One Man and His Opinion

Jody Seaborn details David Dewhurst’s loss in the race for Texas U.S. senate to Ted Cruz in the 2012 election. In the very opinionated article, “Dewhurstburned by a fire he could no longer control”, Seaborn knocks Dewhurst’s attempts at victory as if they were meager and deserved a loss. Seaborn puts Dewhurst to shame, stating that he is politically arrogant, non-participatory, absent at forums, and an awful public speaker. Whether or not Seaborn’s opinion matters is questionable, but the facts remain: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst lost to Ted Cruz by 14 points in this Texas election.

If Seaborn was attempting to report to Texas citizens, his attempts were a success. The article is written with a clear intention, to state how one man feels about a candidate in Texas. Seaborn fluidly incorporates his opinion among the sea of facts that he presents and does it so that the reader easily interprets the details. A major flaw in his presentation, however is that the article is written with a somewhat overly strong view. Immediately, the reader is able to tell that the author feels distastefully about Dewhurst, but no other aspect of Dewhurst’s success is given. The candidate obviously made it as far as he did on some kind of momentum, but it is this author’s intention to completely mull over any positive points that Dewhurst may have.

On the opposing end, Cruz, the winner of the election, is given a fair amount of praise. It is obvious that Seaborn favors Cruz, but not to the same extent that he dislikes Dewhurst.

The fact that Seaborn critiques Dewhurst without a bit of mercy seems low and arrogant. Anyone can point out a lot of negative points in a person and call it fact, but to compare and contrast Dewhurst’s strengths with his weaknesses would have made a stronger argument. Although Seaborn includes a load of facts to back up his opinion, his writing style comes across as if his opinion is fact. Noting unforeseen occurrences, such as Cruz’s climb to the top, Seaborn adds a “know-it-all” tone to his article. He is full of facts and seemingly knowledgeable of a population consensus of the subject, but Seaborn’s argument could use a little tweaking.