Karl Rove Group Sees Obama's Personal Dynamism As Key Challenge In 2012 Election

With the presidential race rapidly approaching, I like to take advantage of any opportunity to further my understanding of the candidates. So when I caught sight of a piece dealing with Obama’s sparkling personality, which I must admit is his main lure for me, I thought it smart to check it out. After all, a dynamic personality can only go so far in a world of politics, and I’d like to vote on more than a smiling face. I am thankful I did choose to read it- Jon Ward’s “Karl Rove Group Sees Obama's Personal Dynamism As Key Challenge In 2012 Election” was extremely fair, insightful, and informative. Through it I took away a just view on the republican’s take on how President Obama’s sparkling personality will fair in the upcoming election, as well as the democratic reproach on assumptions that their candidate is little more than a handsome character, and with this information I am free to draw my own conclusions.

As a political piece one doubtfully brings in one’s own bias, but I regard this piece as overwhelmingly reasonable if not impartial. He seems, in my opinion, to be purely giving the information on a given situation. Ward relates almost all of his information through quotes from knowledgeable sources- a majority of which come from Steven Law, president and CEO of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, who look at Obama’s magnetism as "..the vestige of the kind of unique character that he has and came in with as president. However.. it's a weak floor." He provides several of Law’s rational arguments, all in quote form, with little commentary to bias his reader. Ward even goes so far as to include the opinion of dissenters who feel that Law is not correct in his appraisal of Obama’s character and ability to lead the nation, citing Ben LaBolt, the “national spokesman for Obama's reelection campaign,” who argues that it will be "between a President who has fought every day to create jobs and restore economic security for the middle class, and a Republican nominee that would return to the same policies that led to the economic crisis and stretched the middle class." Including such strong arguments from someone so entrenched in the Obama campaign shows Ward’s dedication to a fair argument. He also ensures that he provides examples for his assertions. Rather than simply leaving the assertion that “Other Republicans have expressed concern in recent days about Romney's messaging,” he validates it by including examples of the candidate’s message, like how “a majority of paid TV advertising by Romney's campaign (have) been negative attack ads taking down his Republican rivals.” Ward is careful to explain the credibility of his sources and provide background information for his assertions, which makes him a very credible author and helps ensure that his information is wholly accepted by his intended audience- namely, the voters in the upcoming elections who wish, like myself, to know more about the Democratic candidate.

Should Hate Crimes Recieve Legal Protection?

"Focus On The Crime, Not The Victim"

Hate crimes are abominable, that goes with out saying. But in America's court system, is it fair to punish some more than others for the same crime? Should motive really be given such high regard? This topic is exactly what Tish Durkin discusses in her article, "Focus On The Crime, Not The Victim" where she takes a proactively anti-hate-crime-laws stance, stating that it is against our national policy of equality to "codify the idea that certain kinds of human life have greater value than other kinds." She makes a very compelling argument based on figmental, though plausible arguments, however, her conversational diction and palpably disapproving tone discredit the piece's reasoning with its obvious bias. That being said, for an opinion article, I feel her audience will be placated with listening to her untempered opinion.
Durkin reveals her opinion on hate crime legislation from the opening paragraph- mentioning the good of reopening conversation on what she terms "hate-crimes fever," implying, somewhat rightfully, that hate crime legislation was born from a sort of social revolution craze. However, even by implying that it is a fad, she puts in the same league of respectability as other fads- Beiber Fever, Iphones, and the like. I must admit that this is impertinent if a writer is going to disagree with the something that seems so inheritantly good. If one is going to harshly critique a law that protects minorities, perhaps it is wise to use words like "overkill," and "absurd," however out of place in an educated argument they may be. That being said, I think this phrase sums up very well why I think she went a little too far in her casual manor of speaking: "Even apart from the warped morality of such a notion, how loopy is the logic?" This level of apparent disregard for opposing stances, in my opinion, would estrange an audience.
What I can't deny, however, is my aforementioned observation that her examples are compelling and I think that her specific audience, namely those who are reading opinion articles, might not be as affronted by her blunt opinion. She gives numerous, and in fact nearly a third of the entire article is made up of, hypothetical situations that are almost unarguable. For example, she poses the question "Does a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a man deserve less punishment than a man who kills his daughter out of anger that she is having sex with a woman?" One must say, 'well, of course not.' But I think that specific examples would have made her examples so much more compelling. She briefly mentions "a lacrosse player" that was recently convicted of a crime, and I suppose this might be common knowledge to those more educated, but I don't put as much stock in that as I would if she had given me a real, identifiable name. And while I still think that her conversational tone might be what opinion article readers are looking for, I stand by my stance that her bias is too much to make her article of any actual use for change in a matter I can tell she feels very strongly about. To provide an example of an opinion article, that has an obvious opinion, can still be professional and have sound, useful data, I give you a similar article: "Justice, Not Vengeance, for Hate Crimes." This argument is compelling, both in its voice, and in its use of quantifiable data, and I think is much more practical reading.