Doyle McManus on Romney's Return (4:2)

What Another Romney Run Means

LATimes, 16 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

With the arrival of the new year, Doyle McManus found himself both looking back in review and looking forward to the future. In his most recent article, he informs and takes a deeper look into the bubbling pot that is the 2016 presidential election and a rather outstanding candidate. Mitt Romney's shortcoming in the 2012 election branded him a failure in the eyes of the republican party. McManus proposes his recurrence in the 2016 election and explores many different opinions regarding Romney's use of the "second chance." It is here that the articles drifts off into a series of well-said comments, each applying a trait of either ambition or insanity or expressing their ambivalence towards Romney's actions. While the Nation Republican Committee promises a more effective election process, the "drama" surrounding the upcoming election indicates otherwise.

McManus' column capitalizes on several rhetorical strategies to achieve his purpose in an interesting, appealing way to further encapsulate the readers. They undeniably impact both the direction and effect of his argument. His central contention regards Romney's likely recurrence in the 2016 election and the drama it has recently stirred up. To introduce the piece, McManus immediately establishes credibility by recognizing the small, but impacting flaw in his argument: the 2016 presidential candidates are not set in stone yet. This note paired with his use of opinions from well-known sources validate his reliability by demonstrating dedication to the argument at hand. However, while citing and self-awareness seems to be his strong suit, it becomes evident that McManus' metaphorical language really sets him apart from other pundits. From the second line to the end of the article, figurative language appeals to the argument in a way not categorized by the standard rhetorical appeals. It provides simplified reiterations of dense material and creates a more aesthetically-pleasing image of McManus' argument. The "startling gun" and the "[startled] birds" visualizes the convoluted mess of dramatic politics into a language common to the population. As for McManus's framework, there is no apparent structure to the article. It does not follow the standards of any essay or analysis but instead the simple, sometimes digressive train of thought. The way the piece transitions seems more like a child's rambling about some insignificant problem rather than a scholarly assessment of politics (however, this does not detract from his central argument or its efficiency).