The
Washington Post editorial “In Arizona, more birther buffoonery” begins by
posing a ridiculous question of whether Ken Bennett, the secretary of state,
would comply if a small percent of Arizonans demanded he go to work in the
nude. The problem the editorial identifies is that Mr. Bennett is trying to
strike out President Obama’s name from the ballot in November. They assume
their readers are familiar with the birther situation during the 2008 election
where many people were questioning if Obama was born in the United States (and
if he was then eligible to run for president). Their purpose is to show how
ridiculous Mr. Bennett is being by questioning something that has already
cleared up by the state of Hawaii in 2008. In order to accomplish this purpose,
they appeal mainly to logos by showing how illogical Mr. Bennett is being to question
facts supported by the legal documents supplied by Hawaii already. They also
appeal to ethos by providing evidence from the Hawaii Department of Health. In
the editorial, they address the main argument against his thesis, the idea that
Mr. Bennett denies being a birther or supporting the birther party. They refute
this argument by saying that even if he denies being part of the birther party,
he is supporting their claims by merely entertaining them. Finally, they
conclude by making the point that the threat to exclude the president from the upcoming
election ballot that Mr. Bennett has transformed an otherwise comical situation
into a serious problem for our country. They even state “He legitimized the lunatic leanings of the United
States’, and his party’s, most extreme elements. He put it in the minds of
radicals everywhere that elected officials, for the shabbiest reasons (or none
at all), can float the idea of bending ballot rules and suffer no adverse
consequence.” Overall, the argument that they make is effective because
it shows how ridiculous the situation is and the consequences of allowing it to
continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment