Rand Pauls Kentucky Derby by Dan Bischoff - Article Example

While Paul comes across as a desirable candidate for his views on the tax and Iraq War, his erotic demeanor and incomprehensibility as a public figure may disappoint those who look up to positive changes in the Kentucky county. Bischoff feels that ultimately the fight is between two people who are essentially Republicans: “one native-born, rich and (this time) a handsome lawyer, and a quirky outsider pushing economic fundamentalism”. He ends the article on a cynical note referring to the hypocritical stance of people like Paul and Conway and how things remain unchanged after many elections.

The argument is weak in places when Bischoff focuses more on the behavior of Paul in public events and tries to gauge his value as a leader through his public relations. Even though he argues convincingly that Paul is not an ideal leader because he fails to connect with people, one could observe that the other possible strengths of Paul are not mentioned clearly to balance the argument. The major incident that is mentioned to reveal Paul’s indignation towards the people of Fancy Farm is when he delivered the speech as if reading out from a telegraph, evaded the press altogether, moves away from the place fast, and later made derogatory remarks about the place and its people.

He stated that Fancy Farm was a “wild picnic” and that he and other politicians were afraid that someone would through beer bottles at them at Fancy Farm. In reality, St.Jerome Catholic church prohibits alcohol and the county is dry. Paul apologized later for the hurt feelings generated by his remark. However, Bischoff understates Paul’s efforts to make up for his mistakes. There is no satisfactory explanation for his rise as a leader despite his seemingly asocial behavior and laconic speeches.

One has to think about the possibility that Paul could be a learned man who invests more in the research and planning he does in order to bring in change effectively. The article has a propagandist undercurrent, and it clearly reveals the author’s intention of showing Paul in a bad light in order to generate negative sentiments towards him. The article relies on rhetorical devices that suit logical arguments. It progresses well from the specific to the general and tries to prove a point through strong examples.

However, educated citizens may find it biased from the start to the finish. Even though the arguments sound logical at first, the selective use of events to promote a specific cause makes it dubious in nature.