TOW #19 The Myth of JFK

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2013/11/21/the-myth-of-jfk-n1750185/page/2
President worthy of glorification or political con artist? This rather controversial article seems to want to debate president John F. Kennedy's real role in the mid 20th century. This essay starts off relevant, posing plausible questions and presenting facts, but after the halfway point starts to go off on a rant. This essays good logos supports its argument well but it tears itself down with is condescending tone in the second half of its argument. Derek Hunter, the author of this article, starts his argument with some well researched facts and historical events. Hunter brings to light the fact that JFK was not sure for reelection and the idea that he was not involved in all of the positives that he is traditionally associated with. These are all well supported facts and historical contexts that are all relevant and support his argument; but in the next few paragraphs Hunter's argument takes a turn for the worst. In the second half of his essay, Hunter begins to use slandering and degrading diction which devalues his argument. He starts to use words that are meant to attack the former president calling him things like, "despicable" and a, "fraud." This type of slanted diction makes Hunter seem biased and ignorant which renders his pervious argument less effective. Not only does he attack the president, he also attacks his family, even criticizing the placement of their final resting places. Hunter also fails to recognize a counterargument; the opinion that JFK was in fact a good president that accomplished many things. Hunter's diction renders his argument completely ineffective and his lack of recognition for the good things the president has done makes him seem ill researched and cynial.