Com220Week1

Far too often, political speeches are filled with bias, fallacies and rhetorical devices; this speech is no exception. From the campaigner to Kane himself, both speeches, however short, give great examples of many forms of rhetoric.

The first is the bias the campaigner has for Charles Foster Kane. It is both political and personal. He is politically connected to and actively campaigning for Mr. Kane. As in most politics today, he will probably prosper from Kane becoming the Governor of his state. Two of the rhetorical devices he uses are hyperbole and the poisoning the well fallacy when he describes the time in office as, "the evil domination of Boss Jim Getty's". He may not have been a good governor but this is an exaggeration and casts a bitter light on Jim Getty's. He uses the apple polishing fallacy when he refers to Charles Kane as, "the fighting liberal, the friend of the working man". He may very well be these things, but the things he does rather than what is said about him, will prove it.

Kane’s bias is just a blatant as his campaigner’s bias. He is running for the office of Governor. He describes the incumbent as dishonest and "downright" villainous. He claims that Boss Jim Getty's "political machine" is "in complete control of the government of this State." His first argument was: "I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected." The premise being that "because until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected", he concluded that he did not have to make any "campaign promises". This is a valid argument. If you have no hope of being elected, why make promises you cannot keep. The larger argument is that Jim Getty's government is dishonest and villainous and because of this, Kane is opposing him to be elected as governor. However, Kane gives no facts to back up his claims, which leads to a weak argument. He uses innuendo when he states, "The working man and the slum child know they...