—Summary and Discussion— Senator Al Franken of Minnesota is a rare politician. He is a former comedic entertainer turned political commentator. When you first see his bio you do not think “influential politician” due to his past occupations. Then you turn to his education and childhood upbringing you see that he is a very intelligent well versed person. Graduating from Harvard University and being one of the original producers to SNL. This unique background gives Senator Franken a unique perspective as a politician and a diverse group of supporters. While looking into Senator Franken, many attribute his success as a political leader to his life work in television before transferring over to politics. Many have said that it has taught him to avoid cameras when and to find them when needed (Cox, 2014). His attitude is one of great confidence never backing down from the decisions he has made and confronting his vote record without shame. Senator Al Franken truly loves to help the people of his state and by doing so he …show more content…
Senator Franken portrayed himself as calm and collective throughout the entire election. He was able to keep this demeanor even with Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, stated that this was a Senate race the Republicans will be targeting to win (Cox, 2014). Senator Franken continued on with his calm demeanor, acting as if he won in a land slide in his last election in 2008, which he only won by 300 votes. He even received criticism for running a boring and staid campaign. As a whole the race for the Minnesota Senate seat lacked interest and enthusiasm, allowing many to give Senator Franken the victory weeks before Election Day (Cox, 2014). The election became so lopsided without action; FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast gave Franken a 97% chance of winning weeks before the end of the election (FiveThirtyEight,
The Speech “Arrogance of Power: Today, I Weep for my Country...” by Senator Robert Byrd is more persuasive. He tries to persuade members of the Senate that the United States was arriving into a imprudent and unnecessary war. His thesis states “Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.” Byrd pleas to both the Senate and the American people in order to positively dispute his argument; this becomes obvious in his use of the cooperative expression in paragraph two. The main argument used is that Byrd impulses the people, the politicians, and citizens of the United States leave the conceited purposes of the War on Terror and concentrate on peaceful diplomacy. In paragraph 11, he writes, "Why
A young man sits solemnly at a desk in front of a wall full of books, holding eye contact with the camera for the briefest of moments before lowering his eyes to the papers before him and beginning his speech. The young man is Ted Kennedy, and the speech he is about to share with the camera and with his viewers will come to be known as the Chappaquiddick speech. Following the car crash that claimed the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, and the court cases, the speech was intended to tell Kennedy's side of the story. He wished to explain his actions to the nation and to seek forgiveness from his people. The speech was televised at 7:30 pm on July 25, 1969, broadcast live from Kennedy's father's library, and reached the roughly 96% of American homes with televisions.
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
The essay that I will be summarizing is called Faith, Truth, and Tolerance In America. The author of this essay is Edward Moore Ted Kennedy. The thesis of this essay is Kennedy’s beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America.
When Lowell Weicker, Jr. took office, doing the “right thing” was the way he planned to navigate his political career. Many politicians, even to this day, lose sight of doing what is right, as what is right may not be what is always politically popular. But for Weicker, doing the “right thing” was the only way. Weicker was a man of honor, an advocator for human rights, an 18-year Congressman/Senator for the United States, and a four-year governor for the State of Connecticut. During his tenure in office, he fought for doing the “right thing”, even if it challenged his political appeal. During his journey throughout the White House and the state capital building, and for that matter any political stop in between, the public might not have always believed in Weicker’s political stance, but he knew his agenda would benefit the majority in the long run. Weicker was a man of principle who fought for what was right, in an arena where many others fight for what favors re-election. Weicker was an unorthodox man, an independent minded person, a man who, when in office, sought for the betterment of Connecticut and for the betterment of the US. He was a man who often was viewed as rebellious, or potentially disruptive to policies and/or ideas, in order to push his political agenda. Weicker was a game changer. Weicker was a maverick.
Barack Obama came on to the political stage in 2004 when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Before this momentous occasion very few people had heard of the Junior Senator from Illinois – he had only been in the Senate for eight months. He titled the speech “The Audacity of Hope” to highlight the strength and resilience of the country and to encourage people struggling to rise out of poverty and despair and help them believe in a better future for themselves, their children, their families and their country.
The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 with the goal to make a distinction between himself and Douglas, and to openly talk about a prognostication for time to come. Unlike Douglas, who had long supported popular sovereignty, under which the settlers in each new territory determine their own place as a slave or free state, Lincoln considered that all states had to be the same in order to become a united country. Although Lincoln’s intentions seemed to be pure, the complication with the speech is that it is not absolutely probable because of the fallacies within its wording. This speech may have appeared to be powerful and even authentic in its upholding points, but the fallacies must be recognized. Among these fallacies are false dilemma, ambiguity, appeal to authority, name-calling, and sequential fallacies.
All throughout Senator Ellison DuRant’s “Shut the Door” speech presented in 1924 in Washington D.C at a congressional debate, he explicitly states the need to stop the steady stream of immigration into America. DuRant reiterates his thesis, uses emotional appeals and questions the image of America in order to pass the Johnson Reed Act.
Polarization has had measurable consequences on the American political system. First and foremost, congress has become an increasingly dysfunctional institution, becoming less capable of passing legislation on salient issues in the modern era (Binder 2015). These issues are exacerbated by the presence of new splits within parties themselves, such as the tea party caucus and later the freedom caucus within the Republican party. This has proved particularly interesting, because from a larger perspective it is not necessarily congruent with the insecure majorities hypothesis – these caucuses will not increase the odds of a majority in the congress. However, they do increase the voice and influence of the caucus in terms of intraparty
Politics, although a very abhorred profession, is a necessity for society, and requires good leaders who make good political decisions for their constituents. Unfortunately, there is always a negative connotation associated with politicians, as they are usually seen as corrupt, lying, and scheming people. There are many dif...
Running for a position of power is a tough thing to do. There are many things to worry about: your image, your policies, and, especially, your voters. While running for Congress is not as stressful as running for president, it has it own set of obstacles: making a “home style,” representing the people well, and making useful public policy. Listening to the words of Richard Fenno, John Ellwood, and Eric Patashnik can make doing these things a whole lot easier.
An example would be a politician who managed to get a major bridge built in their district let the bridge be named after themselves. It would be also a congressmen’s desire to be seen as the cause of benefitting constituents mutually helpful. For candidates who are trying to win an election, the “image” or impression they give has been very important in politics. And through credit claiming, the image of the candidate would definitely give an impact to the people to vote for them. First impressions are extremely important as it is the factor of success or rejection. It shows the personality and how it can come across to voters. Politicians are aware of how the public views them and take years to build trust, make connections, and establish a vision for a community. However, one negative comment or distrustful action can destroy the foundation. There has to be an image of confidence, in order for citizens to trust politicians. As body language plays a significant role in public communications, it delivers a level of comfort leading the public and the standings of their ideas. Politicians must also keep calm in high- pressure situations, such as debates. Strong images must be kept whenever the public’s attention is on them, as every word and movement matters. Since public politicians are constantly in the public eye, image has been important as to how they appear
Their reportage selection is politically important because they determine who and what will have a good opportunity to be the center for political debates and activity. News people with their stories compel political leaders to react to events and conditions on which their viewpoints and platforms would not have been transmitted otherwise. Without media attention, events that the media news offer and the society might have less impact on decision making—or none at all. Situations that might be accepted in unimportant events, they can become intolerable in the fierce of publicity. Consider the case of Senator Lott’s salute at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. Without the public exposure of a particular private situation, Lott’s politi¬cal failure and its consequence would not have occurred. Politicians are heavily aware of the media’s agenda-setting power. That is why they strive immensely to organize and arrange events to give as much appropriate coverage as possible and to avoid detrimental publicity.
On July 27, 2004, Barack Obama made arguably his most important speech, “The Audacity of Hope”, at the Democratic National Convention Keynote Address. These conventions are for political parties to announce a winner for nomination. All the way through his piece, Obama focuses on connecting Americans and himself to the audience. In fact, at the time, Barack Obama was a US Senate candidate for the United States president, and in making this speech, was offered a window for raising his popularity. Throughout “The Audacity of Hope” speech, Barack Obama implements three main devices to raise his political popularity: repetition, abstract language, and structure.
Polls have a role in political campaigns and shaping government policies but recently the reliability of polls have come into question. The Republican polls provided the information to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney that he had a strong chance of winning key battle ground states. The polls showed "he had at least 267 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election" (Hoffman). When watching the election night returns the reality was Romney only received 206 Electoral College votes far away from the magic number needed to win or tie the national election. The candidate’s team used these polls and focused on states that showed a strong chance to gain votes. Romney focused his energy in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both states he eventually lost.