The observations from yesterday’s post, “Rhetoric from the Ground,” seem to be borne out by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution follow-up story, “Rep. Broun Apologizes for Linking Obama to Hitler.” While other Georgia Republican legislators criticized the rhetoric of Broun’s comments, and while Broun himself modified some of his statements, the majority of a group of Georgia citizens queried by the newspaper expressed support, e.g. “Rep. Broun is not out of line in soliciting follow-up answers to some of Obama’s campaign rhetoric,” wrote Brian Ludvigsen, 25, of Atlanta. “Many of his constituents may have a problem with the notion of creating a new ‘national security force.’”
Of course nothing in Obama’s “campaign rhetoric” went so far as to compare McCain or Palin to Hitler. The only politician with whom Obama’s speeches linked McCain was George W. Bush, and Obama provided some support for his claims. The technique of associating a candidate with leaders like Ahmadinejad, with no proof of similar beliefs, was used exclusively by the McCain ads.
This pattern may signal a trend in the rhetorical strategy of extreme right-wing leaders: to issue a controversial message, stir up the troops, and then recant (or not recant and respond with a further attack, e.g. Ann Coulter). Long after the original controversy has been forgotten, the ground troops will continue to muster support, using allegations as facts.
In searching for rhetorical abuse, Rhetoric Wars will sample blogs and replies from ordinary citizens, as well as statements and documents of major media leaders like the Fox News family.
Update update:
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had to change the above story from “Broun Regrets Linking Obama, Hitler” to “Broun Apologizes for Linking Obama to Hitler” under a new URL, then added this story (under the original “Regrets” URL: “Rep. Broun stands by Marxist remarks about Obama” and a subheading: “‘Not taking back anything he said,’ his office now says.”
Did the Congressman have second thoughts about his second thoughts, or was the AJC (in its original story indicating “regret”) trying to help Broun seem more rational than he actually was. As the third story notes, the Civilian Response Corps was initiated two years ago by George W. Bush. The fact that Bush is responsible for the project’s genesis certainly doesn’t mean that the Corps has no authoritarial tendencies, but if the original plan is as repressive as the current detractors of Obama indicate they believe it is, where were these detractors when Bush began developing it?
Once again, Obama gets tagged for a project initiated by W (the other one being the Bush Treasury Department’s Sharia Compliance program).
And what is the rhetorical strategy of Broun’s retracting his apology? Are we in for a “better dead than red” revival?
Post a Comment