Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University.

This rhetorical analysis examines the first general election debate from the 2012 U. S. presidential campaign between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Riding a comfortable lead in the polls, expectations were that a decisive debate performance by Obama might put the election out of reach for his Republican challenger. Romney's strong debate showing, however, erased Obama's lead and helped him emerge as a stronger candidate on key issues. Using value analysis as a theoretical lens, this essay considers the ways the candidates appealed to dominant cultural values in their political arguments and contemplates the persuasive role these values may have played toward the perceived outcome of the debate. The analysis highlights commonalities, as well as unique rhetorical differences between Obama and Romney. Obama's major persuasive emphases were on the value premises of efficiency/practicality and equality of opportunity, while Romney appealed strongly to the rejection/mistrust of government authority. Implications for value analysis in political debate messaging are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]