Virtually all studies on the presidential use of metaphor focus on one particular event and speech. These studies look only at speeches that justify military actions after they have already occurred, and these researchers seek to discover a relationship between the use of the metaphor and the public's support of a military action. In order to analyze the persuasive elements of President Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric in developing popular and Congressional support for war preparation, this study seeks to answer three specific questions. To what extent does Franklin Roosevelt develop a common theme in selected speeches of war preparation immediately prior to World War II? To what extent was Roosevelt's development of this theme persuasive to the American public? What consequences can be anticipated if future presidents or speakers for social movements employ these procedures.

This study seeks to determine the extent to which Jimmy Swaggart's program for defense in 1988 complies with the expectations of the apologia genre. Three discourse media are examined for evidence of denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence. Swaggart's defense is classified as "justificative" in that it seeks approval of actions. Swaggart's motivating drive force is defined as the need to assure the financial success of his ministry. Swaggart's defense is then compared with the past apologies of Nixon, Truman, and Kennedy. It was determined that certain apologies cannot serve as a reference standard if the contextual factors are not similar. There are some rhetorical resources available to religious figures that are not available to politicians.