Citation
Conservative women and constraints to political speech

Material Information

Title:
Conservative women and constraints to political speech gendered language and Lakoff's metaphor models in Snowe, Bachmann, and Palin's framing of the economic crisis
Creator:
Ruehl, Michelle C
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Political oratory -- United States ( lcsh )
Language and languages -- Sex differences ( lcsh )
Women -- Language ( lcsh )
Language and languages -- Sex differences ( fast )
Political oratory ( fast )
Women -- Language ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Recent critics have suggested Republican women in politics have a confrontational style of speech, which goes against the societal expectation that women should use compassionate "feminine" language. There is a problem, however, because women in politics face what Kathleen Hall Jamieson calls a "double-bind": if women speak too feminine they are viewed as incompetent, but if they speak to masculine, they are seen as overly-aggressive. In this thesis, I examine three speeches by Representative Michele Bachmann, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Governor Sarah Palin. Each of these conservative women delivered a response to President Obama's 2011 "Jobs Plan" speech, in which they employed both masculine and feminine language. I conducted a case study of the women's use of gendered language in conjunction with George Lakoff's political metaphors to uncover how much "confrontational" language each speech contained. In the end, Senator Snowe balanced both masculine and feminine language, and she provides an example of how women can break the double-bind and strategically manage what some might see as "confrontational" rhetoric: speak with enough "masculine" features to appear competent and enough "feminine" features to appear likable.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle C. Ruehl.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
858809338 ( OCLC )
ocn858809338

Auraria Membership

Aggregations:
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CONSERVATIVE WOMEN AND CONSTRAINTS TO POLITICAL SPEECH:
GENDERED LANGUAGE AND LAKOFFS METAPHOR MODELS IN SNOWE,
BACHMANN, AND PALINS FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
by
Michelle C. Ruehl
B.A., United States Air Force Academy, 2003
M.A., NorthCentral University, 2010
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
English
2012


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Michelle C. Ruehl
has been approved
by
Michelle Comstock, Advisor
Joanne Addison
Amy Vidali
Date: March 15, 2012


Ruehl, Michelle C. (M.A., English)
Conservative Women and Constraints to Political Speech: Gendered Language and
Lakoffs Metaphors in Snowe, Bachmann, and Palins Framing of the Economic
Crisis
Thesis directed by Professor Michelle Comstock
ABSTRACT
Recent critics have suggested Republican women in politics have a
confrontational style of speech, which goes against the societal expectation that
women should use compassionate feminine language. There is a problem,
however, because women in politics face what Kathleen Hall Jamieson calls a
double-bind: if women speak too feminine they are viewed as incompetent, but if
they speak to masculine, they are seen as overly-aggressive. In this thesis, I
examine three speeches by Representative Michele Bachmann, Senator Olympia
Snowe, and Governor Sarah Palin. Each of these conservative women delivered a
response to President Obamas 2011 Jobs Plan speech, in which they employed
both masculine and feminine language. I conducted a case study of the womens use
of gendered language in conjunction with George Lakoffs political metaphors to
uncover how much confrontational language each speech contained. In the end,
Senator Snowe balanced both masculine and feminine language, and she provides
an example of how women can break the double-bind and strategically manage what


some might see as confrontational rhetoric: speak with enough masculine
features to appear competent and enough feminine features to appear likable.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Approved: Michelle Comstock


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to thank Michelle Comstock for being an encouraging mentor and a patient
guide. I would also like to thank Joanne Addison and Amy Vidali. I am grateful for
what you have each taught me about writing and rhetoric and what it means to be a
strong woman.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. REPUBLICAN WOMENS CONFRONTATIONAL STYLE........................1
Method......................................................3
Political Discourse Analysis..........................4
Research Questions..........................................5
Research Texts..............................................6
Three Republican Responses to Obamas Jobs Plan.............7
Representative Bachmann Responds to President Obamas
Jobs Plan (D.C., Sep 8, 2011).........................7
Governor Palin Responds to President Obamas Jobs
Plan (Iowa, Sep 6, 2011)..............................7
Senator Snowe Responds to President Obamas Jobs Plan
(D.C., Sep 8, 2011)...................................8
Basic Definitions...........................................9
Balancing Masculine and Feminine Language...................9
Researcher Bias............................................10
2. POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND GENDERED LANGUAGE
Feminine and Masculine Styles..............................12
Example 1: Hillary Clinton...........................13
Example 2: Elizabeth Dole............................14
Limitations to Gendered Language Theory....................15
vii


3. LAKOFF AND POLITICAL FRAMING
The Basics of Framing...........................................18
Blue versus Red Framing..................................19
Lakoffs Two Metaphor Models for Politics........................20
Strict Father Model......................................20
Nurturant-Parent Model...................................22
Limitations to Lakoffs Metaphors................................23
A New Hybrid Metaphor Model..............................23
4. ANALYSIS OF GENDERED LANGUAGE AND FRAMING
Political Framing...............................................25
Representative Bachmanns Frames.........................25
Hero vs. Villain..................................26
Mother Knows Best.................................27
Identifying with other Mothers....................29
Mother Superior: Protecting the Next Generation..30
Frames?........................32
Lakoffs Models....................................32
Governor Palins Frames..................................33
Federal Family....................................33
Politics as War: Refuse to Retreat................34
Mafia: Crony Capitalism...........................35
How Sticky are Her Frames?........................36
Lakoffs Models....................................37
viii


Senator Snowes Frames..........................37
Nation as a Person........................37
Nation as a Business......................39
Economy as an Environment.................39
The Caretaker.............................40
How Sticky are Her Frames?................41
Lakoffs Metaphors........................41
5. FRACTURING THE BINDS
Embracing Differences.................................44
Senator Snowes Strategies............................44
Suggestions for Further Research......................45
APPENDICES
A. REP BACHMANNS WASHINGTON D.C. SPEECH TRANSCRIPT (8 SEP
2011).................................................47
B. GOV PALINS IOWA SPEECH TRANSCRIPT (6 SEP
2011).................................................50
C. SENATOR SNOWES WASHINGTON D.C. PRESS RELEASE (8
SEP 2011).............................................58
REFERENCES........................................................61
viiii


CHAPTER 1
CRITICISM OF REPUBLICAN RHETORIC
Some Republican women have been identified as the stiletto-cons"
and...Washingtons Spice Girls: The New Breed of Conservative Babe, a
number of female conservative women who capitalize on a combination of
sexual attractiveness and confrontational rhetorical style in order to gain
public attention (Klien & Ferrar, 2009, p. 65).
When people hear that I spent the last two summers volunteering in
orphanages in Nepal, building schools in Ghana, and teaching English in Tanzania,
they automatically assume I am a bleeding-hearted Democrat. This summer, I spent
time with several Danes, and one evening they brought up the notion of universal
healthcare in the United States. With disdain, my dear friends asked me, What is
wrong with your Republican party? Why wouldnt they want to provide healthcare for
your own people? I laughed nervously, and stuttered something about the free
market, and how we pay half as much as Danes do in taxes (Danes pay 50% of their
income to the federal government in exchange for free healthcare and education), so
we in the U.S. are free to use that extra money to buy our own healthcare or pursue
higher education. Still astounded, one bright young nurse asked, Youre not one of
them are you? One of those Republicans like Sarah Palin? I sheepishly nodded my
head yes, to which she added, But they are so... out of touch, and extreme! When
they talk, they sound crazy.
My Danish friends are not the only ones who have criticized Republican
women lately. For instance, some conservative women like Sarah Palin have been
1


identified as what writer Mick Farren calls the stiletto-cons and what Harpers
Bazaar dubbed Washingtons Spice Girls: the New Breed of Conservative Babe,
a.k.a. women who capitalize on a combination of sexual attractiveness and
confrontational rhetorical style [think Ann Coulter] in order to gain public attention
(Klien & Farrar, 2009, p. 65). More recently, Spiker (2011, p. 248) posited that during
the 2008 campaign, Palin used macho rhetorical strategies, employing language
and sharp attacks that confronted [my emphasis] and challenged Democrat
opponents. Evidently, both popular culture and scholarly research claim Republican
women use a confrontational style. Are the most well-known Republican women
really using an offensive rhetorical style that makes them (and, consequently, all
Republican women) lose credibility? Why is Republican a dirty word?
To answer some of these questions, I look at two areas of interest that
pertain to political rhetoric. First, Tannen (1990) and Coates (2011) research into
gender and language, which suggests there are masculine and feminine rhetorical
styles and American society generally expects women to use feminine and men to
use masculine styles. Second, George Lakoff (2004) posited that in American
politics, both conservatives and liberals adhere to a nation-as-family metaphor, and
there are specific linguistic and rhetorical moves that each camp makes to support
their political beliefs. Essentially, liberals use a more feminine style and
conservatives use a masculine style.
In my own research, I chose three prominent, currently relevant conservative
womens speeches to evaluate the use of gendered-language or nation-as-family
metaphors in political talk and text. I turn to three Republican women who deal
2


closely (as legislators and activists) with political rhetoric: Former Alaskan Governor
Sarah Palin, Senator (ME) Olympia Snowe, and Representative (MN) Michele
Bachmann who was until six weeks ago in the running for the GOP nomination to
face off with President Obama in 2012. After analyzing the womens speeches, I
have found all three speakers use language that could make them appear
confrontational, but one woman is able to strategically use rhetoric to embrace
gender expectations rather than run from them. In the end, Senator Snowe has
shown by her four terms over 31 years in Congress that she has found a balance
between confrontational and caring rhetoric. She sets the example for how
Republican women can avoid the stiletto-con babe moniker and instead earn titles
like Maines Caretaker (Burnett, 2006).
Method
When I hear words like stiletto-con and babe surrounding Republican
women, I contend there is still a sense of gender inequality in American politics. And
when I work along-side international aid workers, doing the exact same tasks as me,
carrying the same children though waste-filled orphanages, and I face criticism for
being part of a confrontational, heartless, and outdated political party, I contend
there is some misconception about Republican women. It may be that the two
criticisms are related. The rhetoric Republican women use is often aggressive, which
may cause listeners to view them as confrontational. To test this theory, I look at how
Ms. Snowe, Ms. Bachmann, and Ms. Palin responded to one of President Obamas
speeches. The very act of speaking out in public against the President is part of its
own sub-genre of political speech, but for the purpose of this paper, I use the
3


singular incident as a case study in Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) of how the
three women used language in public discourse.
Political Discourse Analysis
Scholar George Lakoff (2009; as cited in Dasani & Roy, par. 3) claimed,
Those who control language like politicians have in their possession the means to
acquire and exercise power. Therefore, I chose PDA as a research method because
it grapples with questions pertaining to political power, abuse of power or power-
based domination within political discourse, including the various forms of resistance
or counter-power against such forms of discursive dominance... and political
inequality that results from such domination (van Dijk, 1995, p. 11). When our male-
dominated American society expects female politicians to fit into Lakoffs political
metaphor models and use gender-specific language, there exists domination.
Ultimately, PDA is an amalgamation of theories relating to rhetoric, generative
linguistics, critical theory, and cognitive linguistics, and so it is the perfect theory to
try to make sense of how gender and political metaphors constrain womens political
discourse.
Research Questions
This paper will help fill in the recent gaps and answer the questions:
RQ1: Is the current state of conservative womens political rhetoric in the
United States confrontational? If so, what are some of the consequences to
this style of speech?
RQ2: How do Lakoffs metaphor models explain masculine and feminine
language styles and do my research subjects fit into his proposed models?
4


RQ3: Is Senator Snowe an example of how to embrace gender expectations
in political speech and manipulate things like feminine style and Lakoffs
metaphors to work in her favor?
By studying three particular speeches, I will see what they suggest about
conservative womens rhetoric. I expect to find some gender-based constraints to
how women must speak in public. Due to these rhetorical constraints, Republican
womens speeches sometimes come across as inconsistent, disingenuous, or
confrontational, and this may explain why there is criticism surrounding some of their
rhetoric. However, Senator Snowe seems to break free from Lakoffs metaphors by
strategically integrating both masculine and feminine language while maintaining
national success as a congresswoman.
Hasnt This Been Studied Already? There have been many studies into
womens political rhetoric such as The Rhetoric of Women Governors (Marshall &
Mayhead, 2000), Right Wing Women (Bacchetta & Power, 2002) as well as articles
on Hillary Clintons run at the presidency (Gutgold, 2007) and some recent
dissertations about Sarah Palin and the media in communications studies (Sanprie,
2010; Spiker, 2011), but overall there is a paucity of research surrounding
conservative rhetoric in the last five years. This thesis will only look at three current
and specific texts because it is not feasible to study all conservative rhetoric. Within
these three texts, however, I begin a discussion of the major constraints to
Republican womens political Discourse in the United States.
5


Research Texts
In studying these three women, I turned to Lloyd Bitzer (1968) for some
guidance on text selection. Bitzer (1968, p. 4) claimed, A particular discourse comes
into existence because of some specific condition which invites utterance. One of
the most pressing conditions right now in the United States demanding attention is
the current economic crisis. More specifically, in September, 2011, President
Obama held a press conference to explain his Jobs Plan to, in his opinion, fix the
broken economy. After the president delivered this speech, a maelstrom of political
responses flooded the airwaves, newspapers, and internet highways, including a
press release by Senator Snowe, a public rebuttal by Rep. Bachmann, and several
riling speeches by Former Gov. Palin. As Bitzer (1968, p. 6) said, Any exigence is
an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to
be done, a thing which is other than it should be, and many Republicans felt the
Presidents Jobs Plan was a thing other than it should be including Ms.
Bachmann, Ms. Palin, and Ms. Snowe.
Three Republican Responses to President Obamas Jobs Plan
The following excerpts are just the opening lines of the three texts I chose to
analyze, but it is easy to pick out some confrontational language within the first fifty
words (to see the full texts, turn to the appendices). For example, Representative
Bachmann addresses the President directly (i.e. she confronts him) when she says,
Mr. President...what here hasnt already been tried and failed before? Similarly,
Governor Palin uses passionate language when she uses words like systemic crisis
6


and incompetent leadership. In slight contrast to her peers, senator Snowe does
not confront the President directly; rather, she uses more passive language when
she says the presidents engagement on this urgent matter is long overdue.
Text 1: Rep. Bachmann Responds to Presidents Jobs Plan (D.C., Sep 8, 2011):
Unfortunately, it seems, every time the President speaks, his policies have
cost the American people jobs and future prosperity. Tonight the President
under the veil of one of the most sacred deliberative forums, a joint session of
Congress, delivered another political speech where he doubled down on
more of the same policies that are killing the economy. Mr. President, what
among your proposals was new? What here hasnt already been tried and
failed before? (http://bachmann.house.gov, 2011, Appendix A)
Text 2: Governor Palin Responds to Presidents Jobs Plan (Iowa, Sep 4, 2011):
Were here because America is at a tipping point. America faces a crisis. And
its not a crisis like perhaps a Midwest summer storm the kind that moves in
and hits hard, but then it moves on. No, this kind will relentlessly rage until we
do restore all that is free and good and right about America. Its not just fear
of a double dip recession. And its not even the shame of a credit downgrade
for the first time in U.S. history...This is a systemic crisis due to failed policies
and incompetent leadership. And were going to speak truth today. It may be
hard-hitting, but were going to speak truth today.
(hXipJlwww.thepalinexpress.com, 2011, Appendix B)
Text 3: Senator Snowe Responds to Presidents Jobs Plan (D.C., Sep 8, 2011):
Tonight, the President opened the conversation our nation requires to
address the most pressing crisis facing American families, and that is how to
create jobs in our economy. While the Presidents engagement on this urgent
matter is long overdue, finally Congress and the Administration can begin the
process of working through specific proposals, reconciling the differences,
and doing what is necessary to rejuvenate our nations economic
environment so we can get the more than 14 million unemployed Americans,
back to work (http://snowe.senate.gov, 2011, Appendix C)
Constraints: Can These Women Answer Freely? Bitzer claims a rhetorical
situation breaks down into three elements: (a) exigency, (b) audience and (c)
constraints. Constraints are persons, things, objects, events, and relations that have
7


the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence (Bitzer,
1968, p. 8). Some of the most common constraints include beliefs, attitudes,
documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives... (p. 8), which is
congruous with Lakoffs work because his metaphor models are examples of
societys beliefs in how women should speak in public. Bitzer also claimed, When
the orator enters the situation, his discourse not only harnesses constraints given by
situation but provides additional important constraints for example his personal
character, his logical proofs, and his style. There are societal expectations for the
style of language conservative women can use in public discourse, and this can
become either a barrier to overcome or an opportunity for success.
Success, of course, is a subjective term, but in the case of American politics,
but I define success as the ability to win elections. This interpretation may seem
pessimistic (simply running for office could also be regarded as success) but for the
purpose of this paper, I will focus on something measureable: electability. For
instance, Senator Snowe has been re-elected to the Senate three times (regional
success). In contrast, Gov. Palin was re-elected as Governor of Alaska (regional
success), but she did not help McCain win the presidency (did not have national
success), and Rep. Bachmann was re-elected to the House two times (regional
success), but she did not make it past round one in the national Republican primary.
I contend there are more constraints to womens rhetoric as they move from local, to
regional, and finally to the national political stage.
8


Basic Definitions
Political framing Politicians use framing to explain ideas in a way that is
favorable to their agendas. A frame is a central organizing idea for making sense of
an issue or conflict; it suggests what the controversy is about and what is at stake
(Edwards, 2003, p. 159).
Metaphor- The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing
one kind of thing in terms of another... metaphors structure the ordinary conceptual
system of our culture, which is reflected in our everyday language (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980, p. 1).
Gendered language Tannen (1990, p. 15) found there are both feminine
and masculine speaking styles, which have different characteristics, yet are equally
valid.
Gender-based constraints -There exists a double bind, (Jamieson, 1995) in
political speech: if women speak too feminine they are viewed as incompetent, but if
they speak to masculine, they are seen as overly-aggressive.
Political party constraints Political parties have both gender and cultural
rhetorical expectations. The Republican Party is andro-centric, but the Democratic
Party is more gender-neutral. As a result, Republicans generally use more masculine
language even when framing womens issues like education or healthcare.
Lakoffs metaphor models Lakoff created the strict-father model to show
how conservatives think about politics and how they use language to preserve a
patriarchal system. He also introduced the nurturant-parent model to show how
liberals think, and why they use language that is nurturing and non-confrontational.
9


Balancing Masculine and Feminine Language
Is Sticky Rhetoric the solution? To break free of what Jamieson (1995) dubs
the double bind women must find a way to speak with enough masculine features
to appear competent and enough feminine features to appear likable. It may be that
the best rhetoric is that which transcends gender, or at least borrows the best from
both worlds. Research shows that to get an idea to stick to an audience, the rhetoric
must be, well...sticky, meaning it should include five characteristics: (a) simple, (b)
unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) emotional, and (f) story-containing
(Corman, Trethewey, &Goodall, 2008, p. 174). The first four fit under masculine
language (simple, novel, credible, and concrete), but the last two definitely have a
feminine flair (anecdotes and emotion). In this paper, I will analyze the stickiness of
each Republican woman, i.e. how she balances masculine and feminine language.
Researcher Bias
In an article about quantitative metaphor analysis, Schmidt (2003) warned
that for research to be trustworthy, the researcher must admit her biases and levels
of competency. So here goes: Yes, I am a woman. I am a Republican. I am
frustrated with the reputation my people have, but I cant put a finger on exactly
what rubs people the wrong way. Ultimately, I analyze three speeches for gendered
language and Lakoff s metaphors and how the three women navigate these
constraints. In the end Im taking a snapshot, a current look at how three prominent
Republican women discuss the economic crisis, so the next time I hear that
Republican women are stiletto-con babes with confrontational language, I will have
some research-based knowledge to join the conversation.
10


CHAPTER 2
POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND GENDERED LANGUAGE
Hillary Clinton's communication style is as masculine as Bill Clinton's is
feminine (Gutgold, 2007).
Naturally, one characteristic that separates Palin, Bachmann, and Snowe
from other politicians is their gender, which, PDA would posit, is a major constraint to
a rhetorical situation because there are gender differences in political language.
Tannen (1990, p. 15) argued that men and women have different but equally valid
communication styles. Women use words and conversation to build and maintain
relationships with other people, find support, and reach consensus; they essentially
want to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation (p. 25). However, men use words to
show intelligence, build or maintain autonomy and gain social status.
Tannen (1990) also posited as more women are moving into positions of
authority, they face unique challenges. She claimed that if women try to speak like
men, they are judged harshly for being too manly. She also distinguished between
rapport-talk and report-talk, claiming women use language to express affiliation and
rapport, while they shy away from conflict because it threatens relationships. In
contrast, men use report-talk, where they put themselves on display, and they are
often aggressive. When women speak more masculine in public, but they will be
criticized by men for violating gender expectations and scrutinized by women if they
appear to act superior to other women. While Tannen provides useful research into
11


understanding the differences between mens and womens language style, she
does not provide any practical information as to how women can integrate both of
these distinct styles in public political speeches.
Feminine and Masculine Styles
Ultimately, to answer the research questions, we need to ask, Is there a
feminine style in women's political discourse? and if so, What are its features?
(Blakenship & Robson, 1995). Initially, Robin Lakoff (1975) (as cited in Jamieson,
1995, p. 134) found that women use empty adjectives (she gives charming as an
example), use tag questions (like isnt it? or right?), and use hedges (i.e.
maybe). Her ultimate conclusion was that women are victims silenced by a male-
dominated linguistic society. In contrast to Lakoff, Jennifer Coates (2004, 2011)
argues that although women might use hedge words like perhaps it does not mean
they are powerless victims; rather, women use hedge words to show
cooperativeness with others.
Building on the work of Lakoff (1975), Campbell (1989) and Jamieson (1995),
Blakenship & Robson (1995) conclude that yes, there is a feminine style, invoked
by both men and women in politics. The main features of this feminine style include:
(a) Using concrete, lived experience to express political judgment
(b) Valuing inclusivity
(c) Viewing public office as a place to empower others
(d) Looking at policy from a holistic viewpoint
(e) Highlighting womens issues
The following two examples show how Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole tried to
integrate a feminine style into their political campaigns. While Clinton is a Democrat
and I am only analyzing Republican speeches, the criticism surrounding her public
12


discourse has contributed greatly to the field of womens political discourse and
gendered language, so I include her in my research. Both of these women ran for
their respective partys nomination for President of the United States, and both faced
ruthless, gender-related criticism.
Example 1: Hillary Clinton
Rifkind (2000) built on the work of Blakenship & Robson (1995) when he
posited Clinton had two major constraints in her public speech: (a) sex-role
expectations and (b) cultural expectations. He alleged Clinton insulted nonworking
women during her husbands 1992 presidential campaign, saying she would rather
be out in the political realm than stay at home and bake cookies (Rifkind, 2000, p.
614). Her comments provoked criticism; The Philadelphia Inquirer (as cited in
Jamieson, 1995, p. 39) questioned whether Clintons rhetoric made her appear as a
cold, mouthy...career-crazed...feminist who commandeers microphones, a gaffe-
prone, power-starved liability to Bill Clintons campaign. Rifkind (2000) claimed
when women are too outspoken publically, the result is controversy.
When Clinton ran for the 2008 presidential nomination, some scholars even
claimed, Hillary Clinton's communication style is as masculine as Bill Clinton's is
feminine (Gutgold, 2007, para. 2). Similarly, McGinley (2009, p. 717) said Hillary
Clinton was sometimes seen as a genderless policy wonk because she was in a
double bind (Jamieson, 1995) women may find themselves in: if they are too
feminine, they are deemed incompetent. If they are too masculine, they are
considered not likeable. Ultimately, Gutgold (2009) concluded that although America
13


rates high on a masculinity scale, the general public expects both men and women to
use language that shows competency as well as compassion and tenderness.
Example 2: Elizabeth Dole
Often hailed for employing her feminine charm in a strategic manner is former
North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole. The senator did not shy away from her
feminine side, and in fact, she often highlighted her femininity in her public speeches.
In 1999, when she ran in the Republican Primary race, she equated woman with
moral leader. She based her argument on her southern motherly morals and the
idea that women have a strong intuition of whats right and moral in society (which
was a particularly important concept in the 2000 elections right after Bill Clintons
impeachment trial). To emphasize the frame of woman as moral leader, Dole often
referred to herself as a public servant: When I entered public service as a young
woman,..it was considered a noble thing to do. And today young people are turning
away from public service... because of the ugliness of politics (as cited in Reiser,
2009, p. 47), but, she contended, that she was there to restore a belief in the
individual and in America. Dole was also known for addressing her audience as
peers, using first names, and crediting her audience with her success.
The most strategic move Dole made, however, was actually non-verbal; she
employed the Liddy stroll, which was this suave little maneuver, walking amidst her
audience, and pausing to speak in front of individuals. Nichols (as cited in Reiser,
2009, p. 50) said this stroll was a down-with-the-audience Oprah-style performance
that traded substance for Southern charm, family lore, and nostalgia for an America
that sounds a lot like Salisbury in the 1950s. Dole knew how to make feminine style
14


work in her favor... most of the time. Still, no politician is safe from criticism. Though
Dole is hailed for being a compassionate, competent speaker, she faced
reprehension at times for her softer side, and even her Liddy stroll because she
seemed as though she would casually guide rather than command if she were to
become President (Reiser, 2009, p. 53). Her greatest assets then, became her
greatest constraints.
Limitations to Gendered Language Theory
Feminine Language: Just a Band Aid? Clinton and Dole show feminine
rhetorical style is alive and well in political discourse, but Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles
(2006) warn that this style may not be the ultimate way for women to fit in to the
patriarchal political system. They look at five presidential campaigns and conclude
the feminine style often fails in two ways. First, the American public wants to feel
protected and safe by masculine candidates who use factual, analytic, organized
and impersonal language (p. 337). Furthermore, Reiser (2009, p. 44) argues:
In determining a candidates fitness for office, the electorate will consider
how a candidate would act in an executive position. However, ...it is always
more difficult for a woman to run for an executive office than a legislative
office because of voter perceptions about the chief executive role and its
associations with strong masculinity. According to Trent and Friedenberg,
potential presidents are not supposed to be wimps, referencing weak
formulation of masculinity as feminized...as the office becomes higher, voters
become more judgmental, potentially increasing the challenge women face
as they seek out the highest office in the land.
Once again, we see the double-bind of gender expectations. Apparently, it is
acceptable for women in some political positions to use feminine language, but as
they move up to the office of President, women simply cannot appear as wimps. As
15


we know from Hillary Clintons campaigns, however, women also cannot appear as
cold, career-crazed feminists or even genderless policy wonks.
The second problem Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles (1996) find with feminine
language is that women often get marginalized in the political process when they use
what Jamieson (1995) called effeminate or personal, excessive, disorganized, and
unduly ornamental language. So, yes, while Jamieson (1995) suggested women
should utilize feminine language because the American public has come to expect
political forthrightness and exposure (expressing rather than camouflaging), Parry-
Giles et al. come to a different conclusion: the answer is not always to just add in
feminine language. A feminine style may open the doors to more dialogue and
motivate voters to listen and participate in political campaigns, and yes, it may help
to feminize politics, but it may just be a Band-Aid, a quick fix. In short, feminine style
may not feminize politics at all, but simply put a lip-glossy coat of feminine words
right on top of patriarchal ideas, themes, and images.
Both Clinton and Dole intentionally integrated feminine or masculine styles
into their rhetoric. There were consequences to this strategy, however, and while
they were successful at the regional level, Ms. Clinton and Ms. Dole were not
successful at the national level. Clinton won several primary caucuses in 2008, but
dropped out of the primary race five months before the election, while Dole dropped
out before the 2000 primaries even began. Their stories are imperative to my
research, however, and in chapter four, I show how Rep. Bachmann, Governor Palin,
and Senator Snowe learned from some of their mistakes.
16


CHAPTER 3
LAKOFF AND POLITICAL FRAMING
In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to
carry out polices... Reframing changes the way the public sees the
world...Reframing is social change (Lakoff, 2004, p. xv).
If we acknowledge there is a difference between masculine and feminine
language, how might this play out in a political speech? The two most prominent
ways I see in political rhetoric is through framing (Lakoff, 1996) and the use of
metaphor. Edwards defines a frame as a central organizing idea for making sense
of an issue or conflict; it suggests what the controversy is about and what is at stake
(2003, p. 159). As one Reagan advisor put it, Eighty percent of any legislative or
political matter is how you frame the debate (Edwards, 2003, p. 157). If framing is
worth 80%, then it is a great place to start analysis.
George Lakoff is known for this type of work, especially in his book The
Political Mind (2008), in which he examines the brains cognitive role in
understanding political ideologies. The idea is that audience members listen to
political speeches, but they are not just absorbing the words. Instead, they interpret
the meanings of their message exchanges through an emerging, flexible framework
constituted in language through an ongoing process of retrospective sense-making,
current analysis of meanings, and future projections (Corman, Trethewey, &
Goodall, 2008, p. 31). Essentially, the American public has a political unconscious,
17


and through words or speech acts, politicians can call up these unconscious values
by framing issues so that they tug on the heartstrings of a particular constituency.
The Basics of Framing
We use frames in everyday discourse. For instance, if you talk about a
person who spends very little money, you can call him thrifty (positive connotation)
or you can call him stingy (negative connotation). Similarly, when speaking about
government spending, politicians can use the thriftiness frame to emphasize
preservation of resources or the stinginess frame to emphasize lack of generosity.
A problem arises, however, due to the unconscious nature of framing: sometimes
people do not realize the metaphors they live by, and when they face conflict, they
wonder why they feel certain emotions like anger, frustration, or sadness. For
example, if one person frames a debate as a cooperative search for truth, but the
other person frames it in the form of a sports game, the chances are the that first
person may get passionately angry, while the second will view him as a sore loser
(Muder, 2005). When people do not recognize the metaphor frameworks they
employ, they will not be able to communicate with other people effectively
Example of framing. One of the most recognizable frames surrounds the
issue of abortion. Those in favor frame the topic in terms of womens rights
(reproductive freedom vs. reproductive oppression); however, those opposed
frame the issue in terms of the rights of the unborn (pro-life vs. pro-death). Many
people may even have mixed views on issues, or what Lakoff calls biconceptual
views, so the burden falls upon the speaker to activate certain attitudes or behaviors
in listeners by priming them to access parts of their memory that match up to the
18


speakers interests or intentions. Certain words such as freedom and life can
prime or trigger listeners to more readily accept a speakers frame. Later I will
analyze how Ms. Bachmann primes her audience by using two major frames: (a)
Government versus the people (or Hero vs. Villain) and (b) Mother knows best. In
each case, Bachmann uses specific words to stir the hearts and minds (i.e.
cognitively activate unconscious biconceptual values) of her audience.
Blue versus Red Framing
There are differences between the way Republicans and Democrats frame
various issues. In general, Democrats cluster around the issues of social welfare,
social insurance, and civil rights, the key words being: empathy, accountability,
responsibility, equality, fairness, and opportunity (Edwards, 2003; Lakoff, 2008). In
contrast, Republicans tend to rally around cultural values, civil liberties, and foreign
relations (Edwards, 2003), the keywords being: responsibility, accountability,
independence, hard work, and obedience to authority. Notice, however, that both
parties claim to value responsibility and accountability, so it is possible for the
audience to hold biconceptual views on these two ideas. For instance, to
Republicans, accountability means accountability of government to avoid
overstepping its bounds and to avoid meddling in the lives of people on Main Street;
however, to Democrats, accountability means the accountability of authorities to
protect and empower the public through social programs (Lakoff, 2008, p. 115). The
job, then, falls on the speaker to frame his or her policy so as to conjure up one of
these definitions in the minds of the audience, based on their party line.
19


Lakoffs Two Metaphor Models for Politics
In the mid 1990s, Lakoff began to question the unconscious metaphors
prevalent in American politics. He assumed there must be a reason liberals and
conservatives think they way they do. Why would conservatives oppose abortion, but
support the death penalty? Lakoff analyzed the words and phrases of each party,
and began to see a common theme to both: The Nation-as-Family metaphor. Both
political parties view the government as a parent who teaches, punishes, and
rewards its children (citizens). This is where the similarities end, however, because
each party has a different sub-mataphor or frame to put on the word family.
For conservatives, the family unit is central; the father (politician) rules the
roost, and he uses discipline (individual responsibility instead of social programs) to
ensure his children (society) grow up to be obedient, educated (via standardized
testing) and prosperous (low tax-paying) citizens. In contrast, for liberals, the family
has two parents who nurture, support (provide social programs), communicate with,
and inspire children (society) to want to be responsible (environmentally-friendly),
sharing (high tax-paying) citizens who are part of a larger diverse community. Muder
(2005) framed Lakoffs metaphors in terms of Christian religion to explain the
ideological differences: Strict Father families focus on childrens original sin, and
want to train it out of them. Nurturant Parent families focus on childrens original
blessing, and want to develop it.
Strict Father Model
Republicans are, in essence, part of a strict-father model, which holds that
people, if left to their own devices, tend to satisfy their own desires, but people will
20


often do things they do not like to do if they know it will earn them rewards or avoid
punishment (Lakoff, 1996, p. 35). In this model, just as a strict father keeps moral
order, so should political figures. There are four key points: (a) maintaining order is
essential to morality, (b) authority figures provide protection, (c) authority figures can
dole out discipline to help people learn to behave righteously, and (d) authority
figures must use their power to help produce the right kind of people in society. In
this strict father model, there are also several metaphorical premises:
morality is strength, community is family, and moral authority is
parental authority
the world is full of good and evil; to face up to evil, one must be
morally strong
if someone is morally weak, he or she will succumb to evil; and
therefore, self-control, obedience, and self-denial are forms of ultimate
morality
people should obey authority figures like they should obey parents
Republicans adhere to a strict-father mentality, and their language usually
represents this ideology. For example, Republicans often want less government
meddling because they feel the father should make the moral decisions for his
immediate family. This often leads to metaphors like morality is discipline and
morality is prosperity, which is why many conservatives say social programs are
immoral (they make people become dependent). Lakoff (2008, para. 12) says, Palin
is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough:
she shoots, skins, and eats caribou... In general, the strict-father metaphor is seen
as more masculine, so it makes sense Palins language is masculine.
21


Nurturant-Parent model
The second moral and metaphorical system Lakoff defines is the nurturant-
parent model, which lends itself towards being feminine. In this model, households
consist of two parents who share responsibilities and provide strength and courage
to children and teach them empathy and responsibility for others. Children do not
obey out of fear, but out of mutual respect for the nurturing authority figures. The
ultimate goal is not discipline and prosperity, but rather self-nurturance, community
contribution, and a fulfilling life. In this model, the community is family, and
community leaders have the responsibility to support others in need. The prevailing
metaphors include: morality is empathy, morality is self-nurturance and then
nurturance of others, morality is happiness, and morality is fair distribution and
equality of opportunity. These metaphors explain why Democrats think social
programs are a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves.
Lakoffs nation-as-family metaphors are based on two of Baumrinds (1967,
1991) four parenting styles: (a) authoritarian, (b) authoritative, (c) permissive, and (d)
uninvolved. First authoritarian is the root of the strict father model. This type of
parenting style is strict; parents rule with an iron fist and the leading mantra might be
Because I said so. Next, authoritative is a parenting style where the leaders are
less punitive and more supportive (Baumrind, 1991). Parents lay out rules, but they
are more democratic than authoritarian types, and they listen to their childrens
needs, complaints, and wishes. Lakoff claims the authoritative style is the basis of
his nurtu rant-pa rent metaphor, but this is where I find a discrepancy. In psychology,
the authoritative style is accepted as the ideal way of parenting, so it would seem
22


Lakoff is a bit biased in claiming liberals fit this ideal mold. Instead, some liberal
politicians fit the third parenting style, permissive. This type of parent is lenient,
nurturing, and communicative (sounds like Lakoffs liberal model to me). The parent
acts more like a friend than a disciplinarian.
Limitations to Lakoffs Metaphors
There are some inherent problems in Lakoffs famous metaphor models. One
in particular is the whole notion of nation-as-family as in the following critique:
If one really wants to make this metaphor work, youd have to say that being
president is like being a single parent who adopts a busload of eight-year-
olds from abusive families, all with behavioral problems out the wazoo. As
president you get a mere eight years to nurture or discipline these walking
bundles of neuroses before you have to hand them off to a completely new
foster parent. To make your job even harder, the kids know you will be out of
their lives after four or eight years (unless they can accuse you of high crimes
and misdemeanors) and so they have zero incentive to mind you in any way
shape or form. (Vincent, 2008, para. 3)
While Vincent is being humorous, he makes a good point: Lakoffs metaphors are not
perfect. The very fact that Republican women strive to wear the pants places them
in a position incongruous with strict father morality, where the man is supposed to be
the head of the home. Instead, women like Palin rise up to take the place of the strict
father, so something feels a bit off in Lakoffs metaphor. In trying to come up with a
more appropriate metaphor for Republican women, I turn to the same research
Lakoff used to design his own: developmental psychology. Instead of the strict father,
there might be a new way to view the new conservative woman.
A New Hybrid Metaphor Model
A better interpretation of Lakoffs metaphors might be: conservatives as
authoritarian, liberals as permissive, and the new Republican woman as
23


authoritative. This modern woman must learn to balance her language within her
frames. She has to show enough concern and care to show she is listening to her
children, but enough competency to show she can fearlessly lead as commander-
in-chief. She is not the strict father, nor is she the nurturant co-parent. She must play
the role of mother (caretaker) and father (protector). At times she might need to play
basketball with her son, so she puts on her court shoes, but she does not play that
role all the time; rather, she has discernment to know when to act feminine and when
to act masculine. She has to create a sense of security in her children; she is
assertive, but not severe. She wants her children to be self-regulated (a conservative
value), but also socially responsible (both a conservative and a liberal value).
Baumrind (1991) says children who grow up in authoritative homes develop into
healthy, happy, well-adjusted adults. In the same way, if a conservative woman
leads the nation as a family with authoritative principles and she communicates
these principles through positive language, she may encourage a nation of healthy,
well-adjusted citizens.
Although Republicans would normally use the strict-father and Democrats
would use nurturant-family frames, women would use feminine metaphors and men
would use masculine metaphors, this this is not always accurate. In the next
chapter, I examine Snowe, Bachmann, and Palins speeches aimed at President
Obama and look for instances of both masculine and feminine language. In the end,
all three women use masculine language in their rebuttal against the President, but
they do not always fit the strict-father model. Senator Snowe, in particular, blends
masculine, feminine, strict, and nurturing language into her speeches.
24


CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF GENDERED LANGUAGE AND FRAMING
In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to
carry out polices... Reframing changes the way the public sees the
world...Reframing is social change (Lakoff, 2004, p. xv).
Now that I have defined gendered language, political framing and use of
metaphor, we can move on to a rhetorical analysis of political discourse. As Lakoff
(2008) asserts, the Republican Party generally adheres to a strict-father male-
centric ideology, so women who want to run on the Republican ticket at the national
level have to speak with confidence, competency, and conviction (strict-father
mentality). Herein lies the rub: those attributes are typically considered masculine, so
if they speak in this way, they may actually appear less competent and more
confrontational. Republicans usually permit this rhetorical style as long as it fits into
their ideology. However, Democrats who value nurturing language may not respond
favorably to masculine rhetoric; instead, the Republican women come across as
confrontational. In the following analysis, I look at this Catch-22 (double-bind) and
examine the gendered-language and metaphor model constraints in Rep.
Bachmann, Snowe, and Palins use of framing.
Political Framing
Representative Bachmanns Frames
Rep. Bachmann uses several frames in her political speech such as
hero/villain, mother knows best, and mother superior.
25


Hero vs. Villain
The night President Obama delivered his Jobs Speech to the nation, House
Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) had already announced there would be no official
Republican response; yet, Ms. Bachmann went on the record in front of the White
House to give her own press release. By overruling her own party, Ms. Bachmann
went on the offensive, setting an aggressive (less feminine), possibly
confrontational tone. Bachmann framed the issue of the current economic
recession by linking it negatively to health care legislation and government spending:
And, looming on the horizon is the full scale implementation of Obamacare
that, according the Congressional Budget Office, will kill 800,000 jobs and
steal over 500 billion from Medicare. Candidate Obama promised to wipe out
deficits and the debt. Instead the President has increased the debt by over 6
trillion dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Permanent increases in
the size of government, spending and debt, with a greater dependency on
government. (Bachmann, 2011)
Ms. Bachmann uses the Republican frame of obedience to authority in that many
conservatives believe in obedience to the free market as a way to create jobs and
boost the economy. In this speech, Bachmann includes words like looming to prime
the audience to feel a sense of urgency. Similarly, by using words like kill, and
steal, she is able to frame the issue of universal healthcare as a negative, unethical
concept. Finally, by referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA) as Obamacare, Bachmann directly attaches healthcare reform to a
human beings name, so that the bill becomes personified. It is much easier to create
a villain if he has a face and a name.
This frame is fairly masculine, but some conservatives may not find this
framework too aggressive. The Tea Party, in particular, has been calling for less
26


government spending, and limited government involvement, and Bachmann, as the
Tea Party Caucus founder uses language that supports Tea Party concepts, while
bashing liberal ideas. Therefore, she may get some leeway in gender expectations.
Just as we will see later with Governor Palin, some Republicans may let Bachmann
break the gender rules when she uses vitriolic language, because these voters are
agitated, so it agrees with their mood and it still fits into the strict-father model of
conservative politics. Ultimately, those who support her ideology may find her
language competent, while those who oppose find her language confrontational.
Mother Knows Best
Rep. Bachman often reminds her audience that she is a mother of 28 children
(5 biological and 23 foster children). At first glance, this seems like the right
feminine thing to do (its the technique Elizabeth Dole employed extensively). The
problem, as critic Phillips (2011) states is, I cant help wondering if her regular
talking point of raising 28 kids 23 foster children and five biological children -
makes her appear eccentric to some voters. What Philips might mean is that while
society expects women to speak lovingly about their children, when they are running
for the highest office in the world, they are also expected to prove their executive
legitimacy. Bachmanns experience with 28 children is commendable, but it may not
convince the audience that she is capable of being the president.
So, how might Rep. Bachmann overcome the double-bind and prove she is
nurturing and capable of running one of the largest countries in the world? It comes
down to proving that she is caring and competent. Jensen (2008) suggests four ways
in which women can appear competent in their public speech:
27


relate motherhood to crisis prevention
accentuate substantial academic credentials
focus on mens issues like foreign affairs and the economy (as
opposed to education and welfare)
influence other world leaders
The mother of 28 frame might work better if she connected her experience as a
mother to that of a crisis-manager, or if she carefully integrated words like mother as
leader or commander. For instance, she could have copied Senator Elizabeth Doles
strategic move of marrying the word woman to moral leader or public servant.
Similarly, Jenny Shipley, the first female Prime Minister of New Zealand, stressed
the relevance of her experience as a mother in 1996 when she said, If you have
children, you anticipate things constantly... A mother who understands howto draw
the best out of her child Im sure can contribute to the future of this country (as cited
in Jensen, 2008, p. 157). Both Dole and Shipley attempted to bridge the perceived
gap between motherhood and leadership.
Bachmann could also have learned a lesson from her role model, British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the final week before Ms. Bachmann dropped
out of the 2012 GOP race, Bachmann stepped up the intensity in her rhetoric in both
her speeches and her television commercials. She proudly claimed she would win
due to her titanium spine and touted, I want to be America's Margaret Thatcher... I
will be the next Iron Lady (Camia, 2011, para. 11). Yet, even Thatcher (known as
the original Iron Lady for her harsh rhetoric and strict policies) equated motherhood
to political leadership in her public speeches. For example, Thatcher once said that
as both a mother and a politician, You have to keep calm when everyone else isnt
28


(as cited in Jensen, 2008, p. 157). She strategically linked a feminine role with
political prowess.
Interestingly enough, in a 2011 poll, Brits voted Thatcher as the most
competent Prime Minister in the last thirty years (Kiran, 2011). In the United States,
the voting public wants to know the woman who occupies the highest position in
America can be a competent commander-in-chief. So it would seem that emulating
Thatcher would help to prove competency, but she did so in a confrontational
manner, (used words like iron and titanium) rather than a strategic manner (Titanium
mixed with motherhood, iron mixed with sentiment). Consequently, Bachmann just
missed the mark, and she left the primary race after finishing last in the Iowa Caucus
in early January, 2012.
Identifying with other Mothers
On October 19, 2011 the GOP held its sixth debate in Las Vegas, Nevada. At
one point moderator Anderson Cooper asked Ms. Bachmann if she thought the
federal government had a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from
foreclosure, in the state of Nevada (as cited in Resnick, 2011). Bachmann
responded:
Im talking to moms across this country...when you talk about foreclosures,
youre talking about women who are at the end of their rope because theyre
losing their nest for their children and for their family... Im a mom. I talk to
these moms. I just want to say one thing to moms all across America
tonight... President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and
foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around. We
will turn the economy around. We will create jobs. Thats how you hold on to
your house. Hold on, moms out there. Its not too late, (as cited in Resnick,
2011)
29


In an economy with over 9% unemployment, it would seem that Bachmann was on to
something: framing the housing crisis in a way that moms across the country will
understand. Why, then, did it not boost her ratings? In this case, it may have been
more of a delivery faux pas\ when Bachmann looked into the camera to address all
the mothers who watch political debates on television, her lower lip quivered, but it
was hard to tell if it was genuine emotion. Perhaps the American moms want more
than tears; they want real solutions. Had Bachmann framed her soliloquy for mothers
by using words like planners, providers, multi-taskers, or problem-solvers, she may
have been able to actually connect with the women who feel they are losing their
nests. The frame needed just a bit of linguistic tweaking to make it sound authentic.
Mother Superior: Protecting the Next Generation
Finally, in a more subtle way, Bachmann used some feminine language
when she referenced children of this generation and the next in her unauthorized
press release in response to President Obamas Jobs Speech:
The President and Vice-Presidents plan to spend us to prosperity has failed.
And worse, they have stolen from a generation of Americans yet unborn, the
consequences of which mean a near certainty of reduced choices and a
dramatically downsized lifestyle for future generations from what we enjoy
today. Generational theft is a moral and ethical issue, and I care deeply about
both the present generation and generations to come. (Bachmann, 2011)
In this way, Bachmann frames Obamas spending plan in terms of generational
theft, so she primes her audience to think not only of their own children (if they have
them), but in a broader sense of the children of the future (which should concern
everyone). This frame may activate parts of the unconscious voters minds who
value preserving the American dream for the next generation, insinuating that
30


Bachmann, as protective mother, knows how to provide for the nation as a family for
years to come.
Going after the wrong villain"? Here again, one would expect framing an
issue around motherhood would help Bachmann seem nurturing, and when she
uses words like nest and hold on moms, she does do just that. So, perhaps there
is another constraint something more than just gender. Bachmann is framing the
issues around standard conservative rhetoric and language, but if she is saying the
right (sometimes feminine, sometimes not) things, why was she the first
Republican to drop out of the 2012 GOP primary? It could be that she is using
inappropriate frames.
Ms. Bachmann uses some of the oldest tricks in the book like framing her
opponent as a villain or trying to identify with a specific group (mothers), but she did
not win the GOP primary nomination, so perhaps she put the cart in front of the
horse. What I mean is that she did not need to use frames that pitted her against the
Democrat villain Obama so early on in the campaign. A more strategic approach
would have been to find language that fit different frames that made her stand apart
from her own GOP candidates. She needed to beat-out the other Republicans first
before she could take a swing at the current president. Perhaps if she relied more on
her experience as a tax lawyer, and framed the economic crisis from a monetary
standpoint, she would have won-over the frustrated Republicans who are more
interested in the bottom line. For example, when Former Godfathers Pizza CEO
Herman Cain presented his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform, rather than respond with her
own economic plan, Bachmann said, If you turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down, the
31


devil is in the details. As Phillips (2011) points out, the problem is that shes talking
about Mr. Cains plan; nobody is talking about hers.
How Sticky Are Her Frames?
In chapter one, I suggest that sticky rhetoric would help Republican women
break free of rhetorical constraints like gender. Bachmann embodies four sticky
features on a regular basis: (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete (which are all
masculine) and (d) story-containing (feminine), but the problem is that she
sometimes lacks the final two: (e) genuine emotion and (d) credibility. To build her
credibility, Ms. Bachmann could focus on her achievements and education in tax law,
and link those ideas to an actual plan for the economy. Representative Bachmann
falls right into what Jamieson (1995) calls the double bind of femininity/competence,
which are often taken as mutually exclusive. However, if Bachmann adds just a
smidge more feminine style (in the form sincere emotion rather than a titanium spine)
and credibility (competent plans of action) into her speeches, she may find a way to
break the bind.
Lakoffs Models
Rep. Bachmann fits right in to Lakoffs strict-father model. She self-proclaims
to have a titanium spine and she tells the American public President Obama has
failed (as a father-figure) when she confronts him: Stop; your last plan hasnt
worked, its hurting the American economy. Bachmann claims she will take on the
role of strict-father, implement some fiscal discipline and fix the economy because
the President is politically paralyzed and philosophically incapable. What she
means is that she is politically proactive and philosophically sound, showing she is
32


strong in body and mind. Ultimately, Bachmann uses more masculine language than
feminine and she fits in to strict-father model, so her public image is confrontational.
Governor Palins Frames
While Bachmann used motherhood frames, Governor Palin uses some more
colorful frames, such as a rogue federal family, war, and crony capitalism.
Federal Family
Palin travels the country giving keynote speeches at Tea Party and
Republican rallies, and the week of Obamas Jobs Speech was no exception. At a
rally in Iowa, Palin argued against the Obama administration saying, Some of those
bureaucratic agencies that dont really want to refer to our centralized federal
government as government. Now its called the federal family. Am I too old to be
emancipated? In this one question, Palin twists the nation-as-family metaphor, so it
is not as clear cut as Lakoff makes it out to be. Nurturant parents are not the perfect
model because they may be too lenient (i.e. in Palins eyes, not disciplined enough to
amend the federal budget), and thus, end up with uncontrollable children. Palin asks
for emancipation, to run away from the nurturant-parent model (the Obama home),
showing that when children think that their parents liberal parenting style fails, they
may rebel.
Palin then compounds the metaphor as she adds, Never thought Id say it,
but I want a divorce. Again, Palin is acting more like an unruly woman or a rebellious
child than either a member of a strict father or a nurturant co-parent family. In some
ways, this metaphor is masculine in that Palins language is mutinous. It is also
somewhat feminine, though, if you view her behavior in light of a neo-conservative
33


feminist attitude. Schreiber (2008, p. 8) says, conservative women employ the tactic
of strategic essentialism, deploying their womanhood selectively to contest feminist
claims of representation and to give conservative interests more legitimacy. That is,
they act as and for women, even while recognizing the trappings of this strategy
(Schreiber, 2008, p. 8). Ultimately, conservative feminism acknowledges and
celebrates the differences between men and women. Sarah Palin, a member of
Feminists for Life, frequently admits she is part of this feminist movement, and her
language reflects it.
The framing constraints, then, may not be just related to gender, but also to
public mood (Gabrielson, 2005). When it comes to Sarah Palin, the voting public
either loves or hates the gun-toting governor-turned reality-star, and their support
ranges from sheer disdain to blind loyalty. In settings like the Tea Party rally (the
speech I analyzed), she knows her audience, and knows the public mood is
energetic. Palin can get away with strong metaphors and unruly framing when she
speaks to the Tea Party crowd, but her rhetoric may not be as powerful or
manipulative when speaking to other less emotionally-charged audiences.
Politics as War: Refuse to Retreat
In the 2008 race, as vice-presidential contender, Palin asked, Whats the
difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Her answer: lipstick (CNN, 2008).
In this way, Palin (2011) admits she is antagonistic, a masculine trait. Her aggressive
language is evident in her speech when she frames the economic debate in terms of
physical pain, demonization, war, and sports (Palin, 2011):
34


We can confront the problem and we can achieve lasting reform. And I can
tell you from hard-earned experience with bumps and bruises along the way,
that the road ahead is not easy. You will be demonized. Theyll mock you.
Theyll make things up. Theyll tell you to go to hell. But well bite our
tongue, well keep it classy, and we wont respondas tempting as it isto
anyone who just has such disdain for our free market economy and for
individual initiative and responsibility. We wont say, No, you go to hell. No,
we wont say that. You know why we dont have to say that? Because when
we have time-tested truth and logic on our side, we win. And when we refuse
to retreat because we know that our childrens future is at stake, we win.
The language embedded within these frames is masculine, such as Go to hell and
we refuse to retreat, as well as words like logic (a masculine trait). The only hint of
femininity I can find in this paragraph is the idea of uniting (cooperativeness) and
when she mentions the future of our children (nurturing/caretaking). Once again,
the framing constraints of gender stereotypes (women should be sweet and polite)
might be positively mediated by the constraint of public mood because the audience
to which she directs this harsh rhetoric is part of the conservative base that loves
Sarah Palin. She expresses values they hold dear in a manner with which they can
identify. Palins dominant message is designed to emphasize these key values
targeted specifically to this political group in order to garner their support for GOP
candidates (Spiker, 2011, p. 250).
Mafia: Crony Capitalism
In addition to the rogue federal family and politics as war themes, Palin also
uses a mafia theme to frame her Jobs Plan speech. The mafia metaphor implies
corruption and it is darkly intertwined with political subversion (Lupo, 2009, p. 5).
Hence, when Palin uses the mafia metaphor to describe good old boy politics-as-
usual as well as a corrupt and compromised political class she is not being subtle.
35


Palin accuses the Obama administration for using Enron-like accounting gimmicks
(para. 16) in dealing with the economy. She asserts:
This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets... No, this is the
capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste
and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism
that destroyed Europes economies. Its the collusion of big government and
big business and big finance to the detriment to the rest to the little guys.
Its a slap in the face to our small business owners the true entrepreneurs.
Palin turns the idea of capitalism into a morality issue. She claims the current
government allows for backdoor deals and that they rig the system in favor of
unethical business-world gains for their friends (like bailouts). This rhetorical move
is a powerful one because Palin is making the government analogous to an immoral,
corrupt form of capitalism. Her frame is mostly masculine in that the mafia itself was
a misogynistic, patriarchal system of violence.
How Sticky Are Her Frames?
In my analysis of Gov. Palin, I came to the same conclusion as Spiker (2011,
p. 246) who said, Sarah Palins rhetorical style offers something of a new approach
that contrasts with the traditional feminine rhetorical style a more aggressive
feminine tone... Palins aggressive tone is unleashed as she praises Obama for his
dramatic speeches while simultaneously attacking him. Similarly, I found Palin uses
masculine themes and topics to talk about both feminine (family) and masculine
(economy) ideas. She also shows her masculine side by using language that is (a)
unexpected, but she does not always use (b) simple, (c) credible, or (c) concrete;
rather, she sometimes uses abstract or multi-layered framing, which is considered
more feminine. Once in a while, however, she also uses metaphors that are (d)
36


story-containing and (e) emotional to show her softer side. Because she does not
always use credible, simple, and concrete metaphors, she does not seem as sticky
as Bachmann or Snowe. She comes off slightly more masculine in her framing (the
content is masculine) than her peers. She floats somewhere between maverick
hockey mom and brazen beauty queen, but even critics agree, the Palin Voice is
strong, its loud, it is different and it resonates with a certain niche of society
(Steinmetz, 2010).
Lakoffs metaphors
Because Palin is overtly masculine in her style and tone of speech, she fits
into Lakoffs strict-father model. Governor Palin uses frames based on family-related
metaphors, but she throws a wrench in Lakoffs strict father metaphor because she
stands out as being the pants-wearer in her relationship, both in her own family, and
within the larger nation-as-family structure. This makes her come across as
exceptionally brazen and confrontational at times.
Senator Snowes Frames
Much like Bachmann and Palin, Senator Snowe has faced some gender-
related and partisan-politics constraints. In her speech about the economy, she used
four main frames: nation as a person, nation as a business, economy as an
environment, and politician as caretaker.
Nation as a Person
Using the nation as a person metaphor is pervasive and powerful (Lakoff,
2003) because it is part of a much larger international community metaphor. In this
mega-metaphor system, there are friendly nations, antagonistic nations, failed states,
37


rogue states, etc. When politicians talk about national interest, they invoke the idea
that just as people should be healthy and strong, so should nations. Lakoff (2003)
says a healthy nation is one that is economically healthy and militarily strong (para.
3). Taking this one step further, then, one could create the extended metaphor:
nation as the economy economy as a person. In one fell swoop, the economy
becomes personified, and takes on the traits of a person in an international
community.
In Snowes response to Obamas Jobs Plan, she invokes the economy as
person metaphor when she says small business owners serve as the backbone of
our economy. She blames faulty tax codes for causing a stumbling block for this
economy-nation-person, who has tripped, but, she believes, can find the inner-
strength to get back up. Snowe takes this metaphor deeper, as she breathes a soul
into this economy-nation-person. She asserts the entrepreneurial spirit is
suppressed by onerous, burdensome regulations and complex tax codes. The way
to revive this suppressed spirit is to lessen the load the economic-nation-person
carries on her small business back.
Overall, the nation as an economy as a person metaphor seems to be a
combination of both feminine and masculine style. On the one hand, the metaphor
conjures up images of a person who carries a heavy load, and the language
(onerous, backbone, shoulder a cost) leans towards manual labor, a traditionally
masculine theme. On the other hand, as Folbre (2001) said in her book The Invisible
Heart: Economics and Family Values, the image of relieving a person of a heavy
burden is nurturing, or feminine. The conservative and the liberal public mood about
38


Republican womens speech seem to both be in favor of this complicated metaphor
because she balances femininity, partisan politics, and language as she talks about
the biggest concern in our country: the economy. The evidence for this? Snowe
keeps having regional success (i.e. having been re-elected to the Senate three
times).
Nation as a business
Senator Snowe self-reportedly keeps a laser-like focus on the economic
problems in America. The nation as a business metaphor is prevalent in Snowes
speech as she invokes the image of the United States with a closed sign on its
doors. This nation as a business metaphor leans toward masculine, because
financial issues are traditionally placed within a mans realm of responsibility and
because economics is deductive, logical, and analytical (masculine traits) (Stretton,
2000, p. 236). So, when Snowe says, she wants to send a solid signal to our nation
that we are open for business, she runs the risk of getting entangled in the gender
stereotype constraint. Richardson (1998, 2010) said, Economics is man-made in
every sense, and self-respecting women do not want to play the mens games and
be judged by the mens rules, yet Senator Snowe seems to have no qualms about
playing this androcentric game.
Economy is an environment
Another metaphor Snowe integrates into her framing is the economy as an
environment. In this framework, environments have limits, and if people push beyond
these limits there will be negative, irreversible consequences (Norgaard, 1995).
Economies are sustainable only if people keep the ecosystem of the free market
39


alive, healthy and within its boundaries. This metaphor fits into the strict-father
version of politics where morality is discipline. When Snowe says the economic
environment is in need of rejuvenation, and raising taxes will quash any hope
of...jobs recovery she insinuates high taxes go outside the limits of a sustainable
economy. She uses words like pro-growth, unleashing private sector investment, to
support her claim that there is a stark lack of climate conducive to job creation
(para. 3). Her solution to revitalize the free market environment is to work together,
Republicans and Democrats, to focus on tax reform and job creation.
Overall, the economy as an environment is both masculine and feminine. It is
masculine in that, as previously discussed, the economy is a traditionally male topic.
However, taking care of the environment is of concern to both political parties.
Republicans identify with the limits and rules of an ecosystem, so they may support
Snowes claim that the environment is quashing hope and jobs recovery; whereas,
Democrats identity with the nurturing and caretaking of an ecosystem, so they may
support her claim that the environment is not healthy. In this way, Senator Snowe
uses both masculine and feminine traits in her framing of the economy, and she
circumvents some of the framing constraints like gender and party politics.
The Caretaker
In an article titled, Olympia Snowe: Caretaker, author Burnett (2006)
commended Snowe for her focus on local issues in Maine, including her Maine
Street Tours where the senator walks through small towns and sits in coffee shops
to talk to her constituency. Her caretaking nature was evident in her rebuttal to
Obamas Jobs Speech when she said, I have convened business roundtables, met
40


with small business owners, held Main Street tours, and talked with people from all
walks of life. Her ability to reach men and women, Republicans and Democrats is no
doubt, what led to her spot on the 2006 Time Magazine Top Ten Senators list.
How Sticky are her Frames?
Snowe generally uses all six sticky strategies in her speeches: (a) simple, (b)
unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) story-containing, and (f) emotional. This is
not to say that she is perfect by any means. In the framing, department, however,
Senator Snowe seems to have found a way to implement both masculine and
feminine traits into her language, and, subsequently, she seems to face fewer
constraints than other conservative women as evidenced by her three terms in the
Senate. Yet, this sometimes masculine/sometimes feminine middle-of-the-road
rhetorical style in and of itself is a constraint! Snowe is the leader of the Centrist
Coalition (a group that seeks to find bipartisan solutions to government proposals),
and so, she faces criticism by the Tea Party, the uncompromising fringe of the
GOPs right wing, for being too moderate, a centrist (Wickham, 2011).
Lakoffs metaphors
Because she uses both masculine and feminine language and she is known
for being a caretaker, Senator Snowe does not fit neatly into Lakoff s strict-father
model. Often, Snowe appears as nurturing, which is Lakoffs Democrat model. She
shows enough concern and care to show she is listening to her children, but
enough competency to show she can fearlessly lead as a politician. She wants her
children to be self-regulated (a conservative value), but also socially responsible
41


(both a conservative and a liberal value). In this way, Snowe borrows positive
aspects from each of Lakoff s models to create a more appropriate hybrid metaphor.
Ultimately, in chapter five, I have conducted a qualitative analysis of three
conservative responses to President Obamas Jobs Plan. Both Rep. Bachmann and
Gov. Palin use masculine framing to discuss their displeasure with the President,
and some of their language could appear confrontational. However, Senator
Snowe uses some masculine framing and some feminine framing, so she may
appear confrontational in some situations, but considerate in others. Overall, Senator
Snowe finds ways to prove her compassion and competency. In chapter five, I take a
closer look at the implications of Snowes blended style.
42


CHAPTER 5
FRACTURING THE BINDS
Another way of fracturing a stereotype is use of a tactic I call speaking softly
while carry a big statistic...opening a female candidates campaign with data-
driven material and following it up with warmer, more empathetic content
enables candidates to mute the question is she tough enough while
communicating that she is indeed caring enough to lead. These moves are
designed to overcome the bitch factor, shorthand for the
femininity/competency bind. (Jamieson, 1995, p. 197)
So far in this journey, I have analyzed three specific texts and found women
are often caught in a double-bind, where they are not free to be completely feminine
or masculine, but they must find some undefined place between the two. Some
rhetorical scholars like Lakoff and Corman et al. suggest using both masculine and
feminine language strategically by using six sticky traits to make language: (a)
simple, (b) credible, (c) unexpected, (d) concrete [all masculine], (e) emotional, and
(f) story-telling [both feminine]. However, there are still constraints to this advice.
Hillary Clinton tried using simple, credible, unexpected, and concrete language, but
critics called her an angry feminist. In contrast, Elizabeth Dole used credible,
emotional, story-telling language, and many worried she would be too soft as a
leader. In my own study, Snowe, Bachmann, and Palin face the same issues as their
predecessors.
Findings. I found several gender-based constraints to how women must
speak in public: (a) women must speak more masculine when they want to appear
43


competent, (b) women must speak feminine when they want to appear nurturing, (c)
the Republican party allows for more masculine language because the party is based
on patriarchal ideals, (d) gendered language often manifests in metaphor use, (e)
some audiences will accept confrontational styles more than others. Due to these
rhetorical constraints, Republican womens speeches may come across as
inconsistent, disingenuous, or confrontational, and this may explain why there is
criticism surrounding some of their rhetoric.
Embracing Differences
After all of this research into feminine style (how it worked for Elizabeth Dole)
and masculine style (how it didnt work for Hillary Clinton), it may reasonable to
assume that women would do well to find a balance between both styles. Women
like Palin and Bachmann could learn from Snowe how to embrace their femininity,
yet remain mindful of the constraints to each rhetorical situation. Women need to
discern when to be the pit bull and when to wear the lipstick, but its not always at the
same time.
Senator Snowes Strategies
Snowe has found a way to use both masculine and feminine language and to
break free from Lakoffs polarized metaphors. She does so by consistently using two
rhetorical strategies:
1. In all things, continually show competency, but mix in nurturing language:
a. by influencing other leaders
b. discussing mens issues
c. highlighting academic achievements
d. relating motherhood to crisis-prevention (Jenson, 2008)
2. Use sticky rhetoric, a blend of both masculine and feminine language:
44


a. credible
b. concrete
c. unexpected
d. simple
e. story-telling
f. emotional (Corman, Trethewey, & Goodall, 2008, p. 174)
Snowe actually has a creative way of combining these two strategies to work in her
favor. When she discusses mens issues (like the economy), she also blends in the
two feminine sticky characteristics of story-telling and using emotions. However,
when she discusses womens issues (like education or welfare), she hardens them
by using more of the masculine sticky characteristics: credible (she quotes experts),
concrete (she uses numbers), and simple (short sentences, uncomplicated
metaphors). In addition, Snowe borrows from Lakoffs nurturant-parent model when
she wants to appear caring, and she borrows from the strict-father model when she
wants to appear competent. In this way, Snowe offers some clues as to how to break
the double-bind. We have a long way to go, but the Senator from Maine has
remained in Congress since 1979, so she must be doing something right.
Suggestions for Further Research
I have spent the last 44 pages attempting to answer my research questions:
Is the current state of conservative womens political rhetoric in the United States
confrontational? How do Lakoffs metaphor models explain masculine and feminine
language styles? Is Senator Snowe an example of how to embrace gender
expectations in political speech and manipulate things like feminine style and
Lakoffs metaphors to work in her favor? In general, I have been able to partially
answer each question. First, I found that my three subjects were confrontational in
45


their response to President Obamas jobs speech. It could be that the very nature of
speaking out against an incumbent President during an economic crisis and during
an election year is a more aggressive genre of speech to begin with. It could also be
that my three subjects are trying to fit into the strict-father model of Republican
politics. The women understand they need to be masculine to show they can adhere
to the Party ideology of discipline and tough love. Second, I have found gender
expectations still create a double-bind for women who aspire to high levels of public
office. Third, I have offered some ideas for breaking the binds by observing the
rhetorical success of Senator Snowe; yet, there is a great need for more research in
this area.
What I have not answered are some deeper, more personal questions: Is
Republican really a dirty word? As Sarah Palin declared, Say it aint so, Joe! Are
we stiletto-cons, new breeds of conservative babes, or are we competent, qualified
women who could run this country no matter what type of shoes we choose to wear?
Is using masculine language a help or a hindrance? How can Republican Women
do their gender right? (Ames et. al, 2011). Is there a way to blend mamma grizzly,
hockey mom, iron lady, ex-beauty queen, and super mom with congresswoman or
even commander-in-chief? With more qualitative and quantitative research into this
area, my hope is that the answer will soon be a resounding Palin favorite, You
Betcha!
46


APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Rep. Bachmanns Washington D.C. Speech Transcript (8 Sep 2011)
Unfortunately, it seems, every time the President speaks, his policies have cost the
American people jobs and future prosperity.
Tonight the President under the veil of one of the most sacred deliberative forums, a
joint session of Congress, delivered another political speech where he doubled down
on more of the same policies that are killing the economy.
Mr. President, what among your proposals was new? What here hasnt already been
tried and failed before?
While the Presidents speech comes on the heels of a trillion dollars of failed
stimulus, bailouts, and temporary gimmicks aimed at creating jobs, the President
continued to cling to the idea that government is the solution to creating jobs.
My conservative colleagues and I have been fighting over the last two and half years
for pro growth policies.
I stand here tonight to say to the President, not only should Congress not pass your
plan, I say, stop; your last plan hasnt worked, its hurting the American economy.
Instead of temporary fixes, do what has proved to work in the past, permanent pro
growth policies that are driven by the free market.
Today, unemployment is 9.1 percent. Job creation has literally been zeroed out with
the worst jobs report in 66 years this last month. Since the Presidents failed trillion
dollar stimulus we have lost over 2.5 million jobs while adding 416,000 government
jobs. One in six Americans is now on food stamps, and the average time
unemployed Americans are out of work is greater than 40 weeks. Housing values
have fallen 19% from 2008 to the first quarter of this year. GDP growth was an
anemic .4% in the first quarter and at 1% in the last and the dollar has lost 12
percent of its value.
These are not good times for the American people. Our patience for speeches,
gimmicks and excuses has run out.
The only remedies the President knows are temporary, government directed fixes.
And even if the Presidents plan passes, we already know it will fail. In practice, we
havent paid for his last trillion dollar jobs program and now his latest plan would
have us embrace potentially over $400 billion in new government spending!
Spending taxpayer dollars on extending unemployment benefits has proved to add
47


only 25 cents to GDP for every dollar we spend. Even the Presidents new economic
advisor agrees that extending unemployment benefits discourages future
employment.
Spending taxpayer dollars on extending the payroll tax holiday will reduce over 111
billion dollars to the Social Security trust fund this year and continuation of this policy
will put social security checks to seniors at even greater risk.
Spending taxpayer dollars on more infrastructure projects failed to create lasting jobs
in the last stimulus.
And, looming on the horizon is the full scale implementation of Obamacare that,
according the Congressional Budget Office, will kill 800,000 jobs and steal over 500
billion from Medicare.
Candidate Obama promised to wipe out deficits and the debt. Instead the President
has increased the debt by over 6 trillion dollars, and what do we have to show for it?
Permanent increases in the size of government, spending and debt, with a greater
dependency on government.
Four years ago President Bushs deficit was around 160 billion dollars; today,
President Obamas is nearly ten times that amount.
The President and Vice-Presidents plan to spend us to prosperity has failed. And
worse, they have stolen from a generation of Americans yet unborn, the
consequences of which mean a near certainty of reduced choices and a dramatically
downsized lifestyle for future generations from what we enjoy today.
Generational theft is a moral and ethical issue, and I care deeply about both the
present generation and generations to come.
The President is politically paralyzed and philosophically incapable of doing what
needs to be done.
I do agree, the President should take immediate action. But it is the nine following
steps that will put us on a path to economic growth and put Americans back to work;
1) Repatriate American business dollars earned from overseas,
2) Massively cut spending and the size of government,
3) Repeal Obamacare, which is the government takeover of Americas healthcare
system,
4) Cut taxes, including corporate taxes,
5) Repeal Dodd-Frank,
6) Repeal job killing regulations,
7) Increase exports by finalizing free trade agreements,
48


8) Spur new investment in America, inspire innovation,
9) Provide job creating energy solutions, including decreased regulations on
developing new energy supplies from our abundant domestic energy resources.
The way forward needs to be based on permanent solutions grounded in the private
sector. That is how we will once again restore economic prosperity to our country.
God Bless the United States of America.
49


APPENDIX B: Gov. Palins Iowa Speech Transcript (4 Sep 2011)
Thank you, Iowa. Thank you so much. The sign that says, Thank you, Sarah, no, I
thank you. You are what keeps me going, keeps so many of us going. Your love of
country keeps us going. Thank you so much. Iowa, you are good people. You are all
good people who are here. Thank you.
It is an honor to be in the Heartland sharing this Labor Day weekend with you. And I
thank you so much for the invitation, to these organizers who put so much work into
all this. Its so good to see the 04P and C4P people here today. Last night was fun -
getting to run into some of you at that restaurant and to see so many different
demographics represented and so many different states all across our great nation.
We got to gather together last night different demographics, different political
parties even represented and Todd reminded me as we walked out of that room,
he said, See, were not celebrating red America or blue America. Were
celebrating red, white, and blue America.
So, what brought us here today out in this field? Why arent we catching a Cyclones
game, or watching the Hawkeyes perhaps, or grilling up some venison and corn-on-
the-cob, maybe some caribou with some friends on this Labor Day weekend? What
brought us together is a love of country. And we see that America is hurting. Were
not willing to just sit back and watch her demise through some fundamental
transformation of the greatest country on earth. Were here to stop that
transformation and to begin the restoration of the country that we love.
Were here because America is at a tipping point. America faces a crisis. And its not
a crisis like perhaps a Midwest summer storm the kind that moves in and hits hard,
but then it moves on. No, this kind will relentlessly rage until we do restore all that is
free and good and right about America. Its not just fear of a double dip recession.
And its not even the shame of a credit downgrade for the first time in U.S. history.
Its deeper than that. This is a systemic crisis due to failed policies and incompetent
leadership. And were going to speak truth today. It may be hard-hitting, but were
going to speak truth today because we need to start talking about what hasnt
worked, and were going to start talking about what will work for America. We will talk
truth.
Now, some of us saw this day coming. It was three years ago on this very day that I
spoke at the GOP Convention where I was honored to be able to accept the
nomination for vice president that night. And in my speech I asked America: When
the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away... .what
exactly is [Barack Obamas] plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after
hes done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make
government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from
Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. I spoke of
50


this, but back then it was only my words that you had to go by. Now you have seen
the proof yourself. Candidate Obama didnt have a record while he was in office, but
President Obama sure does, and thats why were here today.
Candidate Obama pledged to fundamentally transform America. And for all the
failures and the broken promises, thats the one thing he has delivered on. Weve
transformed from a country of hope to one of anxiety. Today, one in five working-age
men are out of work. One in seven Americans are on food stamps. Thirty percent of
our mortgages are underwater. In parts of Michigan and California, theyre suffering
from unemployment numbers that are greater than during the depths of the Great
Depression. Barack Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, and instead he turned
around and he tripled it. And now our national debt is growing at $3 million a minute.
Thats $4.25 billion a day.
President Obama, is this what you call winning the future? I call it losing losing
our country and with it the American dream. President Obama, these people these
Americans feel that fierce urgency of now. But do you feel it, sir?
The Tea Party was borne of this urgency. Its the same sense of urgency that
propelled the Sons of Liberty during the Revolution. Its the same sense of urgency
that propelled the Abolitionists before the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement
during the 20th Century. The Tea Party Movement is part of this noble American
tradition. This movement isnt simply a political awakening; its an American
awakening. And its coming from ordinary Americans, not the politicos in the Beltway.
No, its you who grow our food; you run our small businesses; you teach our children;
you fight our wars. We are always proud of America. We love our country in good
times and in bad, and we never apologize for America.
That is why the far lefts irresponsible and radical policies awakened a sleeping
America so that we finally understood what it was that we were about to lose. We
were about to lose the blessings of liberty and prosperity. So, the working men and
women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer
stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the
streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box. And as
much as the media wants you to forget this, Tea Party Americans won an electoral
victory of historic proportions in November. We the people, we rose up and we
rejected the lefts big government agenda. We dont want it. We cant afford it. And
we are unwilling to pay for it.
That victory, remember friends, was only one step in a long march towards saving
our country.
We sent a new class of leaders to D.C., but immediately the permanent political
class tried to co-opt them because the reality is we are governed by a permanent
51


political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government
spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable
debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they
spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and
they claim that they faced and solved the debt crisis that they got us in, but when
we were humiliated in front of the world with our countrys first credit downgrade,
they promptly went on vacation.
No, they dont feel the same urgency that we do. But why should they? For them
business is good; business is very good. Seven of the ten wealthiest counties are
suburbs of Washington, D.C. Polls there actually and usually I say polls, eh, theyre
for strippers and cross country skiers but polls in those parts show that some
people there believe that the economy has actually improved. See, there may not be
a recession in Georgetown, but there is in the rest of America.
Yeah, the permanent political class theyre doing just fine. Ever notice how so
many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously
throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, its because
they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money to taxpayer
dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies,
and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so
much waste. And there is a name for this: Its called corporate crony capitalism. This
is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and
ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and
government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate
welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europes economies. Its the
collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all
the rest to the little guys. Its a slap in the face to our small business owners the
true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, its
you who own these small businesses, youre the economic engine, but you dont
grease the wheels of government power.
So, do you want to know why the permanent political class doesnt really want to cut
any spending? Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done? Its because
theres nothing in it for them. Theyve got a lot of mouths to feed a lot of corporate
lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good
times and the money rolling along.
It doesnt surprise me. Ive seen this kind of crony capitalism before. Its is the same
good old boy politics-as-usual that I fought and we defeated in my home state. I took
on a corrupt and compromised political class and their backroom dealings with Big
Oil. And I can tell you from experience that sudden and relentless reform never sits
well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. So, please you must vet a
candidates record. You must know their ability to successfully reform and actually fix
problems that theyre going to claim that they inherited.
52


Real reform never sits well with the entrenched special interests, and thats why the
true voices of reform are so quickly demonized. Look what they say about you. You
are concerned civilized citizens and look what they say about you. And just look what
happened during the debt-ceiling debate. Wed been given warning after warning
that our credit rating would be downgraded if politicians didnt get serious about
tackling the debt and deficit problem. But instead of making the real cuts that are
necessary, they used Enron-like accounting gimmicks, and they promised that if they
were just allowed to spend trillions more today, theyd cut billions ten years from
now. By some magical thinking, they figured they could run up trillion dollar deficits
year after year, yet still somehow avoid the unforgiving mathematics that led to the
downgrade. Well, they got a rude awakening from the rest of the world, and thats
that even America isnt too big to fail.
When we finally did get slapped with that inevitable downgraded, the politicians and
the pundits turned around and blamed us independent commonsense
conservatives. We got blamed! They called us un-American and terrorists and
suicide bombers and...hobbits...couldnt understand that one.
And what is the Presidents answer to this enormous debt problem? Its just spend
more money. Only you cant call it spending now. Now you got to call it investing.
Dont call it spending. Call it investing. Its kind of like what happens with FEMA
and some of these other bureaucratic agencies that dont really want to refer to our
centralized federal government as government. Now its called the federal family.
Am I too old to ask to be emancipated? Never thought Id say it, but I want a divorce.
No, the Presidents answer to our debt problem is: Incur more debt. Spend more
money (only call it investing). Make more folks even more reliant on government to
supply their every need. This is the antithesis of the pioneering American spirit that
empowered the individual to work, to produce, to be able to thrive and succeed with
fulfillment and with pride; and that in turn built our free and hope-filled and proud
country.
He wants to Win The Future by investing more of your hard-earned money in
some harebrained ideas like more solar panels and really fast trains. These are
things that venture capitalists will tell you are non-starters, yet he wants to do more
of them. Were flat broke, but he thinks these solar panels and really fast trains are
going to magically save us. Hes shouting all aboard Obamas bullet train to
bankruptcy.
The only future that Barack Obama is trying to win is his own re-election, and he has
shown that hes perfectly willing to mortgage our childrens future to pay for it. And
there is proof of this. Just look closely at where all that green energy stimulus
money is invested. See a pattern. The Presidents big campaign donors got nice
returns for their investments in him to the tune of billions of your tax dollars in the
form of green energy stimulus funds. The technical term for this is pay-to-play.
53


Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses
security and green energy giveaways, he took care of his friends. And now theyre
on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over
again. Are you going to let them do it all over again? Are you willing to unite to do all
we can to not let them do it again so we can save our country?
Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and
we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their
investments? We need to know this because our country cant afford more trillion-
dollar thank you notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts
to the heart of our problem. And I speak from experience in confronting the
corruption and the crony capitalism since starting out in public office 20 years ago.
Ive been out-spent in my campaigns two to one, three to one, five to one. (And, by
the way, I dont play that game either of hiring expert political advisors just so theyll
say something nice about me on TV if you ever wonder. You know how that
games played too Im sure.) But the reason is simple: Its because like you, Im not
for sale. Its because we believe in the free market. I believe in the free market, and
that is why I detest crony capitalism. And Barack Obama has shown us cronyism on
steroids. It will lead to our downfall if we dont stop it now. Its a root that grows our
economic problems. Our unsustainable debt and our high unemployment numbers
and a housing market thats in the tank and a stagnant economy these are all
symptoms. Politicians are so focused on the symptoms and not the disease. We will
not solve our economic problems until we confront the cronyism of our President and
our permanent political class.
So, this is why we must remember that the challenge is not simply to replace Obama
in 2012. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. Its not enough
to just change up the uniform. If we dont change the team and the game plan, we
wont save our country.
Yes, we need sudden and relentless reform, and that will return power to We the
People. This, of course, requires deeds, not just words. Its not good enough for
politicians to just be throwing our way some vague generalities, talking about some
promises here and there. Its time that we hold them accountable. It is amazing to me
that even some good conservatives run away from being honest and straight up with
us about what needs to be done. They dont want to rock the boat. They cant hurt
future election prospects evidently. They just talk vaguely about cuts and then they
move on. Theyre too busy saying what they think we want to hear, but instead they
should be telling us what needs to be said and what needs to be done. So, let us
today in this field have that adult conversation about what needs to be done to
restore America. Lets do that now.
In five days time, our President will gift us with yet another speech. In his next
speech hell reveal his latest new super-duper jobs plan. It will have more lofty
goals and flowery rhetoric, more illogical economic fantasies and more continued
54


blame and finger-pointing. But listen closely to what he says. All of his solutions will
revolve around more of the same more payoffs for his friends and supporters. His
plan is the same as its always been, and thats grow more government, increase
more debt, take and give more of your hard-earned money to special interests. And
this is such a problem. But you know what the problems are. We could go on all day
about the problems caused by the status quo in Washington. Status quo I think is
Latin for more of the same mess that were in. That status quo wont work any
more. We could go on all day about the problems, but you know them because you
live them everyday. So, lets talk about real solutions. I want to tell you what my plan
is. My plan is a bona-fide pro-working mans plan, and it deals in reality. It deals in
the way that the world really works because we must talk about what really works in
order to get America back to work.
My plan is about empowerment: empowerment of our states, empowerment of our
entrepreneurs, most importantly empowerment of you our hardworking individuals
- because I have faith, I have trust, I have respect for you.
The way forward is no more politics as usual. We must stop expanding an out-of-
control and out-of-touch federal government. This is first: All power not specifically
delegated to the federal government by our Constitution is reserved for the states
and for we the people. So, lets enforce the 10th Amendment and devolve powers
back locally where the Founders intended them to be.
Second, what happened to all those promises about staying committed to repealing
the mother of all big government unfunded mandates? We must repeal Obamacare!
And rein in burdensome regulations that are a boot on our neck. Get government out
of the way. Let the private sector breathe and grow. This will allow the confidence
that businesses need in order to expand and hire more people.
Third, no more run away debt. We must prioritize and cut. Cancel unused stimulus
funds, and have that come to Jesus moment where we own up to the debt challenge
that is entitlement reform. See, the reality is we will have entitlement reform; its just
a matter of how were going to get there. We either do it ourselves or the worlds
capital markets are going to shove it down our throats, and well have no choice but
to reform our entitlement programs. The status quo is no longer an option.
Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our
commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future
generations. I dont think anything has irked me more than this nonsense coming
from the White House about maybe not sending our seniors their checks. Its their
money! They have paid into Social Security all of their working lives; and for the
President to say, ah, we may not be able to cut their checks, ah, well, where did all
their money go, politicians? Its like the Commander-in-Chief being willing to throw
our military under the bus by threatening that their paychecks may not arrive. But the
politicians will still get their checks and their secure retirements, and hell still get his
posh vacations. Arent you just sick to death of those skewed priorities? Its all
55


backwards. Our seniors and our brave men and women in uniform being used as
pawns I say its shameful, and enough is enough. No more.
Fourth, it is time for America to become the energy superpower. The real stimulus
that weve been waiting for is robust and responsible domestic energy production.
We have the resources. Affordable and secure energy is the key to any thriving
economy, and it must be our foundation. So, I would do the opposite of Obamas
manipulation of U.S. supplies of energy. Drill here, drill now. Let the refineries and
the pipelines be built. Stop kowtowing to foreign countries and dictators asking them
to ramp up production and industry for us, promising them that well be their greatest
customer. No, not when we have the resources here. We need to move on tapping
our own God-given natural resources. I promise you that this will bring real job
growth, not the politicians phony green jobs fairy dust sprinkled with wishes and
glitter... No, a hardcore all-of-the-above energy policy that builds this indestructible
link between made-in-America energy and our prosperity and our security. You
know, there are enough large conventional natural resource development projects
waiting for government approval that could potentially create more than a million
high-paying jobs all across the country. And this is true stimulus. It wouldnt cost
government a dime to allow the private sector to do these. In fact, these projects will
generate billions of dollars in revenue. Can you imagine that: a stimulus project that
actually helps dig us out of debt instead of digging us further into it! And these are
good-paying jobs, and I know that from experience. For years my own family was
supported (as Todd worked up on the North Slope) by a good energy sector job.
Americas economic revival starts with Americas energy revival.
Fifth, we can and we will make America the most attractive country on earth to do
business in. Heres how were going to do this. Right now, we have the highest
federal corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Did you know our rates
are higher than China and communist Cuba? This doesnt generate as much
revenue as you would think, though, because many big corporations skirt federal
taxes because they have the friends in D.C. who right the rules for the rest of us.
This makes us less competitive and restrains our engine of prosperity. Heck, some
businesses spend more time trying to figure out how to hide their profits than they do
in generating more profits so that they can expand and hire more of us. So, to make
America the most attractive and competitive place to do business, to set up shop
here and hire people here, to attract capital from all over the globe that will lead to an
explosion of growth, instead of chasing industry offshore, I propose to eliminate all
federal corporate income tax. And hear me out on this. This is how we create millions
of high-paying jobs. This is how we increase opportunity and prosperity for all.
But heres the best part: To balance out any loss of federal revenue from this tax cut,
we eliminate corporate welfare and all the loopholes and we eliminate bailouts. This
is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare,
which is just socialism for the very rich. We can change all of that. The message then
to job-creating corporations is: Well unshackle you from the worlds highest federal
56


corporate income tax rate, but you will stand or fall on your own, just like all the rest
of us out on main street.
See, when we empower the job-creators, our economy will soar; Americans will get
back to work.
This plan is a first step in a long march towards fundamental restoration of a strong
and free market economy. And it represents the kind of real reform that we need.
And, folks, it must come from you. It must come from the American people. Real
hope is in you. Its not that hopey-changey stuff that we heard about back in 2008.
Weve all learned that. And real hope isnt in an individual. Its not in a politician
certainly. And that hopey-changey stuff that was put in an individual back when
Barack Obama was a candidate that hopey-changey stuff didnt create one job in
August, did it? Thats the first time thats happened in the United States since World
War II. Real hope comes from you. Real hope comes from realizing that we the
people can make the difference. And you dont need a title to make a difference. We
can get this country back on the right track. We can do it by empowering the people
and realizing that God has richly blessed this most exceptional nation, and then we
do something about that realization.
Dont wait for the permanent political class to reform anything for you. They wont.
They cant. They cant even take responsibility for their own actions. Our credit is
downgraded, but its not their fau\t. Our economys in turmoil, but its not his fault. Its
the tsunami in Japan or the Middle East uprising. Its Irene. Its those doggone ATM
machines.
Folks, the truth is Barack Obama is adrift with no plan because his fundamental
transformation is at odds with everything that made this country great. It doesnt
make sense. He doesnt make sense. Unbelievably our President declares that he
believes in American Exceptionalism... just as the Greeks believe in Greek
Exceptionalism. Well, the path he has us on will make us just as exceptional as
Greece, alright with the debt crisis and the stagnation and the unemployment and
uprisings and all.
Friends, you are better than that. Our country is better than that. Weve got to unite.
Weve got to stand together. We can confront the problem and we can achieve
lasting reform. And I can tell you from hard-earned experience with bumps and
bruises along the way, that the road ahead is not easy. You will be demonized.
Theyll mock you. Theyll make things up. Theyll tell you to go to hell. But well bite
our tongue, well keep it classy, and we wont respondas tempting as it isto
anyone who just has such disdain for our free market economy and for individual
initiative and responsibility. We wont say, No, you go to hell. No, we wont say that.
You know why we dont have to say that? Because when we have time-tested truth
and logic on our side, we win. And when we refuse to retreat because we know that
our childrens future is at stake, we win.
57


No, the road isnt easy, but its nothing compared to the suffering and sacrifice of
those who came before us.
A few weeks ago, after my visit to the Iowa State Fair, I took my daughter Piper and
my niece McKinley with us to the World War I Liberty Memorial in Kansas City. And
standing in the rain, reading the inscriptions on the Memorial about the honor in
ones dedication to God and country, I thought of all those young patriots who
suffered and died so far from home. And revering our vets there with the next
generation by my side, there was such clarity clarity in our calling, patriotic
Constitutionalists. We have a duty not just to the living, but also to those who came
and died before us and to the generations yet to be born. Our freedom was
purchased by millions of men now long-forgotten throughout history who charged the
bayonets, and they charged the cannons; they knew they were going to die, but it
was worth it for them sacrificing for future generations freedom. Theyre the ones
who prayed in the trenches and suffered in the P.O.W. camps. They gave their lives
so that we could be here today.
You and I are blessed to be born the heirs of freedom. As President John F.
Kennedy said, We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.
We are the heirs of those who froze with Washington at Valley Forge and who held
the line at Gettysburg, who freed the slaves to close a shameful chapter, and who
carved a nation out of the wilderness. We are the sons and daughters of those who
stormed the beaches of Normandy and raised the flag at Iwo Jima and made
America the strongest, the most prosperous, the greatest nation on earth forever in
mankinds history the greatest, most exceptional nation.
America, we will always endure. We will always come through. We will never give up.
We shall endure because we live by that moral strength that we call grace. Because
though weve often skirted a precipice, a Providential Hand has always guided us to
a better future. So, let us seek that Hand once more. Our Ronald Reagan said, If we
ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under. Yes,
He shed his grace on thee, America! We will not squander what we have been given!
We will fight for freedom. We will fight for America. We are at the tipping point.
United we must stand. And we shall nobly save, not meanly lose, this last best hope
on earth.
So, God bless you, Iowa! God bless the United States of America!
58


APPENDIX C: Senator Snowes Press Release (8 Sep 2011)
Tonight, the President opened the conversation our nation requires to address the
most pressing crisis facing American families, and that is how to create jobs in our
economy. While the Presidents engagement on this urgent matter is long overdue,
finally Congress and the Administration can begin the process of working through
specific proposals, reconciling the differences, and doing what is necessary to
rejuvenate our nations economic environment so we can get the more than 14
million unemployed Americans back to work.
For the past two years, I have urged this Congress and the Administration to put a
laser-like focus on job creation. As the President discussed tonight, extending the
payroll tax cut, providing incentives for employers to hire military veterans, and using
existing Highway Trust funds for expedited road and bridge projects are all good
proposals that will help foster job creation. However, I will strongly oppose any effort
to pay for the Presidents initiatives by raising taxes on the job-creating small
business owners that serve as the backbone of our economy. Raising taxes in this
environment will quash any hope of beginning the kind of jobs recovery our economy
so desperately needs. Instead, the key to emerging from this unemployment crisis is
for Republicans and Democrats to work together to create an environment conducive
to unleashing private sector investment, a willingness to take risks and hire new
workers.
At the root of this crisis is the stark lack of a climate conducive to job creation. In
Maine, I have convened business roundtables, met with small business owners, held
Main Street tours and talked with people from all walks of life. Without exception,
potential job creators are yearning for predictability, consistency and permanence in
the policies emanating from government. Too many onerous regulations, too few
incentives, and a tax code too complex are all suppressing the entrepreneurial spirit
intrinsic to our nation.
The boldest jobs agenda that will undoubtedly help our economy recover will consist
of creating a climate ripe for productivity, higher employment, and individual
prosperity. Washington must embark on meaningful regulatory reform. Small
businesses, simply by the nature of their size, currently face an annual regulatory
cost of $10,585 per employee and shoulder a regulatory compliance cost more than
30 percent higher than larger firms. Leveling that field for small business could save
an average $32,000 for a 10-person firm which is enough to hire one additional
person. Across our economy, that would open opportunities for millions of people.
Another national stumbling block for our economy is the U.S. tax code. Its complexity
and anti-competitive nature distorts business decisions, creates uncertainty among
potential employers, and impedes job creation and economic growth. Over the past
two years, the Senate Finance Committee has held a great number of hearings
59


dealing specifically with tax reform, so we have more than enough guidance on how
this can be undertaken. Moving forward expeditiously on comprehensive tax reform
that is fair, simplified, pro-growth, and encourages savings and investment will send
a solid signal to our nation that we are open for business.
And the failure of our government to enforce current trade law and call China to
account for its currency manipulation undercuts true competition and undermines
American businesses. The Presidents calls for new trade agreements must be
preceded by strict enforcement of existing trade agreements, otherwise we face a
recipe for disaster and higher unemployment in the United States. The President
said we must make sure our trading partners play by the rules and that is something
I firmly advocate including urging the Commerce Department to investigate China
for currency manipulation. Recent reports indicate enforcing fair trade provisions
when it comes to some of these violations would support the creation of more than
two million U.S. jobs and reduce the deficit by more than $70 billion a year.
We face historic challenges, but without question we are still the greatest nation on
Earth and will succeed in overcoming this crisis if we work together in both the short-
term and lay a solid foundation for our future. Like the President and my colleagues, I
share a positive vision rife with ideas, initiatives and investments to position our
nation to lead the world. Greater emphasis must be placed on educating our young
people in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We must establish and
pursue specific energy policies that meet the demands of today and shift us toward
what is clean and efficient for tomorrow. Besides rebuilding critical road and bridge
infrastructure, our nation must continue investing in the broadband backbone vital to
harnessing the power of the information age. True leadership requires the vision to
address challenges before they become they crises, and it is long past time
Congress and the President get to work and embark on a substantial agenda that will
result in job creation.
60


REFERENCES
Bachman, M. (2011). Bachmanns Response to President Obamas Speech to a
Joint Session of Congress. Bachmann Press Release. Retrieved from:
http://bachmann. house.gov/news/email/show.aspx7l D=CAY4ICAGBYDOUF
VFWVCWVYNYV4
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Blakenship, J. & Robson, D. (1995). A feminine style in womens political
discourse: an exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly, 43, 353-366.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1 (1), 1-14.
Burnett, D. (2006, April 14). Olympia Snowe: Caretaker. Time. Retrieved from:
http://www.time.eom/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183967,00. html
Campbell, K. K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist
rhetoric. New York: Greenwood Press.
Camia, C. (2011, December 30). Michele Bachmann: No policy skeletons. USA
Today.Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-
29/michele-bachmann-iowa-caucuses-interview/52278340/1
Coates, J. & Pilcher, P. (2011). Language and gender: a reader. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender
differences in language. NY: Pearson.
Corman, S., Trethewey, A., & Goodall, H.L. (2008). Weapons of mass persuasion:
strategic communication to combat violent extremism. NY: Peter Lang
Publishing, Inc.
Dasani, N. & Roy, S. (2009). Gendered language. Counter Currents. Retrieved from:
http://www.countercurrents.org/roy051109.htm
Edwards, G. (2003). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Folbre, N. (2001) The Invisible Heart: economics and family values. New York:
The New Press.
61


Gabrielson, T. (2005,). Obstacles and opportunities: factors that constrain elected
officials ability to frame political issues. In F. Schnell and K. Callagan (Eds.).
Framing American politics (pp. 76-99). PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Gutgold, N. (2007). Hillary Clinton's masculine communication style just might win
the prize. Womens Media Center. Retrieved from: http://www.tmth-
out.org/article/nichola-d-gutgold-hillary-clintons-masculine-communication-
style-just-might-win
Gutgold, N. (2009). Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton "won" in 2008.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Jamieson, K. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. NY: Oxford
University Press.
Jensen, J. (2008). Women political leaders: Breaking the highest glass ceiling. NY:
Palgrave & Macmillan.
Kiran, S. (2011, July 3). Thatcher heads poll of most competent PMs. financial
times.com. Retrieved from: http://www.ft.eom/cms/s/0/d4e23a0c-a3f9-11e0-
8b4f-00144feabdc0. htm l#axzz 1R5 B1 AzaY.
Klien, S. & Farrar, M. (2009). The diatribe of Ann Coulter: Gendered style,
conservative ideology, and the public sphere. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Gender
and political communication in America (pp. 63-85). Lanham: MD: Rowman
and Littlefield Inc.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and a womans place. NY: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics'. What conservatives know that liberals dont.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and war, again. Alternet. Retrieved from:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15414
Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the
debate. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
62


Lakoff, G. (2008, September 1). The Palin choice and the reality of the political mind.
The Huffington Post online. Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-palin-choice-and-
the_b_123012.html
Lipstick on a pig: Attack on Palin or common line? (2008, September 10). CNN
Politics. Retrieved from: http://artides.cnn.eom/2008-09-
10/politics/campaign.lipstick_1_mccain-campaign-john-mccain-swift-
boat/2?_s=PM: POLITICS
Lupo, S. (2009). History of the mafia. NY: Colombia University Press.
Marshall, B. & Mayhead, M. (2000). Navigating boundaries: The rhetoric of women
governors. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
McGinley, A. (2009). Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing
gender, race, and class on the campaign trail. Denver University Law Review
709. Retrieved from http://law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-
review/mcginley.pdf
Muder, D. (2005). Red family, blue family: making sense of the values issue. Internet
Gurus.Retrieved from: http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html
Palin, S. (2010, January 14). Palin: Reid "driving a bus that is headed towards a train
wreck. Media Matters for America. Retrieved from:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001140061
Palin, S. (2011). Sarah Palins Iowa speech transcript. The Palin Express. Retrieved
from: http://thepalinexpress.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/sarah-palins-iowa-
speech-transcript/
Parry-Giles, S. & Parry-Giles D. (1996). Gendered politics and presidential image
construction: A reassessment of the feminine style. Communication
Monographs, 63, 337-353.
Phillips, B. (2011, October 11). Scorecard: October 11.2011 Republican debate.
Mrmediatraining. Retrieved from:
http://www.mrmediatraining.com/index.php/2011/10/11/scorecard-october-11-
2011-republican-debate/
Reagan, M. (1997). The city on a hill: fulfilling Ronald Reagans vision for America.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., Inc.
Reiser, K. & Denney, J. (2009). Crafting a feminine presidency: Elizabeth Doles
63


1999 presidential campaign. In J. Edwards (Ed.). Gender and political
communication in America (pp. 41-61). Lanham: MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Inc.
Resnick, S. (2011, October 19). Bachmann says she will protect moms from home
foreclosure, but her voting record suggests otherwise. American
Independent. Retrieved from:
http://www.americanindependent.com/200064/bachmann-says-she-will-
protect-moms-from-foreclosure-but-her-voting-record-suggests-otherwise
Richardson, S. (1998). Why do women make hopeless economists? (or fail to
succeed playing man-made economics by mens rules). Journal of Applied
Economics and Policy. The Economic Society of Australia, 17 (1), 32-41.
DOI: DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-3441.1998.tb00168.x
Rifkind, L. (2000). Breaking out of the circle: An analysis of the gendered
communication behaviors of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Netanyahu. The Social
Science Journal, 37, 611-618.
Sanprie, V. (2010). Sarah Palin, live and on the web: The critical analysis of online
texts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, United States --
Colorado. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full
Text.(Publication No. AAT 3387525).
Schreiber, R. (2008). Righting feminism: Conservative women and American politics.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Snowe, O. (2011). Sen. Snowe reaction to POTUS jobs speech. Snowe Press
Release. Retrieved from:
http://snowe. senate. gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=6
d1b9200-222c-4ffb-ba62-f6438ac3c0e8&ContentType_id=ae7a6475-a01f-
4da5-aa94-0a98973de620&Group_id=2643ccf9-0d03-4d09-9082-
3807031 cb84a&MonthDisplay=9&YearDisplay=2011
Spiker, J. (2011). Motherhood, God, and country: Sarah Palins 68 days in 2008. In
M. McKinney and M. Banwart (Eds.). Communication in the 2008 election
(pp. 240-254). NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Steinmetz, K. (2010, May 14). Sarah Palin loves animal metaphors. Time:
Swampland. Retrieved from: http://swampland.time.com/2010/05/14/sarah-
palin-loves-animal-metaphors/#ixzz1dH9fMUEA
Stretton, H. (2000). Economics: a new introduction. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.
64


Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: Ballentine.
van Dijk, T. (1995). What is political discourse analysis? Key-note address Congress
Political Linguistics. Antwerp, 7-9 -December 1995. In J. Blommaert & C.
Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997.
Vincent, T. (2008). The problem with metaphors. The Spectacle. Retrieved from:
http://www.spectacle.org/1208/vincent.html.
Wickham, D. (2011, February 14). Maine centrist paved the way for senator Snowe.
USA Today online. Retrieved from:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-15-
column15 ST1 N.htm
65


Full Text

PAGE 1

CONSERVATIVE WOMEN AND CONSTRAINTS TO POLITICAL SPEECH: by Michelle C. Ruehl B.A., United States Air Force Academy, 2003 M.A., NorthCentral Uni versity, 2010 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts English 2012

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Michelle C. Ruehl has been approved by Michelle Comstock Advisor Joanne Addison Amy Vidali Date : March 15, 2012

PAGE 3

Ruehl, Michelle C. (M.A., English) Conservative Women and Constraints to Political Speech: Gendered Language and of the Economic Thesis directed by Professor Michelle Comstock ABSTRACT Recent critics have suggested Republican women in politics have a confrontational style of speech, whic h goes against the societal expectation that women sh ould use c however, because women i n politics face what Kathleen Hall Jamieson calls a they speak to masculine, they are seen as ov erly aggressive. In this thesis, I examine three speeches by Representative Michele Bachmann, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Governor Sarah Palin. Each of these conservative women delivered a employed Senat or Snowe balanced both masculine and fe minine language, and she provides an example of how women can break the double bind and strategically manage what

PAGE 4

features to appear competen recommend its publication. Approved: Michelle Comstock

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I w ant to thank Mi chelle Comstock for being an encouraging m entor and a patient guide I would also like to thank Joanne Addison and Amy Vidali I am grateful for what you have each taught me about writing and rhetoric and what it means to be a strong woman.

PAGE 6

vi i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. Method.. Politi cal Discourse Analysis ... 4 Research Questions Research Texts ... ... 7 s 7 obs .. 7 . 8 Basic Definitions Ba Researcher Bias .. 10 2. POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND GENDERED LANGUAGE Feminine and Masculine Styles ................... 12 Example 1: Hillary Clint on ... 1 3 Example 2: Elizabeth Dole .. 1 4 Limitations to Gendered Language Theory...

PAGE 7

vii i 3. LAKOFF AND POLITICAL FRAMING The Basics of Framing Blue versus Red Framing ... 19 Strict Father Model ... 20 Nurturant Parent Model ..22 A New Hybrid Metaphor Model ... 4. A NALYSIS OF GENDERED LANGUAGE AND FRAMING P olitical Framing.. ... ........ 25 Hero vs. Villain ... ............ ............ .. ..... .......26 Mother Knows Best ... .. I dent ifying with other Mothers Mother Superior: Protecting the Next Generation ... 30 Frames? ....... ....... .......... .. .. ......... 32 .. . 3 2 G 33 Federal Family ... 3 3 Politics as War: Refuse to Retreat .. .. 3 4 Mafia: Crony Capitalism ..3 5 How Sticky are Her Frames? ............ ....... ...... ....... ......3 6 .. 3 7

PAGE 8

viii i S .. 37 Nation as a Person . 3 7 Nation as a Business . 39 Economy as an Environment ... .. 39 T he Caretaker How Sticky ar e Her Frames? ........................... ...........41 Lak 41 5. FRAC TURING THE BINDS Embracing Differences .. .. .44 S APPENDICES S WASHINGTON D.C. SPEECH TRANSCRIPT (8 SEP 2011) ...... ................... ............................................................ ............. 47 S IOWA SPEECH TRANSCRIPT (6 SEP 2011) .... ...................... ............................ ............. .............................. 50 WASHINGTON D.C. PRESS RELEASE (8 SEP 2011) ... .......................................................... ............................. 58 ...................................... ......................... ... .................................... 61

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 CRITICISM OF REPUBLICAN RHETORIC er of female conservative women who capitalize on a combination of sexual attractiveness and confrontational rhetorical style in order to gain When people hear that I spent the last two summers volunteerin g in orphanages in Nepal, building schools in Ghana, and teaching English in Tanzania, they automatically assume I am a bleeding hearted Democrat. This summer, I spent time with several Danes, and one evening they brought up the notion of universal healthc market, and how we p ay half as much as Danes do in taxes (Danes pay 50% of their income to the federal government in exchange for free healthcare and education), so we in the U.S. are free to use that extra money to buy our own healthcare or pursue higher education. Still ast head yes, to which s out of touch, and extreme! When My Danis h friends are not the only ones who have criticized Republican women lately. For instance, some conservative women like Sarah Palin have been

PAGE 10

2 Bazaar (Klien & Farrar, 2009, p. 65). More recentl y, Spiker (2011, p. 248) posited that during and sharp attacks that confronted [my emphasis] and challenged Democrat research claim Republican women use a confrontational style Are the most well known Republican women really using an offensive rhetorical style that makes them (and, consequently, all Republican women) lose credibility? T o answer some of these questions, I look at two areas of interest that gender and language, which suggests there are masculine and feminine rhetorical styles and American society generally expects women to use feminine and men to use masculine styles. Second, George Lakoff (2004) posited that in American as there are specific linguistic and rhetorical moves that each camp makes to support their political belief s Essentially, liberals use a more feminine style and conservatives use a masculine style. In my own research, I chose three prominent, currently relevant conservative s to evaluate the use of gendered as metaphors in political talk and text. I turn to three Republican women who deal

PAGE 11

3 closely (as legislators and activists) with political rhetoric: Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, Senator (M E) Olympia Snowe, and Representative (MN) Michele Bachmann who was until six weeks ago in the running for the GOP nomination to have found all three speakers use language th at could make them appear confrontational, but one woman is able to strategically use rhetoric to embrace gender expectations rather than run from them. In the end, Senator Snowe has shown by her four terms over 31 years in Congress that she has found a ba lance between confrontational and caring rhetoric. She sets the example for how Method women, I contend there is still a sense of gender inequality in American politics. And when I work along side international aid workers, doing the exact same tasks as me, carrying the same children though waste filled orphanag es, and I face criticism for being part of there is some misconception about Republican women. It may be that the two criticisms are related. The rhetoric Republican women use is often aggressive, which may cause listeners to view them as confrontational. To test this theory, I look at how speeches. The very act of speaking out in public against the President i s part of its own sub genre of political speech, but for the purpose of this paper, I use the

PAGE 12

4 singular incident as a case study in Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) of how the three women used language in public discourse. Political Discourse Analysis S c holar George Lakoff (2009; as cited in Dasani & Roy par. 3 ) claimed, it grapples with que stions pertaining to political power, abuse of power or power or counter inequality that results from su metaphor models and use gender specific language, there exists domination. Ultimately, PDA is an amalgamation of theo ries relating to rhetoric, generative linguistics, critical theory, and cognitive linguistics, and so it is the perfect theory to discourse. Research Questions This paper will help fill in the recent gaps and answer the questions: United States confrontational ? If so, what are some of the consequences to this style of speech? metaphor models explain masculine and feminine language styles and do my research subjects fit into his proposed models?

PAGE 13

5 RQ3: Is Senator Snowe an example of how to embrace gender expectations in political speech and manipulate things like feminine style a metaphors to work in her favor? By studying three particular speeches, I will see what they suggest about based constraints to how women must speak in public. Due to these rhetorical c onstraints, Republican come across as inconsistent, disingenuous, or confrontational, and this may explain why there is criticism surrounding some of their ors by strategically integrating both masculine and feminine language while maintaining national success as a congresswoman. There have been many studies into The Rhetoric of Women Gover nors (Marshall & Mayhead, 2000), Right Wing Women (Bacchetta & Power, 2002) as well as articles dissertations about Sarah Palin and the media in communications studies (Sanprie, 201 0; Spiker, 2011), but overall there is a paucity of research surrounding conservative rhetoric in the last five years. This thesis will only look at three current and specific texts because it is not feasible to study all conservative rhetoric. Within thes e t hree texts, however, I begin a discussion of the major constraints to iscourse in the United States.

PAGE 14

6 Research Texts In studying these three women, I turned to Lloyd Bitzer (1968) for some guidance on text selection Bitz the most pressing conditions right now in the United States demanding attention is specifically, in September, 2011, President Obama held a press c onference to explain his broken economy. After the president delivered this speech, a maelstrom of political responses flooded the airwav es, newspapers and internet highways, including a press release by Senator Snowe, a public rebuttal by Rep. Bachmann, and several an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an o bstacle, something waiting to Bachmann, Ms. Palin, and Ms. Snowe. Three Republican Responses to The following excerpts are just the opening lines of the three texts I chose to analyze, but it is easy to pick out some confrontational language within the first fifty words (to see the full texts, turn to the appendices). F or example, Representative Governor Palin uses passionate language when she uses words lik

PAGE 15

7 not confront the President directly; rather, she uses more passive language when Unfortunately, it seems, every time the President speaks, his policies have cost the American people jobs and future prosperity. Tonight the President under the veil of one of the most sacred deliberative forums, a joint session of Congress, delivered another political speech where he doubled down on more of the same policies that are killing the economy. Mr. President, what y been tried and failed before? (http://bachmann.house.gov, 2011, Appendix A) ike perhaps a Midwest summer storm the kind that moves in and hits hard, but then it moves on. No, this kind will relentlessly rage until we of a double dip recession. And i hard (http:// www.thepalinexpress.com 2011, Appendix B ) Tonight, the President opened the conversation our nation requires to address the most pressing crisis facing American famili es, and that is how to matter is long overdue, finally Congress and the Administration can begin the process of working through specific proposals, reconciling the differences, and environment so we can get the more than 14 million unemployed Americans. back to work (http://snowe.senate.gov, 2011, Appendix C ) Constraints: Can These Women Answer Freely? Bitzer claims a rhe torical situation breaks down into three elements: (a) exigency, (b) audience and (c) constraints. C onstraints

PAGE 16

8 the power to constrain decision and actio n needed to modify the exigence (Bitzer, 1968, p. 8). Som e of the most common (p. 8), which is the orator enters the situation, his discourse not only harnesses constraints given by situation but provides additional important constraints for example his personal character, his logical proofs, a nd his style. style of language conservative women can use in public discourse, and this can become either a barrier to overcome or an opportunity for success. Success, of course, is a subjective term, but in the c ase of American politics, but I define success as the ability to win elections. This interpretation may seem pessimistic purpose of this paper, I will focus on something measureabl e: electability. For instance, Senator Snowe has been re elected to the Senate three times (regional success). In contrast, Gov. Palin was re elected as Governor of Alaska (regional success), but she did not help McCain win the presidency (did not have nat ional success), and Rep. Bachmann was re elected to the House two times (regional success), but she did not make it past round one in the national Republican primary. regi onal, and finally to the national political stage.

PAGE 17

9 Basic Definitions Political framing an issue or confli (Edwards, 2003, p. 159). Metaphor structure the ordinary conceptual system of Johnson, 1980, p. 1). Gendered language Tannen (1990, p. 15) found there are both feminine Gender based constraints political speech: if women speak too feminine they are viewed as incompetent, but if they speak to masculine, they are seen as overly aggressive. Political party constraints Pol itical parties have both gender and cultural rhetorical expectations. The Republi can Party is andro ce ntric but the Democratic Party is more gender neutral. A s a result, Republicans generally use more masculine like education or healthcare. Lakoff created the strict father model to show how conservati ves think about politics and how they us e language to preserve a patriarchal system. He also introduced the nurturant parent model to show how liberals think, and why they use language that is nurturing and non confrontational.

PAGE 18

10 Balancing Masculine and Feminine Language Is Sticky Rhetoric the solution? To break free of what Jamieson (1995) dubs the best rhetoric is that which transcends gender, or at least borrows the best from both worlds. Research shows that to get an idea to s tick to an audience, the rhetoric unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) emotional, and (f) story containing (Corman, Trethewey, & Goodall, 200 8, p. 174). The firs t four language (simple, novel, credible, and concrete), but the last two definitely have a stickiness of each Republican woman, i.e. how she balances mascu line and feminine language. Researcher Bias In an article about quantitative metaphor analysis, Schmidt (2003) warned am a Republican. I am what rubs people the wrong way. Ultimately, I analyze three speeches for gendered ese constraints. In the end Republican women discuss the economic crisis, so the next time I hear that Republican women are stiletto con babes with confrontational language, I will have some rese arch based knowledge to join the conversation.

PAGE 19

11 CHAPTER 2 POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND GENDERED LANGUAGE Naturally, one characteristic that separates Palin, Bachmann, and Snowe from other politicians is their gender, which, PDA would posit, is a major constraint to a rhetorical situation because there are gender di fferences in political language. Tannen (1990, p. 15) argued that men and women communication styles. Women use words and conversation to build and maintain relationships with other people, find support, and reach consensus; they essentially owever, men use words to show intelligence, build or maintain autonomy and gain s ocial status. Tannen (1990) also posited as more women are moving into positions of authority, they face unique challenges. She claimed that if women try to speak like men, th ey are judged harshly for being too manly She also distinguished between rapport talk and report talk, claiming women use language to express affiliation and rapport, while they shy away from conflict because it threatens relationships. In contrast, men u se report talk, where they put themselves on display, and they ar e often aggressive When women speak more masculine in public, but they will be criticized by men for violating gender expectations and scrutinized by women if they appear to act superior to other women. While Tannen provides useful research into

PAGE 20

12 does not provide any practical information as to how women can integrate both of these distinct styles in public political speeches. Feminine and Masculine Styles (Blakenship & Robson, 1995). Initially, Robin Lakoff (1 975) (as cited in Jamieson, hedges (i.e. ). Her ultimate conclusion was that women are victims sil enced by a male dominated linguistic society. In contrast to Lakoff, Jennifer Coates (2004, 2011) they are powerless victims; rather, women use hedge words to show cooperative ness with others. Building on the work of Lakoff (1975), Campbell (1989) and Jamieson (1995), by both men and women in politics. The main features of this feminine style i nclude: (a) Using concrete, lived experience to express political judgment (b) Valuing inclusivity (c) Viewing public office as a place to empower others (d) Looking at policy from a holistic viewpoint The following two examples show how Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole tried to integrate a feminine style into their political campaigns. While Clinton is a Democrat and I am only analyzing Republican speeches, the criticism surrounding her public

PAGE 21

13 discourse has contribute gendered language, so I include her in my research. Both of these women ran for ruthless, gender related critic ism. Example 1: Hillary Clinton Rifkind (2000) built on the work of Blakenship & Robson (1995) when he posited Clinton had two major constraints in her public speech: (a) sex role expectations and (b) cultural expectations. He alleged Clinton insulted non working Rifkind, 2000, p. 614). Her comments provoked criticism; The Philadelphia Inquirer (as cited in Jamie prone, power when women are too out When Clinton ran for the 2008 presidential nomination, some scholars even cGinley (2 009, p. 717) said Hillary feminine, they are deemed incompetent. If they are too masculine they are

PAGE 22

14 rates high on a masculinity scale, the general public expects both men and women to use language that shows competency as well as comp assion and tenderness. Ex ample 2 : Elizabeth Dole Often hailed for employing her feminine charm in a strategic manner is former North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole. The senator did not shy away from her feminine side, and in fact, she often highlighted her femininity in her publi c speeches. wa woman,. .it was considered a noble thing to do. And today young people are turning n America. Dole was also known for addressing her audience as peers, using first names, and crediting her audience with her success. The most strategic move Dole made, however, was actually non verbal; she little maneuver, walking amidst her audience, and pausing to speak in front of individuals. Nichols (as cited in Reiser, with the audience Oprah style performance that traded substance for Southern charm, family l ore, and nostalgia for an America

PAGE 23

15 Dole is hailed for being a compassionate, compet ent speaker, she faced reprehension at times for her softer side, and even her Liddy stroll because she become President (Reiser, 2009, p. 53). Her greatest assets then, becam e her greatest constraints. Limitations to Gendered Language Theory Feminine Language: Just a Band Aid? Clinton and Dole show feminine rhetorical style is alive and well in political discourse, but Parry Giles and Parry Giles (2006) warn that this style m ay not be the ultimate way for women to fit in to the patriarchal political system. They look at five presidential campaigns and conclude protected and safe by masculine rmore, Reiser (2009, p. 44) argues: how a candidate would act in an executive position. more difficult for a woman to run for an executive office than a legislative office because of voter perceptions about the chief executive role and its associations with strong masculinity. According to Trent and Friedenberg, become more judgmental, potentially increasing the challenge women face as they seek out the highest office in the land. Once again, we see the double bind of gender expectations. Apparently, it is acceptable for women in some political positions to use feminine language, but as they move up to the office of President, women s

PAGE 24

16 we know however, women also cannot appear as The second problem Parry Giles and Parry Giles (1996) find with feminine language is that women often get marginal ized in the political process when they use should utilize feminine language because the America n public has come to expect political forthrightness and exposure (expressing rather than camouflaging), Parry o more dialogue and to feminize politics, but it may just be a Band Aid, a quick fix. In short, feminine style may not feminize politics at all, but simply put a lip g lossy coat of feminine words right on top of patriarchal ideas, themes, and images. into their rhetoric. There were consequences to this strategy, however, and while they were su ccessful at the regional level Ms. Clinton and Ms. Dole were not successful at the national level. Clinton won several primary caucuses in 2008, but dropped out of the primary race five months before the election, while Dole dropped out before the 2000 primaries even began. Their stories are imperative to my research, however, and in chapter four, I show how Rep. Bachmann, Governor Palin, and Senator Snowe learned from some of their mistakes.

PAGE 25

17 CHAPTER 3 LAKOFF AN D POLITICAL FRAMING rames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out polices. .. Reframing changes the way the public sees the If we acknowledge there is a difference between masculine and fem inine language, how might this play out in a political speech? The two most prominent ) and the use of of an wor th 80%, then it is a great place to start analysis. George Lakoff is known for this type of work, especially in his book The Political Mind understanding political ideologies. The idea is that aud ience members listen to the meanings of their message exchanges through an emerging, flexible framework constituted in language through an ongoing process of retrospect ive sense making, Goodall, 2008, p. 31). Essentially, the American public has a political unconscious,

PAGE 26

18 values The Basics of Framing We use frames in everyday discourse. For instance, if you talk about a sitive connotation) enerosity. A problem arises, however, due to the unconscious nature of framing: sometimes people do not realize the metaphors they live by, and when they face conflict, they wonder why they feel certain emotions like anger, frustration, or sadness. For exa other person frames it in the form of a sports game, the chances are the that first (Muder, 2005). When people do not recognize the metaphor frameworks they employ, they will not be able to communicate with other people effectively Example of framing. those opposed people may even have mixed views on issues, or what views, so the burden falls upon the speaker to activate certain attitudes or behaviors

PAGE 27

19 analyze how Ms. Bachmann primes her audience by using two major frames: (a) Government versus the people (or Hero vs. Villain) and (b) Mother knows best. In each case, Bachmann uses specific words to stir the hearts and minds (i.e. cognitively activate unconscious biconceptual values) of her audience. Blue versus R ed F raming There are differences between the way Republicans and Democrats frame variou s issues. In general, Democrats cluster around the issues of social welfare, social insurance, and civil rights, the key words being: empathy, accountability, responsibility, equality, fairness, and opportunity (Edwards, 2003; Lakoff, 2008). In contrast, R epublicans tend to rally around cultural values, civil liberties, and foreign relations (Edwards, 2003), the key words being: responsibility, accountability, independence, hard work, and obedience to authority Notice, however, that both parties claim to v audience to hold biconceptual views on these two ideas. For instance, to overstepping its bounds and to avoid me ddling in the lives of people on Main Street; protect and empower the public through social programs (Lakoff, 2008, p. 115). The job, then, falls on the speaker to frame his or her policy so as to conjure up one of these definitions in the minds of the audience, based on their party line.

PAGE 28

20 In the mid 1990s, Lakoff began to question the unconscious metaphors prevalent in American poli tics. He assumed there must be a reason liberals and conservatives think they way they do. Why would conservatives oppose abortion, but support the death penalty? Lakoff analyzed the words and phrases of each party, and began to see a common theme to both: The Nation as Family metaphor. Both political parties view the government as a parent who teaches, punishes, and rewards its children (citizens). This is where the similarities end, however, because each party has a different sub roost, and he uses discipline (individual responsibility instead of social programs) to ensure his children ( society) grow up to be obedient, educat ed (via standardized testing) and prosperous (low tax has two parents who nurture, support (provide social programs), communicate with, and inspire children (society) to want to be responsible (envi ronmentally friendly), sharing (high tax paying) citizens who are part of a larger diverse community. Muder s original sin, and Strict Father M odel people, if left

PAGE 29

21 often do things they do not like to do if they know it will earn them rewards or avoid punishment (Lakoff, 1996, p. 35) In this model, just as a strict father keeps moral order, so should political figures. There are four key points: (a) maintaining order is essential to morality, (b) authority figures provide protection, (c) authority figures can dole out dis cipline to help people learn to behave righteously, and (d) authority figu res must use their power to help produce the right kind of people in society. In also several metaphorical premises: morality is strength, community is family, and moral authority is parental authority the world is fu ll of good and evil; to face up to evil, one must be morally strong if someone is morally weak, he or she will succumb to evil; and therefore, self control, obedience, and self denial are forms of ultimate morality people should obey authority figures lik e they sh ould obey parents Republicans adhere to a strict father mentality, and their language usually represents this ideology. For example, Republicans often want less government or his immediate family. This often leads to metaphors like morality is discipline and morality is prosperity which is why many conservatives say social programs are is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: or is seen as more masculine, so it makes sense language is masculine.

PAGE 30

22 Nurturant Parent model The second moral and metaphorical system Lakoff defines is the nurturant consist of two parents who share responsibilities and provide strength and courage to childr en and teach them empathy and responsibility for others. Children do not obey out of fear, but out of mutual respect for the nurturing authority figures. The ultimate goal is not discipline and prosperity, but rather self nurturance, community contribution and a fulfilling life. In this model, the community is family, and community leaders have the responsibility to support others in need. The prevailing metaphors include: morality is empathy, morality is self nurturance and then nurturance of others, mora lity is happiness and morality is fair distribution and equality of opportunity T hese metaphors explain why Democrats think social programs are a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. nation as family metaphors are based o 1991) four parenting styles: (a) authoritarian, (b) authoritative, (c) permissive, and (d) uninvolved. First authoritarian is the root of the strict father model. This type of parenting style is strict; parents rule with an iron fist and the leading mantra might be authoritative is a parenting style where the leaders are less punitive and more supportive (Baumrind, 1991). Parents lay out rules, but they are more democratic than authoritarian types, and t needs, complaints, and wishes. Lakoff claims the authoritative styl e is the basis of his nurturant parent metaphor, but this is where I find a discrepancy. In psychology, the authorita tive style is accepted as the ideal way o f parenting, so it would seem

PAGE 31

23 Lakoff is a bit biased in claiming liberals fit this ideal mold. Instead, some liberal politicians fit the third parenting style, permissive This type of parent is lenient, iberal model to me). The parent acts more like a friend than a disciplinarian Limitations to as lowing critique: president is like being a single parent who adopts a busload of eight year olds from abusive families, all with behavioral problems out the wazoo. As president yo u get a mere eight years to nurture or discipline these walking bundles of neuroses before you have to hand them off to a completely new foster parent. To make your job even harder, the kids know you will be out of their lives after four or eight years (un less they can accuse you of high crimes and misdemeanors) and so they have zero incentive to mind you in any way shape or form. (Vincent, 2008, para. 3) perfect. The very f in a position incongruous with strict father morality, where the man is supposed to be the head of the home. Instead, women like Palin rise up to take the place of the strict father, so somet to come up with a more appropriate metaphor for Republican women, I turn to the same research Lakoff used to design his own: developmental psyc hology. Instead of the strict father there might be a new way to view the new conservat ive woman. A New Hybrid Metaphor Model as authoritarian liberal s as perm issive, and the new Republican woman as

PAGE 32

24 authori tative This modern woman must lear n to balance her language within her frames. She has to show enough concern and care to show she is listening to her in chief. S he is not the strict father, nor is she the nurtu rant co parent. She must play the role of mother (caretaker) and father (protector). At times she might need to play basketball with her son, so she puts on her court shoes but she does not play that role all the time; rather, she has discernment to know when to act feminine and when to act masculine. She has to create a sense of security in her children; she is assertive, but not severe. She wants her children to be self regulated (a conservative value), but also socially responsible (both a conservative and a liberal value). Baumrind (1991) says child ren who grow up in authoritative homes develop into healthy, happy, well adjusted adults. In the same way, if a conservative woman leads the nation as a family with authoritative principles and she communica tes these principles through positive language, she may encou rage a nation of healthy, well adjusted citizens. Although Republicans would normally use the strict father and Democrats would use nurturant family frames, women nd men would use this is not always accurate. In the next Obama and look for instances of both masculine and feminine language. In the end, all three wo men use masculine language in their rebuttal against the President, but they do not always fit the strict father model. Senator Snowe, in particular, blends masculine, feminine, strict, and nurturing language into her speeches.

PAGE 33

25 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF GEN DERED LANGUAGE AND FRAMING carry out polices. .. Reframing changes the way the public sees the Now that I have def ined gendered language, political framing and use of metaphor, we can move on to a rhetorical analysis of political discourse. As Lakoff centric ideology, so women who want to run on the Republican ticket at the national level have to speak with confidence, competency, and conviction (strict father mentality). Herein lies the rub: those attributes are typically considered masculine, so if they speak in this way, they may actual ly appear less compe tent and more Republicans usually permit this rhetorical style as long as it fits into their ideology. However, Democrats who value nurturing language may not respond favorably to masculine rhetoric; instead, the Rep ub lican women come across as confrontational. In the following analysis, I look at this Catch 22 (double bind) and examine the gendered language and metaphor model constraints in Rep. Bachma nn, Snowe, and Political Framing Represen Rep. Bachmann uses several frames in her political speech such as hero/villain, mother knows best, and mother superior.

PAGE 34

26 Hero vs. Villain Speaker Boehner ( R Republican response; yet, Ms. Bachmann went on the record in front of the White House to give her own press release. By overruling her own party, Ms. Bachmann went on the offensive, setting an aggr recession by linking it negati vely to health care legislation and governmen t spending: And, looming on the horizon is the full scale implementation of Obamacare that, according the Congressional Budget Office, will kill 800,000 jobs and steal over 500 billion from Medicare. Candidate Obama promised to wipe out deficits and the debt. Instead the President has increased the debt by over 6 trillion doll ars, and what do we have to show for it? Permanent increases in the size of government, spending and debt, with a greater dependency on government. (Bachmann, 2011) Ms. Bachmann uses conservat boost the econom y. In this speech, Bachmann includes s able to frame the issue of universal healthcare as a negative, unethical concept. Finally, by referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act t the bill becomes personified. It is much easier to create a villain if he has a face and a name. This frame is fairly masculine but some conservative s may not find this framework too aggressive. The Tea Party, in particul ar, has been calling for less

PAGE 35

27 g overnment spending, and limited government involvement, and Bachmann, as t he Tea Party Caucus founder uses langua ge that supports Tea Party concepts while bashing liberal ideas. Therefore, she may get some leeway in gender expectations. Just as we will se e later with Governor Palin, some Republicans may let Bachmann conservative polit ics. Ultimately, those who support her ideology may find her language competent, while those who oppose find her language confrontational. Mother Knows Best Rep. Bachman often reminds her audience that she is a mother of 28 children (5 biological and 23 foster children). At first glance, this seems like the right talking point of raising 28 kids 23 foster children and five biological children society expects women to speak lovingly about their children, when they are running for the highest office in the world, they are also expected to prove their executive convince the audience that she is capable of being the president. bin nurturing and capable of running one of the largest countries in the world? It comes down to proving that she is caring and competent. Jensen (2008) suggests four ways in which women can appear competent in their public speech:

PAGE 36

28 relate motherhood to crisis prevention accentuate substantial academic credentials opposed to education and welfare) influence other world leaders e connected her experience as a mother to that of a crisis manager, or if she carefully integrated words like mother as leader or commander tands how to draw in Jensen, 2008, p. 157). Both Dole and Shipley attempted to bridge the perceived gap between motherhood and leadership. Bachmann could also have learned a lesson from her role model, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the final week before Ms. Bachmann dropped out of the 2012 GOP race, Bachmann stepped up the intensity in her rhetoric in both her speeches and her television commercials. S ict policies) equated motherhood to political leadership in her public speeches. For example, Thatcher once said that

PAGE 37

29 (as cited in Jensen, 2008, p. 157). She strategically linked a feminine role with political prowess. the voting public wants to know the woman who occ upies the highest position in America can be a competent commander in chief. So it would seem that emulating Thatcher would help to prove competency, manner (Titanium mixed with motherhood, iron mixed with sentiment). Consequently, Bachmann just missed the mark, and she left the primary race after finishing last in the Iowa Caucus in early January, 2012. Ident ifying with other M others On October 19, 2 011 the GOP held its sixth debate in Las Vegas, Nevada. At one point moderator Anderson Cooper asked Ms. Bachmann if she thought the s cited in Resnick, 2011). Bachmann responded: these moms. I just want to say one thing to moms all across America foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around. We will turn the e 2011)

PAGE 38

30 In an economy with over 9% unemployment, it would seem that Bachmann was on to something: framing the housing crisis in a way that moms across the country will understand. Why, then, did it not boost her ratings? In this case, it may have been more of a delivery faux pas : when Bachmann looked into the camera to address all the mothers who watch political debates on television, her lower lip quivered, but it was hard to tell if it was genuine emotion. Perhaps the American moms want more than tears; th ey want real solutions Had Bachmann framed her soliloquy for mothers by using words like planners, providers, multi taskers, or problem solvers she may have been able to actually connect with the women who feel they are losing their nests. The frame needed just a bit of linguistic tweaking to make it sound authentic. Mother Superior: Protecting the Next Generation F when she referenced children of this generation and the next in her unauthorized The President and Vice to spend us to prosperity has failed. And worse, they have stolen from a generation of Americans yet unborn, the consequences of which mean a near certainty of reduced choices and a dramatically downsized lifestyle for future generations from what we enjoy today. Generational theft is a moral and ethical issue, and I care deeply about both the present generation and generations to come. (Bachmann, 2011) udience to think not only of their own children (if they have them), but in a broader sense of the children of the future (which should concern value preserving the American drea m for the next generation, insinuating that

PAGE 39

31 Bachmann, as protective mother, knows how to provide for the nation as a family for years to come. Here again, one would expect framing an issue around motherhood would help Bach is another constraint something more than just gender. Bachmann is framing the issues around standard conservative rhetoric and langua ge, but if she is saying the Republican to drop out of the 2012 GOP primary? It could be that she is using inappropriate frames. Ms. Bachmann uses some of the oldest tricks in the book like framing her opponent as a villain or trying to identify with a specific group (mothers), but she did not win the GOP primary nomination, so perhaps she put the cart in front of the horse. What I mean is that she did not need to use frames that p itted her against the Democrat villain Obama so early on in the campaign. A more strategic approach would have been to find language that fit different frames that made her stand apart from her own GOP candidates. She needed to beat out the other Republica ns first before she could take a swing at the current president. Perhaps if she relied more on her experience as a tax lawyer, and framed the economic crisis from a monetary standpoint, she would have won over the frustrated Republicans who are more intere 9 9

PAGE 40

32 devil is in the det How Sticky Are Her Frames ? break free of rhetorical constraints like gender. Bachmann embodies four sticky features on a regular basis: (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete (which are all masculine) and (d) story containing (feminine), but the problem is that she sometimes lacks the final two: (e) genui ne emotion and (d) credibility. To build her credibility, Ms. Bachmann could focus on her achievements and education in tax law, and link those ideas to an actual plan for the economy. Representative Bachmann falls right into what Jamieson (1995) calls the double bind of femininity/competence, which are often taken as mutually exclusive. However, if Bachmann adds just a smidge more feminine style (in the form sincere emotion rather than a titanium spine) and credibility (competent plans of action) into her speeches, she may find a way to break the bind. father model. She self proclaims to have a titanium spine and she tells the American public President Obama has failed (as a father figure) when role of strict father, implement some fiscal discipline and fix the economy because politically paralyzed an d philosophically incapable means is that she is politically proactive and philosophically sound, showing she is

PAGE 41

33 strong in body and mind. Ultimately, Bachmann uses more masculine language than feminine and she fits in to strict father model, so her public image is confrontational. While Bachmann used motherhood frames, Governor Palin uses some more colorful frames, such as a rogue federal family, war, and crony capitalism. Federal Family Palin travels the country giving keynote speeches at Tea Party and ur centralized federal as family metaphor, so it is not as clear cut as Lakoff makes it out to be. Nurturant pa rents are not the perfect amend the federal budget), and thus, end up with uncontrollable children. Palin asks for emancipation, to run away from the nurturant parent mo del (the Obama home), may rebel. it, but I want a divorce Again, Palin is acting more like an unruly woman or a rebellious child than either a member of a strict father or a nurturant co parent family. In some somewhat feminine, though, if you view her behavior in lig ht of a neo conservative

PAGE 42

34 feminist attitude. Schreiber (2008, claims of representation and to give conservative intere sts more legitimacy. That is, (Schreiber, 2008, p. 8). Ultimately, conservative feminism acknowledges and celebrates the differences between men and women. Sarah Palin, a mem ber of Feminists for Life, frequently admits she is part of this feminist movement, and her language reflects it. The framing constraints, then, may not be just related to gender, but also to public mood (Gabrielson, 2005). When it comes to Sarah Palin, th e voting public either loves or hates the gun toting governor turned reality star, and their support ranges from sheer disdain to blind loyalty. In settings like the Tea Party rally (the speech I analyzed), she knows her audience, and knows the public mood is manipulative when speaking to other less emotionally charged audiences. Politics as War: Ref use to Retreat In the 2008 race, as vice In this way, Palin (2011) admits she is antagonistic, a masculine trait. Her aggre ssive language is evident in her speech when she frames the economic debate in terms of physical pain, demonization, war, and sports (Palin, 2011):

PAGE 43

35 We can confront the problem and we can achieve lasting reform. And I can tell you from hard earned experien ce with bumps and bruises along the way, as tempting a s it is to anyone who just has such disdain for our free market economy and for you we have time tested tr uth and logic on our side, we win. And when we refuse femininity I can find in this paragraph is the idea of uniting (cooperativeness) and the framing constraints of gender stereot ypes (women should be sweet and polite) might be positively mediated by the constraint of public mood because the audience to which she directs this harsh rhetoric is part of the conservative base that loves r in a manner with which they can candidates (Spiker, 2011, p. 250). Mafia: Crony Capitali sm In addition to the rogue federal family and politics as war themes, Palin also uses a mafia theme to frame her Jobs Plan speech. The mafia metaphor implies Hence, wh as

PAGE 44

36 (para. 16) in de aling with the economy. She asserts: capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism big business and big finance to the detriment to the rest to the little guys. the true entrepreneurs. Palin turns the id ea of capitalism into a morality issue. She claims the current government allows for backdoor deals and that they rig the system in favor of unethical business is a powerful one because Palin is making the government analogous to an immoral, corrupt form of capitalism. Her frame is mostly masculine in that the mafia itself was a misogynistic, patriarchal system of violence. How Sticky Are Her Frames ? In my analysis of Gov. Palin, I came to the same conclusion as Spiker (2011, that contrasts with the traditional feminine rhetorical style a more aggressive d as she praises Obama for his masculine themes and topics to talk about both feminine (family) and masculine (economy) ideas. She also shows her masculine side by using language that is (a) unexpected, but she does not always use (b) simple, (c) credible, or (c) concrete; rather, she sometimes uses abstract or multi layered framing, which is considered more feminine. Once in a while, however, she also uses metaphors that are (d)

PAGE 45

37 story containing and (e) emotional to show her softer side. Because she does not always use credible, simple, and concrete metaphors, she does not seem as sticky as Bachmann or Snowe. She comes off slightly more masculine in her framing (the conte nt is masculine) than her peers. She floats somewhere between maverick hockey mom and brazen beauty queen, but even critics agree, (Steinmetz, 2010). L Because Palin is overtly masculine in her style and tone of speech, she fits father model. Governor Palin uses frames based on family related use she stands out as being the pants wearer in her relationship, both in her own family, and within the lar ger nation as family structure. This makes her come a cross as exceptionally brazen and confrontational at times Much like Bachmann and Palin, Senator Snowe has faced some gender related and partisan politics constraints. In her speech about the economy, she used four main frames: nation as a person, nation as a business, economy as an environment, and politician as caretake r. Nation as a Person 2003) because it is part of a much larger international community metaphor. In this mega metaphor system, there are friendly nations, antagonistic nations, fa iled states,

PAGE 46

38 rogue states, etc. When politicians talk about national interest, they invoke the idea that just as people should be healthy and strong, so should nations. Lakoff (2003) 3). Taking this one step further, then, one could create the extended metaphor: nation as the economy economy as a person. In one fell swoop, the economy becomes personified, and takes on the traits of a person in an international communi ty. economy nation per son, who has tripped, but, she believes, can find the inner strength to get back up. Snowe takes this metaphor deeper, as she breathes a soul into this economy nation egulations and complex tax codes. The way to revive this suppressed spirit is to lessen the load the economic nation person carries on her small business back. Overall, the nation as an economy as a person metaphor seems to be a combination of both femini ne and masculine style. On the one hand, the metaphor conjures up images of a person who carries a heavy load, and the language masculine theme. On the other hand, as Folbre (2001) said in her book The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values the image of relieving a person of a heavy burden is nurturing, or feminine. The conservative and the liberal public mood about

PAGE 47

39 this complicated metaphor because she balances femininity, partisan politics, and language as she talks about the biggest concern in our country: the economy. The evidence for this? Snowe keeps having regional success (i.e. having been re elected to the S enate three times). Nation as a business Senator Snowe self doors. This nation as a business metaphor leans toward masculine, because because economics is deductive, logical, and analytical (masculine traits) (S tretton, made in every sense, and self playing this androcentric game. Economy is an environment Another metaphor Snowe integrates in to her framing is the economy as an environment. In this framework, environments have limits, and if people push beyond these limits there will be negative, irreversible consequences (Norgaard, 1995). Economies are sustainable only if people keep the ecosy stem of the free market

PAGE 48

40 alive, healthy and within its boundaries. This metaphor fits into the strict father version of politics where morality is discipline. When Snowe says the economic any hope economy. She uses words like pro (para. 3). Her solution to revitalize the free market environment is to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to focus on tax reform and job creation. Overall, the economy as an environment is both masculine and feminine. It is masculine in that as previously discussed, the economy is a traditionally male topic. However, taking care of the environment is of concern to both political parties. Republicans identify with the limits and rules of an ecosystem, so they may support e environment is quashing hope and jobs recovery; whereas, Democrats identity with the nurturing and caretaking of an ecosystem, so they may support her claim that the environment is not healthy. In this way, Senator Snowe uses both masculine and feminine traits in her framing of the economy, and she circumvents some of the framing constraints like gender and party politics. The Caretaker commended Snowe for her focus on local issues to talk to her constituency. Her caretaking nature was evident in her rebuttal to roundtables, met

PAGE 49

41 with small business owners, held Main Street tours, and talked with people from all doubt, what led to her spot on the 2006 Time How Sticky are her Frames? Snowe generally uses all six sticky strategies in her speeches: (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) story containing, and (f) emotional. This is not to say that she is perfect by any means. In th e framing, department, however, Senator Snowe seems to have found a way to implement both masculine and feminine traits into her language, and, subsequently, she seems to face fewer constraints than other conservative women as evidenced by her three terms in the Senate. Yet, this sometimes masculine/sometimes feminine middle of the road Because she uses both masculine and feminine language and she is known for being a c father enough competency to show she can fearlessly lead as a politician. She wants her children to be self regulated (a conservative value), but also socially responsible

PAGE 50

42 (both a conservative and a liberal value). In this way, Snowe borrows positive to create a more appropriate hybrid metaphor. Ultimately, in chapter five, I have conducted a qualitative analysis of three Gov. Palin use masculine framing to discuss their di spleasure with the President, Snowe uses some masculine framing and some feminine framing, so she may appear confrontational in some situations, but considerate in others. Overall Senator Snowe finds ways to prove her compassion and competency. In chapter five, I take a closer look at the style.

PAGE 51

43 CHAPTER 5 FRACTURING THE BINDS eaking softly driven material and following it up with warmer, more empathetic content communicating that she i femininity/competency bind. (Jamieson, 1995, p. 197) So far in this journey, I have analyzed three specific texts and found women are often caugh t in a double bind, where they are not free to be completely feminine or masculine, but they must find some undefined place between the two. Some rhetoric al scholars like Lakoff and Corman et al. suggest using both masculine and feminine language strategic ally by using six sticky traits to make language: (a) simple, (b) credible, (c) unexpected, (d) concrete [all masculine], (e) emotional, and (f) story telling [both feminine]. However, there are still constraints to this advice. Hillary Clinton tried using simple, credible, unexpected, and concrete language, but critics called her an angry feminist. In contrast, Elizabeth Dole used credible, emotional, story telling language, and many worried she would be too soft as a leader. In my own study, Snowe, Bachma nn, and Palin face the same issues as their predecessors. Findings I found several gender based constraints to how women must speak in public: (a) women must speak more masculine when they want to appear

PAGE 52

44 competent, (b) women must speak feminine when they want to appear nurturing, (c) the Republican party allows for more masculine language because the party is based on patriarchal ideals, (d) gendered language often manifests in metaphor use, (e) some audiences will accept confrontational styles more than others. Due to these inconsistent, disingenuous, or confrontational, and this may explain why there is criticism surrounding some of their rhetoric. Embracing Differences After all o f this research into feminine style (how it worked for Elizabeth Dole) assume that women would do well to find a balance between both styles. Women like Palin and Bachmann c ould learn from Snowe how to embrace their femininity, yet remain mindful of the constraints to each rhetorical situation. Women need to same time. S trategies Snowe has found a way to use both masculine and feminine language and to using two rhetorical strategies: 1. In all things, continually show competency, but mix in nurturing l anguage: a. by influencing other leaders b. c. highlighting academic achievements d. relating motherhood to crisis prevention (Jenson, 2008) 2. Use sticky rhetoric, a blend of both masculine and feminine language:

PAGE 53

45 a. credible b. concrete c. unexpected d. simple e. story telling f. emotional (Corman, Trethewey, & Goodall, 2008, p. 174) Snowe actually has a creative way of combining these two strategies to work in her two feminine sticky characteristics of story telling and using emotions. However, by using more of the masculine sticky characteristics: credible (she quotes experts), concrete (she uses n umbers), and simple (short sentences, uncomplicated parent model when she wants to appear caring, and she borrows from the strict father model when she wants to appear competent. In this way, S nowe offers some clues as to how to break the double bind. We have a long way to go, but the Senator from Maine has Suggestions for Further Research I have spent the last 44 pages at tempting to answer my research questions: confrontational language styles? Is Senator Snowe an example of h ow to embrace gender expectations in political speech and manipulate things like feminine style and In general, I have been able to partially answer each question. First, I found that my three subjects were confront ational in

PAGE 54

46 speaking out against an incumbent President during an economic crisis and during an election year is a more aggressive genre of speech to begin with. It could a lso be that my three subjects are trying to fit into the strict father model of Republican politics. T he women understand they need to be masculine to show they can adhere to the Party ideology of discipline and tough love. Second, I have found gender expe ctations still create a double bind for women who aspire to high levels of public office. Third, I have offered some ideas for breaking the binds by observing the rhetorical success of Senator Snowe; yet, there is a great need for more research in this are a. What I have not answered are some deeper, more personal questions: Is we stiletto cons, new breeds of conservative babes, or are we competent, qualified women who could run this country no matter what type of shoes we choose to wear? Is using masculine language a help or a hindrance? How can Republican Women hockey mom, iron lady, e x beauty queen, and super mom with congresswoman or even commander in chief? With more qualitative and quantitative research into this

PAGE 55

47 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: R Unfortunately, it seems, every time the President speaks, his policies have cost the American people jobs and future prosperity. Tonight the President under the veil of one of the most sacred deliberative forums, a joint session of Congress, delivered another political speech where he doubled down on more of the same policies that are killing the economy. tried an d failed before? stimulus, bailouts, and temporary gimmicks aimed at creating jobs, the President continued to cling to the idea that government is the solution to creating jo bs. My conservative colleagues and I have been fighting over the last two and half years for pro growth policies. I stand here tonight to say to the President, not only should Congress not pass your Instead of temporary fixes, do what has proved to work in the past, permanent pro growth policies that are driven by the free market. Today, unemployment is 9.1 percent. Job creation has literally been zeroed out with the dollar stimulus we have lost over 2.5 million jobs while adding 416,000 government jobs. One in six Americans is now on food stamps, and the average time unemployed Ameri cans are out of work is greater than 40 weeks. Housing values have fallen 19% from 2008 to the first quarter of this year. GDP growth was an anemic .4% in the first quarter and at 1% in the last and the dollar has lost 12 percent of its value. These are not good times for the American people. Our patience for speeches, gimmicks and excuses has run out. The only remedies the President knows are temporary, government directed fixes. practice, we have us embrace potentially over $400 billion in new government spending! Spending taxpayer dollars on extending unemployment benefits has proved to add

PAGE 56

48 onl advisor agrees that extending unemployment benefits discourages future employment. Spending taxpayer dollars on extending the payroll tax holiday will reduce over 111 billion dollars to the Social Security trust fund this year and continuation of this policy will put social security checks to seniors at even greater risk. Spending taxpayer dollars on more infrastructure projects failed to create lasting jobs in the last stimu lus. And, looming on the horizon is the full scale implementation of Obamacare that, according the Congressional Budget Office, will kill 800,000 jobs and steal over 500 billion from Medicare. Candidate Obama promised to wipe out deficits and the debt. Instead the President has increased the debt by over 6 trillion dollars, and what do we have to show for it? Permanent increases in the size of government, spending and debt, with a greater dependency on government. t was around 160 billion dollars; today, The President and Vice worse, they have stolen from a generation of Americans yet unborn, the consequen ces of which mean a near certainty of reduced choices and a dramatically downsized lifestyle for future generations from what we enjoy today. Generational theft is a moral and ethical issue, and I care deeply about both the present generation and generat ions to come. The President is politically paralyzed and philosophically incapable of doing what needs to be done. I do agree, the President should take immediate action. But it is the nine following steps that will put us on a path to economic growth and put Americans back to work; 1) Repatriate American business dollars earned from overseas, 2) Massively cut spending and the size of government, system, 4) Cut taxes, inc luding corporate taxes, 5) Repeal Dodd Frank, 6) Repeal job killing regulations, 7) Increase exports by finalizing free trade agreements,

PAGE 57

49 8) Spur new investment in America, inspire innovation, 9) Provide job creating energy solutions, including decrea sed regulations on developing new energy supplies from our abundant domestic energy resources. The way forward needs to be based on permanent solutions grounded in the private sector. That is how we will once again restore economic prosperity to our count ry. God Bless the United States of America.

PAGE 58

50 thank you You are what keeps me going, keeps so many of us going. Your love of country keeps us going. Thank you so much. Iowa, you are good people. You are all good people who are here. Thank you. It is an honor to be in the Heartland sharing this Labor Day weekend with you. And I thank you so much for the invitation, to these organizers who put so much work into getting to run into some of you at that restaurant and to see so many different demographics represented and so many differe nt states all across our great nation. We got to gather together last night different demographics, different political parties even represented and Todd reminded me as we walked out of that room, game, or watching the Hawkeyes perhaps, or grilling up some venison and corn on the cob, maybe some caribou with some friends on this Labor Day weekend? What transformation and to begin the restoration of the country that we love. a crisis like perhaps a Midwest summer storm the kind that moves i n and hits hard, but then it moves on. No, this kind will relentlessly rage until we do restore all that is time in U.S. history. going to speak truth today because we need to start talking a truth. Now, some of us saw this day coming. It was three years ago on this very day that I spoke at the GOP Convention where I was honored to be able t o accept the he government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from

PAGE 59

51 this, but back t hen it was only my words that you had to go by. Now you have seen Candidate Obama pledged to fundamentally tran sform America. And for all the transformed from a country of hope to one of anxiety. Today, one in five working age men are out of work. One in seven Americans are on food st amps. Thirty percent of from unemployment numbers that are greater than during the depths of the Great Depression. Barack Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, and in stead he turned around and he tripled it. And now our national debt is growing at $3 million a minute. losing our country and with it the American d ream. President Obama, these people these Americans ame sense of urgency that propelled the Abolitionists before the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement during the 20th Century. The Tea Party Movement is part of this noble American rican you fight our wars. We are always proud of America. We love our country in goo d times and in bad, and we never apologize for America. America so that we finally understood what it was that we were about to lose. We were about to lose the blessings of l iberty and prosperity. So, the working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and w e ended up at the ballot box. And as much as the media wants you to forget this, Tea Party Americans won an electoral victory of historic proportions in November. We the people, we rose up and we we are unwilling to pay for it. That victory, remember friends, was only one step in a long march towards saving our country. We sent a new class of leaders to D.C., but immediately the permanent political class tried to co opt the m because the reality is we are governed by a permanent

PAGE 60

52 political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and we were humiliated in front of the w they promptly went on vacation. business is good; business is very good. Seven of the ten wealthiest counties are suburbs of Wash ington, D.C. Polls there actually for strippers and cross country skiers but polls in those parts show that some people there believe that the economy has actually improved. See, there may not be a recession in Geor getown, but there is in the rest of America. Yeah, the permanent political class many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, ver they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes v ia earmarks. There is so is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detrim ent of all the rest the grease the wheels of government power. t a lot of mouths to feed a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along. g ood old boy politics as usual that I fought and we defeated in my home state. I took on a corrupt and compromised political class and their backroom dealings with Big Oil. And I can tell you from experience that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. So, please you must vet a

PAGE 61

53 Real reform never sits well with the e true voices of reform are so quickly demonized. Look what they say about you. You are concerned civilized citizens and look what they say about you. And just look what happened during the debt ceiling debate. tackling the debt and deficit problem. But instead of making the real cuts that are necessary, they used Enron like accounting gimmick s, and they promised that if they now. By some magical thinking, they figured they could run up trillion dollar deficits year after year, yet still somehow avoid the unforg iving mathematics that led to the When we finally did get slapped with that inevitable downgraded, the politicians and the pundits turned around and blamed us independent commonsense conservatives. We got blamed! They called us un American and terrorists and to refer to our Spend more supply their every need. This is the antithesis of the pioneering American spirit that empowered the individual to work, to produce, to be able to thrive and succeed with fulfillment and with pride; and that in turn built our free and hope filled and proud country. earned money in some harebrained ideas like more solar panels and really fast trains. These are things that venture capitalists will tell you are non starters, yet he wants to do more ain to The only future that Barack Obama is trying to win is his own re election, and he has to

PAGE 62

54 on course to raise a billion dollars for his re election bid so that t hey can do it all over again. Are you going to let them do it all over again? Are you willing to unite to do all we can to not let them do it again so we can save our country? Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their t o the heart of our problem. And I speak from experience in confronting the corruption and the crony capitalism since starting out in public office 20 years ago. spent in my campaigns two to one, three to one, five to one. (And, by the way, I say something nice about me on TV if you ever wonder. You know how that ecause we believe in the free market. I believe in the free market, and that is why I detest crony capitalism. And Barack Obama has shown us cronyism on economic pro blems. Our unsustainable debt and our high unemployment numbers these are all symptoms. Politicians are so focused on the symptoms and not the disease. We will not solve our economic problems until we confront the cronyism of our President and our permanent political class. So, this is why we must remember that the challenge is not simply to replace Obama to nough for politicians to just be throwing our way some vague generalities, talking about some that even some good conservatives run away from being honest and straight up with future election prospects evidently. They just talk vaguely about cuts and then they should be telling us what needs to be said and what needs to be done. So, let us today in this field have that adult conversation about what needs to be done to In five days time, our President will gift us with yet anot her speech. In his next goals and flowery rhetoric, more illogical economic fantasies and more continued

PAGE 63

55 blame and finger pointing. But listen closely to what he says. All revolve around more of the same more payoffs for his friends and supporters. His more debt, take and give more of your hard earned money to special interests. And this is such a problem. But you know what the problems are. We could go on all day about the problems caused by the status quo in Washington. Status quo I think is ny more. We could go on all day about the problems, but you know them because you is. My plan is a bona fide pro in the way that the world really works because we must talk about what really works in order to get America back to work. My plan is about empowerment: empowerment of our states, empowerment of our entrepreneurs, most importantly empowerment of you our h ardworking individuals because I have faith, I have trust, I have respect for you. The way forward is no more politics as usual. We must stop expanding an out of control and out of touch federal government. This is first: All power not specifically deleg ated to the federal government by our Constitution is reserved for the states back locally where the Founders intended them to be. Second, what happened to all those promises ab out staying committed to repealing the mother of all big government unfunded mandates? We must repeal Obamacare! And rein in burdensome regulations that are a boot on our neck. Get government out of the way. Let the private sector breathe and grow. This wi ll allow the confidence that businesses need in order to expand and hire more people. Third, no more run away debt. We must prioritize and cut. Cancel unused stimulus funds, and have that come to Jesus moment where we own up to the debt challenge that is e to ref orm our entitlement programs. The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future ng has irked me more than this nonsense coming money! They have paid into Social Security all of their working lives; and for the in Chief being willing to throw our military under the bus by threatening that their paychecks may not arrive. But the politicians will still get their checks

PAGE 64

56 backwards. Our seniors and our brave men and women in uniform being used as pawns enough. No more. Fourth, it is time for America to become the energy superpower. The real stimulus We have the resources. Affordable and secure energy is the key to any thriv ing manipulation of U.S. supplies of energy. Drill here, drill now. Let the refineries and the pipelines be built. Stop kowtowing to foreign countries and dictators asking them customer. No, not when we have the resources here. We need to move on tapping our own God given natural resources. I promise you that this will bring real job growth, no of the above energy policy that builds this indestructible link between made in America energy and our prosperity and our security. You know, there are e nough large conventional natural resource development projects waiting for government approval that could potentially create more than a million high government a dime to allow the private sector to do these. In fact, these projects will generate billions of dollars in revenue. Can you imagine that: a stimulus project that actually helps dig us out of debt instead of digging us further into it! And these are good paying jobs, an d I know that from experience. For years my own family was supported (as Todd worked up on the North Slope) by a good energy sector job. Fifth, we can and we will make America the most attrac tive country on earth to do federal corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Did you know our rates as much revenue as you would think, though, because many big corporations skirt federal taxes because they have the friends in D.C. who right the rules for the rest of us. This makes us less competitive and restrains our engine of prosperity. Heck, some b usinesses spend more time trying to figure out how to hide their profits than they do in generating more profits so that they can expand and hire more of us. So, to make America the most attractive and competitive place to do business, to set up shop here and hire people here, to attract capital from all over the globe that will lead to an explosion of growth, instead of chasing industry offshore, I propose to eliminate all federal corporate income tax. And hear me out on this. This is how we create million s of high paying jobs. This is how we increase opportunity and prosperity for all. we eliminate corporate welfare and all the loopholes and we eliminate bailouts. This is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare, which is just socialism for the very rich. We can change all of that. The message then to job l

PAGE 65

57 corporate income tax rate, but you will stand or fall on your own, just like all the rest of us out on main street. See, when we empower the job creators, our economy will soar; Americans will get back to work. This plan is a first step in a long march t owards fundamental restoration of a strong and free market economy. And it represents the kind of real reform that we need. And, folks, it must come from you. It must come from the American people. Real hat we heard about back in 2008. certainly. And that hopey changey stuff that was put in an individual back when Barack Obama was a candidate that hopey changey stuff War II. Real hope comes from you. Real hope comes from realizing that we the a difference. We can get this country back on the right track. We can do it by empowering the people and realizing that God has richly blessed this most exceptional nation, and then we do something about that realization. their his the tsunami in Japan or the machines. make sense. Unbelievably our President declares that he Greece, alright with the debt crisis and the stagnation and the unemployment and uprisings and all. lasting reform. And I can tell yo u from hard earned experience with bumps and bruises along the way, that the road ahead is not easy. You will be demonized. as tempting as it is to anyone who just has such disdain for our free market economy and for individual you when we have time tested truth and logic on our side, we win. And when we refuse to retreat because we know that

PAGE 66

58 those who came before us. A few weeks ago, after my visit to the Iowa State Fair, I took my daughter Piper and my niece McKinley with us to the World War I Liberty Memorial in Kansas City. And standing in the rain, reading the inscriptions on the Memorial about the honor in suffered and died so far from home. And revering our vets there with the next generation by my side, there was such clarity clarity in our calling, patriotic Constitutiona lists. We have a duty not just to the living, but also to those who came and died before us and to the generations yet to be born. Our freedom was purchased by millions of men now long forgotten throughout history who charged the bayonets, and they charged the cannons; they knew they were going to die, but it who prayed in the trenches and suffered in the P.O.W. camps. They gave their lives so that we could be here today. Yo We are the heirs of those who froze with Washington at Valley Forge and who held the line a t Gettysburg, who freed the slaves to close a shameful chapter, and who carved a nation out of the wilderness. We are the sons and daughters of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and raised the flag at Iwo Jima and made America the strongest, the mo st prosperous, the greatest nation on earth forever in the greatest, most exceptional nation. America, we will always endure. We will always come through. We will never give up. We shall endure because we live by that moral strength tha t we call grace. Because ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nat He shed his grace on thee, America! We will not squander what we have been given! We will fight for freedom. We will fight for America. We are at the tipping point. United we must stand. And we shall nobly save, not meanly lose, this last best hope on earth. So, God bless you, Iowa! God bless the United States of America!

PAGE 67

59 Tonight, the President opened the conversation our nation requires to address the most pressing crisis facin g American families, and that is how to create jobs in our finally Congress and the Administration can begin the process of working through specific proposals, reconciling the differences, and doing what is necessary to million unemployed Americans back to work. For the past two years, I have urged this Congress and the Administration to put a laser lik e focus on job creation. As the President discussed tonight, extending the payroll tax cut, providing incentives for employers to hire military veterans, and using existing Highway Trust funds for expedited road and bridge projects are all good proposals t hat will help foster job creation. However, I will strongly oppose any effort creating small business owners that serve as the backbone of our economy. Raising taxes in this environment wil l quash any hope of beginning the kind of jobs recovery our economy so desperately needs. Instead, the key to emerging from this unemployment crisis is for Republicans and Democrats to work together to create an environment conducive to unleashing private sector investment, a willingness to take risks and hire new workers. At the root of this crisis is the stark lack of a climate conducive to job creation. In Maine, I have convened business roundtables, met with small business owners, held Main Street tours and talked with people from all walks of life. Without exception, potential job creators are yearning for predictability, consistency and permanence in the policies emanating from government. Too many onerous regulations, too few incentives, and a tax cod e too complex are all suppressing the entrepreneurial spirit intrinsic to our nation. of creating a climate ripe for productivity, higher employment, and individual prospe rity. Washington must embark on meaningful regulatory reform. Small businesses, simply by the nature of their size, currently face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee and shoulder a regulatory compliance cost more than 30 percent higher than larger firms. Leveling that field for small business could save an average $32,000 for a 10 person firm which is enough to hire one additional person. Across our economy, that would open opportunities for millions of people. Another national stumbling bloc k for our economy is the U.S. tax code. Its complexity and anti competitive nature distorts business decisions, creates uncertainty among potential employers, and impedes job creation and economic growth. Over the past two years, the Senate Finance Committ ee has held a great number of hearings

PAGE 68

60 dealing specifically with tax reform, so we have more than enough guidance on how this can be undertaken. Moving forward expeditiously on comprehensive tax reform that is fair, simplified, pro growth, and encourages s avings and investment will send a solid signal to our nation that we are open for business. And the failure of our government to enforce current trade law and call China to account for its currency manipulation undercuts true competition and undermines Ame preceded by strict enforcement of existing trade agreements, otherwise we face a recipe for disaster and higher unemployment in the United States. The President said we must make sure our trading partners play by the rules and that is something I firmly advocate including urging the Commerce Department to investigate China for currency manipulation. Recent reports indicate enforcing fair trade provisions when it comes to some of thes e violations would support the creation of more than two million U.S. jobs and reduce the deficit by more than $70 billion a year. We face historic challenges, but without question we are still the greatest nation on Earth and will succeed in overcoming th is crisis if we work together in both the short term and lay a solid foundation for our future. Like the President and my colleagues, I share a positive vision rife with ideas, initiatives and investments to position our nation to lead the world. Greater e mphasis must be placed on educating our young people in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We must establish and pursue specific energy policies that meet the demands of today and shift us toward what is clean and efficient for tomorrow. Bes ides rebuilding critical road and bridge infrastructure, our nation must continue investing in the broadband backbone vital to harnessing the power of the information age. True leadership requires the vision to address challenges before they become they cr ises, and it is long past time Congress and the President get to work and embark on a substantial agenda that will result in job creation.

PAGE 69

61 REFERENCES Bachman, M. (2011). Joint Session of Congress. Bachmann Press Release Retrieved from: http://bachmann.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=CAY4ICAGBYDOUF VFWVCWVYNYV4 Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1) 56 95. discourse: an exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly, 43 353 366. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1 (1), 1 14. Burnett, D. ( 2006, April 14). Olympia Snowe: Caretaker. Time Retrieved from: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183967,00.html Campbell, K. K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist rhetoric. New York: Greenwood Press. C amia, C. (2011, December 30). Michele Bachmann: No policy skeletons. USA Today .Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011 12 29/michele bachmann -iowa caucuses interview/52278340/1 Coates, J. & Pilcher, P. (2011) Language and gende r: a reader Malden, MA: Blackwell. Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. NY: Pearson. Corman, S., Trethewey, A., & Goodall, H.L. (2008). Weapons of mass persuasion: strategic communic ation to combat violent extremism. NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Dasani, N. & Roy, S. (2009). Gendered language Counter Currents. Retrieved from: http://www.countercurrents.org/roy051109.htm Edwards, G. (2003 ). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit New Haven: Yale University Press. Folbre, N. (2001) The Invisible Heart: economics and family values. New York: The New Press.

PAGE 70

62 Gabrielson, T. (2005 ). Obstacles and opportunities: factors that constrain elected to frame polit ical issues. In F. Schnell and K. Callagan (Eds.). Framing American politics (pp. 76 99). PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gutgold, N. (2007). Hillary Clinton's masculine communication style just might win the prize. Retrieved from: http://www.truth out.org/article/nichola d gutgold hillary clintons masculine communication style just might win Gutgold, N. (2009). Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton "won" in 2008 Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. J amieson, K. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership NY: Oxford University Press. Jensen, J. (2008). Women political leaders: Breaking the highest glass ceiling. NY: Palgrave & Macmillan. Kiran, S. (2011, July 3). Thatcher heads poll of m ost competent PMs financial times.com Retrieved from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4e23a0c a3f9 11e0 8b4f 00144feabdc0.html#axzz1R5B1AzaY Klien, S. & Farrar, M. (2009). The diatribe of Ann Coulter: Gendered style, conservative ideology, and the public sphere. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Gender and political communication in America (pp. 63 85). Lanham: MD: Rowman and Littlefield Inc. Lakoff, R. (1975). NY: Harper & Row. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics : Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and war, again. Alternet Retrieved from: http://www.alterne t.org/story/15414 Lakoff, G. (2004). debate White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

PAGE 71

63 Lakoff, G. (2008, September 1). The Palin choice and the reality of the political mind. The Huffington Post online. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george lakoff/the palin choice and the_b_123012.html Lipstick on a pig: Attack on Palin or common line? (2008, September 10). CNN Politics Retrieved from: http://articles.cnn.co m/2008 09 10/politics/campaign.lipstick_1_mccain campaign john mccain swift boat/2?_s=PM:POLITICS Lupo, S. (2009). History of the mafia NY: Colombia University Press. Marshall, B. & Mayhead, M. (2000). Navigating boundaries: The rhetoric of women gove rnors Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. McGinley, A. (2009). Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing gender, race, and class on the campaign trail. Denver University Law Review 709. Retrieved from http://law.du.edu/documents/denver university law review/mcginley.pdf Muder, D. (2005). Red family, blue family: making sense of the values issue Internet Gurus.Retrieved from: http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html Palin, S. (2010, January 14). Palin: Reid "driving a bus that i s headed towards a train wreck Media Matters for America Retrieved from: http://mediamatters .org/mmtv/201001140061 The Palin Express Retrieved from: http://thepalinexpress.wordpress.com/2011/09 /04/sarah palins iowa speech transcript/ Parry Giles, S. & Parry Giles D. (1996). Gendered politics and presidential image Communication Monographs 63, 337 353. Phillips, B. (2011, October 11). S corecard: October 11.2011 Republican debate Mrmediatraining. Retrieved from: http://www.mrmediatraining.com/index.php/2011/10/11/scorecard october 11 2011 republican debate/ Reagan, M. (1997). erica. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., Inc.

PAGE 72

64 1999 presidential campaign. In J. Edwards (Ed.). Gender and political communication in America (pp. 41 61). Lanham: MD: Rowman and Littlefield Inc. foreclosure, but her voting record suggests otherwise. American Independent Retrieved from: http://www.americanindependent.com/200064/bachmann say s she will protect moms from foreclosure but her voting record suggests otherwise Richardson, S. (1998). Why do women make hopeless economists? (or fail to succeed playing man Journal of Applied Economics and Policy. The E conomic Society of Australia, 17 (1), 32 41. DOI: DOI: 10.1111/j.1759 3441.1998.tb00168.x Rifkind, L. (2000). Breaking out of the circle: An analysis of the gendered communication behaviors of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Netanyahu. The Social Science Journ al, 37 611 618. Sanprie, V. (2010). Sarah Palin, live and on the web: The critical analysis of online texts Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, United States -Colorado. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Ful l Text.(Publication No. AAT 3387525). Schreiber, R. (2008). Righting feminism: Conservative women and American politics NY: Oxford University Press. Snowe, O. (2011). Sen. Snowe reaction to POTUS jobs speech. Snowe Press Release Retrieved from: http: //snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=6 d1b9200 222c 4ffb ba62 f6438ac3c0e8&ContentType_id=ae7a6475 a01f 4da5 aa94 0a98973de620&Group_id=2643ccf9 0d03 4d09 9082 3807031cb84a&MonthDisplay=9&YearDisplay=2011 Spiker, J. (2011). Mo M. McKinney and M. Banwart (Eds.). Communication in the 2008 election (pp. 240 254). NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Steinmetz, K. (2010, May 14). Sarah Palin loves animal metaphors. Time: S wampland Retrieved from: http://swampland.time.com/2010/05/14/sarah palin loves animal metaphors/#ixzz1dH9fMUEA Stretton, H. (2000). Economics: a new introduction Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.

PAGE 73

65 Tannen, D. (1990). in conversation New York: Ballentine. van Dijk, T. (1995). What is political discourse analysis? Key note address Congress Political Linguistics. Antwerp, 7 9 December 1995. In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11 52). Ams terdam: Benjamins, 1997. Vincent, T. (2008). The problem with metaphors. The Spectacle Retrieved from: http://www.spectacle.org/1208/vincent.html. Wickham, D. (2011, February 14). Maine centrist paved the way for senator Snowe. USA Today online. Retr ieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011 02 15 column15_ST1_N.htm