Assignment 1-Burns/Test Campaign - Politics Essay Example
Assignment 1-Burns/Test Campaign
essay sample on "Assignment 1-Burns/Test Campaign"? - Assignment 1-Burns/Test Campaign introduction?? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Assignment 1-Burns/Test Campaign" specifically for you for only $12.90/page
More Politics Essay Topics.
The audience is 800 people concerned with local politics at Montana State University-Billings. The main thesis of the editorial is controversial views on President Bush’s plan of action for the war in Iraq. The argument in this case is an argument about policy. A policy is a plan of action to guide decisions and actions, in this case they are arguing over the policy for the plan of action in Iraq.
The first argument was offered by Republican U.S. Sen. Conrad stating that “President Bush does have a plan for winning the war in Iraq, but he isn’t about to share it with the world”. This argument is begging the question because Sen. Conrad assumes it is true although there is no evidence that it is true
Jon Tester a democrat “replied that Bush’s only plan is to “stay the course,” costing more American lives and billions of dollars, and to pass the war on to the next president, who will take office in January 2009”. John Tester’s argument is post hoc, because by staying on course (with the war in Iraq) we will be costing Americans lives and billions of dollars, and then pass the war on to the next president.
Burns’s next argument stated, “We can’t lose in Iraq. The consequences of losing is too great.” This argument is a slippery slope argument, stating if we lose in Iraq then the consequences will be too great (for the American people) to bear.
Tester argued that “Bush’s only plan is to stay in Iraq at considerable sacrifice to U.S. troops and the federal treasury. We went in under false pretenses. We pulled the troops from Afghanistan and put them in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still running free. The war is costing the U.S. billions of dollars a year that could be better spent on helping middle-class families and small businesses”. This claim is a claim that appeals to emotion because people hear it, acknowledge the facts, the facts hit close to home and the people have favorable emotions and reasons to believe the validity of the claim.
I think both candidates have credibility here. The credibility lies with the beliefs of the American people and their views on the war in Iraq. Both candidates had valid arguments and stated facts to support their arguments. The arguments will help each of them in the election, depending on the views of the people voting. If people are for the war in Iraq then they will vote for Burns. If they are against it they will most likely voted for Tester.
Assignment 2- Coulter and Moore
In Ann Coulter’s article, ‘SORRY’ DOESN’T SEEM TO BE THE HARDEST WORD, she is arguing that the republican party seems to say sorry more than show positive consequences to their actions and decisions and should stop apologizing for legitimately doing their jobs. Ann Coulter believes that the democrats are to blame and their hiring and firing policies need to be looked into.
In Ann Coulter’s article she made several arguments. The first being, “The Bush administration is embroiled in the most ridiculous non-scandal scandal in human history — set off when the administration stupidly apologized for firing its own employees”. Ann Coulter has support for her claim stating that the “U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all.” There is a logical connection here and Ann Coulter has stated a fact to support her claim. I agree with the author and although many people would apologize for firing someone, that was at one time very useful for their organization, the President was in the right and should stop apologizing.
The second argument from Ann Coulter is, “Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush’s replacing his own political appointees is “politicizing prosecutions.” Ann Coulter continues to validate this argument stating the fact that many democrats have been fired for doing scandalize things and have walked away without any repercussions. She also shows that some republicans with similar scandals are facing prison time. Ann Coulter states cold hard facts of democratic scandals to support her argument such as;
“They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents — but Lewis “Scooter” Libby faces decades in prison for not outing a covert agent. (Let’s hope he’s learned his lesson!) They say this as Rep. William “The Refrigerator” Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw — but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.
They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle — but American hero Randy “Duke” Cunningham rots in prison. They say this while Sen. Chuck Schumer pays no price whatsoever for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee having illegally obtained a copy of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s credit report, for which one employee, Lauren Weiner, pleaded guilty, but served no prison time.”
The third argument from Ann Coulter urges Bush to quite apologizing. Coulter then continues with advice for President Bush “(BUSH) should start holding hearings on Congress’ obstruction of the war effort. Members of Congress should be asked to come before the administration’s hearings and testify under oath about their commitment to victory. If they are not traitors, what do they have to hide? Surely they will be willing to state under oath that they are not undermining the war effort for partisan political gain. The hearings could be televised in prime time: “Traitor or No Traitor?” This argument is not valid and is purely opinioned value that Ann Coulter holds. I do not agree with her on this point.
The fourth argument that Ann Coulter makes in her article is to free the Duke Cunningham. “Finally, just for the Democrats’ mentioning Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s name, Bush should pardon him immediately. Admittedly, in this one case, the Republican was actually guilty of something. Cunningham took bribes — he didn’t kill a girl at Chappaquiddick. To put it another way, the only thing Duke Cunningham ever sank was his own career”. Ann Coulter is stating the facts. Ann Coulter continues supporting her claim with more facts (and opinions) “And in one glorious afternoon over North Vietnam, Duke Cunningham did more for his county than the entire Democratic caucus will do in a lifetime”. The claim is a fact because all of the above happened; Duke Cunningham did take bribes, he did have an affair, he did support him country in Vietnam but he did not kill his mistress. I agree with her on this point.
The purpose of the article is to show the reader that the hiring and firing of people underneath the President is at his discretion. She also shows that the Democratic Party also has scandals and has to hire and fire political personal. Coulter’s main point of the article is the democrats should not criticize people when they are doing the same thing or even something worse. Although I strongly disagree with the Bush administration and their policies with the war in Iraq, Ann Coulter has valid arguments and her arguments have caused me to change my mind.
Coulter, Ann. “‘SORRY’ DOESN’T SEEM TO BE THE HARDEST WORD.” Ann Coulter. 27 Mar. 2007. Ann Coulter.com. 3 Apr. 2007 <http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi>.
Moore, Michael. “Dear Mr. President: Send Even MORE Troops (and You Go, Too!) …From Michael Moore.” Michael Moore. 10 Jan. 2007. 3 Apr. 2007 <http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php>.
Marc Sheppard has written an editorial about the scandals behind Hillary Clinton and her husband over the course of their careers. This article is directed at all people who may vote for the first woman president. This article refers to the greatness associated with having the first women, first black or first Latino presidents, but discredits Hillary Clinton as a good contender for this role. The arguments of this argument are based on facts of Hillary Clinton’s career as to know.
In Sheppard’s first argument he states “Sure, Hillary would be the 1st woman to be elected President — but certainly not the last. On the other hand, adding “elected president” to her existing “elected to the Senate” and “to be criminally investigated” and “to claim spousal privilege under oath” first lady firsts list would likely sustain the appendage “and only” indefinitely”. Sheppard suggesting that allowing Hillary Clinton to take the presidency would be opening a can of worms and supports his arguments with well documented facts about her career up until now. The facts state that she has been criminally investigated and claimed spousal privilege when she was to testify against her husband in his sex scandal trail. This claim is a slippery slope fallacy. There is no way to prove that Hillary Clinton’s investigation or right to claim the 5th amendment has hurt anybody in the past or will in future endeavors.
In Sheppard’s second argument, “Still, her husband – the non-black who beat the half-black Obama to the title of America’s 1st black president and the 1st president ever accused of rape or sued for sexual harassment — would continue to second-best her by establishing benchmarks all but unapproachable”. In this argument Sheppard is discrediting formerly President Bill Clinton. This claim is a value and has no validity in Hillary’s presidential campaign. This fallacy is a red herring fallacy. It is irrelevant if Bill Clinton beat Obama in a previous election. Sheppard is simply using this irrelevant information to divert attention from the original argument.
In Shepard’s third argument he claims, “the achievement destined to keep the Clintons on the books in perpetuity is that of the 1st 3rd term 1st family to require both a legal defense fund and friends to shield them from treason allegations by taking the 5th for the 2000th time”. This again is a value. Sheppard’s claim is not valid, he does not have the facts to support it, and the claim is extremely exaggerated. This argument falls under the fallacy of straw man, misrepresenting Hillary and Bill’s perceived position in politics if they make it to the White House age.
In Sheppard’s final claim insinuates that the Clinton’s will start out the new presidency under oath, Then again, their first ever second act as first family could potentially include a fourth term during which the fourth estate runs interference for their outrages while they both perjuriously speak some first person narrative variation of “I don’t know” while under oath for the upteenth time”. Again Shepard has not validity to his value claim. This argument is again a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting the Clinton’s position in the White House, so it can be easily attacked by others.
I completely disagree with the editorial and the fallacies represented. Sheppard’s claims are invalid. Although he has knowledge of the Clinton’s and their place in history he does not use the facts to properly argue against Hillary’s race towards the White House. Sheppard continually exaggerates the number of times the Clinton’s have been under oath and used the 5th amendment right. The right is in place for a reason, to protect all AMERICANS INCLUDING THE CLINTONS. Sheppard’s argument about Bill Clinton beating Obama in an earlier race is utterly embarrassing to write and has not validity in any argument whatsoever. So Sheppard has knowledge of politics. In my opinion he should use that knowledge to portray proper arguments supporting his cause, instead of beating around the bush.
Sheppard, Mark. “Campaign 2008…Who’s on First?” Opinion Editorials. 26 Mar. 2007. Opinion Editorials. 3 Apr. 2007 <http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/msheppard_20070326.html>.
March 26, 2007
Campaign 2008: Who’s on first?
Months before last year’s midterm elections, the prospect of the nation’s 1st Madam Speaker of the House fueled seemingly endless gushing news stories, op-eds, and blog rants. As we kick off history’s 1st 2-year-long presidential election season, those same outlets are again abuzz over the potential White House “firsts” it might bring.
If you’re thinking they’re excited about the first election in 80 years with neither a sitting president nor a sitting vice president on the ticket – as we say here in Hillary land — forgetaboutit.
No, multicultist cheerleaders who thought last year’s election of our first Muslim congressman was just swell are burning their pom-poms over the very prospect of our next chief executive being the first black, first female or first Latino to hold the job. Budding diversity aficionados are further delighted by other announced hopefuls including the would-be first septuagenarian, first Mormon, first Italian-American and, although a returning fourth and long shot, the first apparent citizen of Middle Earth.
And, should whispers of N.Y City’s 1st billionaire mayor throwing his hat into the Independent ring grow louder, we could soon be hearing from the first viable Jewish candidate for leader of the free world (take that, jihadists).
Granted, the bloom of reaching there first quickly fades upon the arrival of the inevitable second, especially in politics. But a successful bid by New York’s 1st female senator would represent a number of potential ordinal records — well beyond the tediously over-touted one — which will surely withstand most tests time may proctor.
Sure, Hillary would be the 1st woman to be elected President — but certainly not the last. On the other hand, adding “elected president” to her existing “elected to the Senate” and “to be criminally investigated” and “to claim spousal privilege under oath” first lady firsts list would likely sustain the appendage “and only” indefinitely.
Still, her husband – the non-black who beat the half-black Obama to the title of America’s 1st black president and the 1st president ever accused of rape or sued for sexual harassment — would continue to second-best her by establishing benchmarks all but unapproachable.
Bill, already dubiously distinguished as the 1st elected American president ever to be impeached, would become our 1st first Gentleman (technically speaking, anyway), as well as the 1st ex-president (both impeached and otherwise) to be so honored.
And, in the unlikely event that the future delivers contenders for each of their individually held records, team Clinton would capture a mixed doubles title destined to outlast even boxer Rocky Marciano’s one-shy-of-fifty consecutive victory milestone by becoming only the 2nd 3rd term 1st family.
But the achievement destined to keep the Clintons on the books in perpetuity is that of the 1st 3rd term 1st family to require both a legal defense fund and friends to shield them from treason allegations by taking the 5th for the 2000th time.
Then again, their first ever second act as first family could potentially include a fourth term during which the fourth estate runs interference for their outrages while they both perjuriously speak some first person narrative variation of “I don’t know” while under oath for the upteenth time.
The $64,000 question is: given her third-rate hucksterism and his second-to-no-one narcissism, when it comes time for the limelight — subpoena-illuminated or otherwise — who’s on first?