1.Intro

• Introduce an article from the New York Times entitled “Is This the Nastiest Election Ever?” written by Peter Manseau
• Purpose: To persuade the audience that this election is no worse in terms of “dirty campaigning” than any other election in history.
• Audience: Readers of the New York Times, specifically Americans interested in the upcoming election.
• Context: Several weeks from the election.
• Thesis: Peter Manseau of the New York Times employs the use of rhetorical strategies such as ethos and logos in order to persuade the audience that the smear campaigning for the upcoming election is not worse than any other election in history.

2. Body

• Logos

1. Explain that Manseau makes one blanket claim, followed by claims in support of the major purpose of the article. He uses the technique of juxtaposition and looking for parallels and comparisons to do support his claims.

• Claim 1: “Yet as bad as this election may seem, it is hardly original in its biliousness” Manseau is claiming that this election may be bad, but it is not the first of its kind.
• Claim 1a: Manseau questions the reader while implicitly making the claim that faith has become too much of a topic in the 2012 election.
• Evidence 1a: Manseau uses an example from the 1796 and 1800 elections in order to support this claim.
• Claim 1b: Manseau makes the claim that Jefferson v. Adams may be the first time the race card was played
• Evidence 1b: He provides an example and uses a quote to strengthen the example, that of which is filled with pejorative language that supports Claim 1.
• Claim 1c: Manseau claims that suspicions of the foreign and ethnic have been going on throughout the history of elections. He uses great word choice in this claim.
• Evidence 1c: He doesn’t mention the parallel with today’s election (Obama’s Birth Certificate) and expects the reader to connect the two themselves.
• Claim 1d: The author claims that this election is also not the first to play politics with the loss of American lives.
• Evidence 1d: Instead of first using past examples, the author first cites the current election to provide a balance in his argument, then compares with a past example. He uses another quote as well as a picture to provide an aid to the audience so they do not have to rely on just a description.
• He wraps up the previous evidence with a clean transition into Claim 1e: He claims that the morality as well as sex lives of candidates have been a common front in the battle for presidency.
• Evidence 1e: He uses examples before and after making the claim.
• Anticipating Objection: “Before we count our blessings that we are now far removed from a time when the dead children of politicians were considered fair game…” Manseau uses quotes from a professor that says that this election has by volume the most negative ads.
• Claim 2: Manseau claims that smear campaigning does not always have negative effects on its victims
• Evidence 2: He diverges from the original argument to explain failed attempts of smear campaigns.
• Conclusion: Rather than continuing his original argument, Manseau broadens his scope to the concept of smear campaigns.
• Ethos
• Manseau is writing for the New York Times, a highly credible news source
• The title is an immediate invitation for the reader to think about the subject and follow the author’s train of thought throughout the piece.
• The author’s knowledge of history makes him seem to the audience as a credible source of information
• Manseau establishes a balance, not fighting too hard for his argument, but being rational in his comparisons.
• He uses quotes from an author of presidential biographies as well as a professor of political science.
• He uses “we” and “us” to portray a shared experience with the audience.

3. Conclusion: Restate thesis, explain effectiveness of rhetoric in this editorial.