http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-lugar-the-unlikely-target-of-conservatives/2011/10/21/gIQA31om4L_story.html
In his article, George Will discusses the political vulnerability of Richard Lugar, a well-known senator from Indiana. He talks about how Richard Lugar, who despite having a strong resume, is a casualty of the times.
Richard Lugar has been a conservative for his entire political career. George Will enforces this with facts like when Ronald Reagan was president, "Lugar supported the president 88 percent of the time". He also cites that other prominent Republicans had supported some of the controversial votes Lugar has made during his career too. Adding to that, he points out the notable bills important to liberals Lugar has voted against such as: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, the stimulus, and Dodd-Frank.
Will later uses diction to describe why Lugar is vulnerable. He tries to portray Lugar as a sensible figure in a time of chaos. He talks about the "restless" energy of conservatives fueling a tough primary challenger. His use of the word restless carries a negative connotation, as of the conservatives were being rash. Will then describes Lugar with words like "courtliness and Midwest aversion to rhetorical flamboyance". Those carry positive connotations, and paint Lugar if he was rational and level headed.
The use of repition in this article is to signify importance. When Will talks about Lugar's credentials, he repeats who and the accomplishment to signify how accomplished Lugar has been. The repition of Yes, followed by a counterargument is used to help persuade the readers of Lugar's conservativeness.
I think overall George Will supports Lugar and how Lugar carries himself. But he realizes times have changed as the conservatives have shifted more to right. Will understands that it will not be Lugar's fault if he loses, but rather the environment he currently is in.
I would stick even closer to your DIDLS, but you made a lot of good points. I thought the key point was the diction examples you used, as they helped the reader relate easily back to the text to prove your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this is a pretty good piece. I think that the 2 arguments you make are both pretty good and well backed with evidence. I think your whole piece would improve if you gave another technique and if you stuck to DIDLS. Besides that, the piece as a whole is pretty good.
ReplyDeleteThough DIDLs are very important, I don't agree with the idea that you should stick close to them all the time, especially if you have an idea that cannot be tied back to them without a longer explanation. Every analysis is valid and can contribute to a point if done correctly.
ReplyDelete