There is Still Time: An Analysis of "PolitiQuips" by Robert Haught

In Robert Haught’s column, “PolitiQuips,” Haught combines multiple current events and organizes the events by similar topics. In this specific “PolitiQuip,” he uses metaphors, humor, and allusions to further emphasize his point.  Haught’s condemning humor indicates to the reader that President Obama needs to step up his game, or he might lose the upcoming election to the strong Republican presidential candidates.

            At the very start, Haught uses a metaphor to emphasize the importance of the three recent elections. He compares “Rick Santorum [‘s]” day, of winning the “Missouri primary and the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses,” to the saying “Every dog has his day,” and even declares Santorum to being a “real contender” for the Republican Candidate. You may have not known, but Rick Santorum was the “underdog.” At that time, Mitt Romney was the leader of the Republican presidential candidates. Haught’s association of Santorum to a dog having one good day increases Santorum’s popularity, but also decreases his popularity, depending on the reader. Also, in a deeper, humorous metaphor, Haught compares President Obama using “a young inventor’s marshmallow gun” to President Obama needing a “weapon” used against “Iran and the Catholic Church.” Haught implies that President Obama needs to grow up and think about the problems with Iran and the Catholic Church. However, the harsh metaphor was added to supply some sort of humor, and the gun was at the White House science fair. Haught argues though, that President Obama needs to watch his back and think about what he is doing, because the Republicans are about to fly by him. But there is still time.

            Haught’s allusion to New York singer-dancer blames President Obama to having “lost the election.”  Even the “Obama girl” is “undecided about her choice for president this time around.” Obama has placed our country in deeper debt and has not fulfilled all his promises. Haught’s alluding amplifies his ethos by not only giving his opinion but also providing the opinion of a use to be Obamian. Also, by supplying the reader with the political view of another person, the reader’s pathos is engaged and they start to think of their decision for the 2012 election. Haught then alludes to “SuperPACs” by explaining the mess up President Obama created while trying to campaign. President Obama “railed against SuperPACs” for his campaign, but he is now “helping Priorities USA, which is backing his re-election.” Haught again bashes President Obama by ending with President Obama’s explanation for all of it, self-defense. Self-defense is usually not the excuse, especially here, and now Haught has stirred the reader’s emotion into hatred toward President Obama. Again, President Obama’s slip ups are causing him to fall behind in the presidential race, but there is still time.

            Robert Haught is trying to overly convince his readers, mostly Republicans, to not vote for President Obama, because of his failure. He begins with how well the Republican presidential candidates are doing and continues on how badly President Obama is campaigning. Haught hopes for a Republican victory in the end and so do I, but as I say again, there is still time.

"Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!"

1. John McMurtry's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports -- especially football -- since childhood. When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized. How dos the anecdote lend credibility to his argument?

   Although the reader has an idea of his thesis, they haven't been given the thesis yet. His overall thesis is about the problems with football, a cherished sport in the U.S. By begining with the issues this sport has given him through his life, he attracts the audience and keeps them interested. Also, with his experience of playing football from gradeschool through professional football, he receives credibility on his subject. Another way his anecdote lends credibility to his argument, is the paraenthetical he uses to add emphasis that he is a philosophy professor at the University of Guelph. Right then and there, the audience trusts his writing and what he is talking about.

6. Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military. What sports other than football have a militaristic side?

    Eventhough McMurtry talks a little about hockey, hockey would be another sport that has a militaristic side. There are rules about hitting people, but the players just ignore those and then multilple fights occur aobut 40 times a game! Another sport would be Paintball. With the use of guns that shoot out round bulllet like objects and terminology dealing with scenarios aquired in war. Paintball is the sport most similar to war than any other sport I can think of. Examples of terminology would be people in paintball who are the "snipers, grenaders and stealth." Ways of attack are similar also, "flanking" and "taking them down." The way these "games" are played, are so similar, people might think they are in war.

7. Who is McMurtry's audience? Is it necessary for the reader to understand or care about foodtball in order to understand what McMurtry is saying about society? Explain.

    His immediate audience would be the loved ones of the people who play this sport. He want his audience to be the actual players, but he knows that they are already too involved in the sport and they won't listen/read. I don't think the reader needs ot understand football to worry about the people playing the sport. They also don't need to care about football, only about the players. This is because our society loves watching people get pumbled to the ground. If his immediate audience would try to persuade their loved ones, maybe the game would be less injury prone.

8.McMurtry characterizes General George Patton and President Richard Nixon as "jock-loving...media stars" (para. 6). Think of contemporary media stars who associate themselves with football or other sports. Does the association enhance of tarnish their image?

    I believe the association with football/sports enhances media stars' image because people love football and people love movie actors. Therefore, their image in enhanced by double the amount. Over all, if you are a football player who acts in "A" movies, you will be loved by all Americans. Haha.