones and Devonshire clotted cream, I can tell you that! And Bob’s your uncle!” (You Brits will like that one!)

Both men look as if they’ve been drinking a little too much political punch, if you know what I mean.

This disparagement of rhetoric can  be traced directly to the efforts to diminish President Obama: any skill or trait he possesses becomes devalued.  Thus, his Harvard education becomes “elitist”; his Harvard Law Review leadership is attributed somehow to “affirmative action, and his logical and persuasive speech becomes “just rhetoric”.

 When I heard Obama’s speech in 2004, I called a friend to say that we just heard our future first black president speak.  It’s too bad that his performance doesn’t live up to his rhetoric.

Rosenpetal says only the rich could afford the education to learn the art of rhetoric.  By the way, somewhere here I have a set of books about the ways the best children’s books use the tools of rhetoric.  And I thought, this is so obvious.  All the pleasing and memorable bits of children’s books are examples of fine rhetorical twists.  That’s where we learn it.

Ross Perot, brass tacks.  FDR, the fireside chats.  Coming down to earth, a branch of oratory in a curious way.

I agree with your guest that we don’t less soundbites, we need better soundbites. I’m a recent college grad applying for jobs in  political media, but I am dumbfounded that our political rhetoric is essentially stuck in the 80s. When I look for ways to snap the political discussion out of the post-Reagan government vs. business dichotomy I look to pop culture. I see G. R. R. Martin making the greatest argument for Keynesian economics in Game of Thrones. I see Herbie Hancock as a hero for all those who try to communicate complicated ideas in accessible packages. I see comic book writers Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison trying to nail down exactly what the power of words is. First with the explosion of cable, and then the internet, the room for politicians to talk has grown exponentially. I feel that the problems of citizens united, super pacs, and money in politics are actually just growing pains. You give a politician more room to talk and he’s going to take cheap shots. Eventually, we’re going to get so good at communicating through those mediums that cheap shots just won’t cut it anymore. If we want to speed up this process we need to start looking at what artists are doing now, instead of what politicians did in the past.

I wish they would just SHUT UP with the rhetoric and start talking SPECIFICALLY about how they will fix our problems. 

The old saying is (I believe): If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bu11 sh1t. All we are getting is cow pies.

Here’s part of the problem for the left – Sam Leith says he doesn’t want to get into the ideological battle and then completely misstates the difference of left v. right in rightwing framing terms.  I judge that he thinks he was being even-handed.  The difference between the left and right economic rhetoric, if you put both in rosy terms, is that the right believes the playing field is level if only government weren’t ‘in the way’; the left believes that it’s only the government that can keep the powerful and wealthy from completely tipping the field in their own direction. 

I don’t think I’m remotely alone in being totally sick of empty rhetoric. It’s all very well and good for these almost exclusivley extremely wealthy, well connected folks with full health care to sit around arguing over “free markets,” and what constitutes “socialism,” vs. “basic saftey nets”, but there are a lot of us hurting out here and rattling the markets over an inability to raise the debt ceiling or being unwilling to find non-partisan ways to avoid raising student loan interest rates is not helping us.

What does rhetoric do to help the youth stuck with 16% unemployment and 53% un/undermployment out of college?

Not to mention the rhetoric has proven insincere over and over. Ryan is the debt hawk of the debt hawk party and his budget gives $4 trillion in tax cuts aimed at the rich, runs trillion plus deficets, and by his own admission doesn’t balance the budget for 20 years (as many as 35 years by independant analysis). What he wants to cut aside, how is a balanced budget in 20 years and massive cuts in revenue being a “debt hawk?”

Same goes for Dems. They are “pro-labor” and want to fight for the worker’s right to collectivly bargain, but when card check came up in 09 with a Democratic super majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a Democratic president, they didn’t pass that crucial reform. Democrats are pro capital L labor for their pet unions, and the real message behind their rhetoric is “service sector workers? Screw off poors, what are you going to do if we ignore you, vote GOP?”

I won’t even get into the whole discussion of “let’s close all loopholes and make a more blananced, competition friednly tax system.” Both parties embrace this, both fight tooth and nail for their pets. Good luck seeing the GOP give up big oil’s loop holes and you’ll never see the Dems lead a charge on GE’s breaks. Not to mention both parties proclaim “loopholes = bad,” and in the same breath want to get manufacturing back on its feet with, you guessed it, targeted tax breaks… It boggles the mind.

These people make me sick.

‘Forward’, the campaign slogan for Obama 2012 is false advertising,

‘Backward’, would be a much more appropriate campaign slogan for the direction in which Obama is taking this country.

Since Obama has been known to quote Ronald Reagan, let me offer some free campaign rhetoric for Obama 2012:

Reagan gave us ‘Morning in America’.

Obama gave us ‘N.D.A.A. in America’.

Enjoyed this show. Thank you.  Am among those who would like more dull, plodding, sensible thought & useful action in government & less talk.  But well-placed rhetoric does have to be used to engage people in all kinds of situations – not only politics & religion.
I am a musician who has sung songs & read aloud as long as I can remember.  While I did not learn formally all rhetorical rules (not taught in the ’60s either) I always listened to great readers, actors & musicians.  Enjoyed learning the art of emphasis & phrasing – how to put across an idea in words, in vocal & instrumental music.  For one thing, our music would be very dull if we did not know how to use rhetoric.�
Appreciated the woman who called in, concerned that if we don’t understand rhetoric we can’t “see it coming” when someone is trying to put one over on us.  Reminded me of a fun song that hints just this in strong, simple language.  Look up “The Dodger”.  Said to be connected with Grover Cleveland’s election campaign & was included in Aaron Copland’s arrangements of “Old American Songs”.  Makes fun of several professions including (in Copland’s shortened form) the politician, the preacher, finally the lover.  “Yes, the preacher is a dodger, a well-known dodger, the preacher is a dodger & I’m a dodger too…{verse}…but look out, boys, he’s dodgin’ for your dimes!”
Have had many occasions to sit listening to reading & preaching in church, most often as musician.  Appreciated the rhetorical skills of some preachers & fine readers (& some who act well on what they believe!).  But there are too many times when music seems the only real life there.  Probably another result of lack of training in rhetoric is the lack of confidence in reading aloud.  So often in church, in school, at meetings people read as if they have no idea where to put emphasis, no idea of the meaning. Have heard some Christian fundamentalists warn people not to impose their own interpretation on the Scriptures, leave it a blank slate so “God’s Word comes through”.  That idea seems to have even gotten through to some non-fundamentalist churches & maybe out into the everyday world.  But the point of reading aloud – even the most banal words, speaking, acting, singing is usually to communicate meaning clearly.  It is individuals’ interpretation that helps make life rich & interesting.  Sometimes emphasizing right or wrong words can cause or prevent mistakes, be a matter of life or death.  Certain rhetorical skills are needed everywhere.

HOORAY! PRESIDENT OBASMA HAS COME OUT, NO PUN INTENDED, IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE!!!

~ ~ ~ GAYS AGAINST ROMNEY! ~ ~ ~

 “Rhetoric is also, to be blunt, the art of talking people into things,
and it flourishes in courtrooms and on campaign trails, in singles bars
and television commercials, over dinner tables and in Internet forums.”

Has anyone heard of persuasion? or studied literary styles?
Come on WBUR, this is beneath you, even if it is On Point.

Sam Leith’s throw-away reference to Animal House’s Bluto inability to be elected president (due to wearing a toga like a Greek orator) is true, but in the closing epilogue we found out that Blutarski was elected a Senator. He must have had some rhetorical skill.