Roma Tre Prof. M. Boyd
LM1 AA2013/14
LANGUAGE OF POLITICS: TEXT ANALYSIS 1HANDOUT #12
Work in small groups and look at the following political text excerpts from various sources. They represent different genres and sub-genres within the field of politics. First determine the genre or sub-genre. What is the function of the text and the genre? Discuss the target audience, the subject matter, the level of formality, use of subject-specific lexis, the genre, intertextuality, etc.
Roma Tre Prof. M. Boyd
LM1 AA2013/14
LANGUAGE OF POLITICS: TEXT ANALYSIS 1HANDOUT #12
- BARACKOBAMA.COM OBAMA BIDEN
[FACES OF THE CAMPAIGN] Michael Apodaca
Name: Michael Apodaca
Title:Texas State Field Director
Hometown: El Paso, Texas
Based in: El Paso and Austin, Texas
Q1. What does a day at work look like to you? My daily schedule is a pretty busy one—from conference calls in the morning to checking in with our staff, it feels never-ending. The best part of my day is checking in with our staff and watching their successes. Most of our regional field directors are new to campaigns at a professional level, so to see them learn something new or succeed in a challenge is gratifying to the work I’m doing.
Q2. How did you first come to the campaign? I’ve worked for numerous candidates locally, consulting them on targeting voters and fundraising. In 2009, I had a friend who was running for school board and met two wonderful people who were helping in the campaign. After the campaign was over, one of them became the new field director in Texas, Emmy Ruiz—she’s now general election director for Nevada—and she asked me to join her as a regional field director for El Paso. After my first OFA adventure in 2011, I left to return to my business—until our current Texas State Director Hector Nieto twisted my arm to come and join Team Texas again as state field director. It was just an offer I couldn’t refuse.
Q3. What's your favorite part of your job? Next to my RFDs succeeding in their goals, just listening to the stories that our volunteers bring to our campaign. Each one of us has a story to share, of why Barack Obama compelled us to join his campaign for change in our country, and each is very unique and different from the next. One of our potential fellows in El Paso told me that she had never been involved in politics, because all she saw were stereotypes of the same old politicians. She opened her eyes when she became pregnant and had her first child. Now responsible for the next generation, she felt that she needed to make sure that her son will be able to go to best schools, have the cleanest environment, and be able to find a better job than the one she had at the time. But she didn’t get involved, because there was just no one to really believe in—until one day, when she heard a senator from Illinois who decided to run for President and caught her interest. She got involved in 2008 making phone calls and going out and registering folks and she’s ready to do it again in 2012.
Q4. What’s the most unexpected part of your job? A good organizer is always expecting the unexpected, so there’s no such thing.
Q5. Tell us a fun fact about yourself: In 2009, my mother and I took over a cell phone store that was not doing so well, and we have turned it around in the last three years. I learned many of my marketing strategies, and how to make a pitch, through my experience with OFA. It’s been supremely enjoyable to be a business owner!
- ABC News11 November 2009
In an interview with ABC News's Jake Tapper, President Obama said he did not support any change in current abortion laws through the health care bill -- an implicit rebuke to the House for passing an amendment that could considerably restrict women's access to abortions. The president said that he doesn't want to change "the status quo" one way or another.
TAPPER: Here's a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that -- that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?
OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I'm confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it's being betrayed. But it's going to take some time.
TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?
OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal. The goal here is to make sure that people who have health insurance have greater stability and security, people who don't have health insurance get the ability to buy it affordably and that we're driving down costs.
And, you know, I think everybody understands that there's going to be work to be done on the Senate side. It's not going to match up perfectly with the House side. But obviously, it was a historic night for the House. We've never been this far. And I'm very confident that my colleagues in the Senate are going to say to themselves that we've got to get this done.
- House of Commons[1]9 November 2009
The Secretary of State was asked—
Illegal File Sharing
5. Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): What plans he has to reduce levels of illegal file sharing; and if he will make a statement. [298015]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Siôn Simon): We intend to introduce legislation to address this serious problem in the next parliamentary Session. Our proposals include a system of notifications to those infringing copyright online and action against the most serious infringers.
Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister for that answer. There is genuine public concern about the Government’s proposals, and in particular the prospect that people who have done nothing wrong could have their internet disconnected. An appeal system has been announced by the Government, but will the Minister give an assurance that people will have a chance to defend their innocence before any decision is taken to disconnect their internet connection?
Mr. Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. People who have done nothing wrong should not be in any danger of having their internet interfered with at all. Hardly anybody, other than the most serious and egregious recidivistic offenders, should ever be in danger of having any of their internet affected, and nobody will have their bandwidth squeezed or their account suspended until they have had repeated letters, been given a healthy notice period and then had a right of appeal—indeed, two rights of appeal—as she requests.
Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): I welcome, as anyone does, the warm words spoken by my hon. Friend, but he must realise that when we set these organisations up they grow like Topsy; they start impinging and pushing the rules. Will he ensure that it is implicit in the Bill that that will not happen and that we will not create a large sledgehammer to crack a small nut?
Mr. Simon: I can assure my hon. Friend of that. We are not creating a sledgehammer; we are creating a light-touch regime to enforce the existing law.
Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): Everyone understands the need for safeguards, but will the Minister confirm that, assuming the successful passage of the digital economy Bill, the earliest an illegal file sharer could have their internet connection temporarily cut off is February 2012? That is hardly an example of the Government at their most decisive.
Mr. Simon: First, no I cannot confirm that; how long it will take to reach that point will depend on how things go. In any case, how long it takes to get to a tiny number of very serious infringers having their internet 9 Nov 2009 : Column 7 interfered with is not the measure of success. If everything goes well, nobody will reach that point because earlier measures will do the job. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm to the House that he supports the proposals as they stand.
Mr. Hunt: I am happy to confirm that the Conservatives support the proposals. We just do not think that they, on their own, will do the job. Does the Minister accept that if we are to tackle this problem, we also have to look at reforming the outdated intellectual property laws on digital content? If we do not do that, we will not, in the end, deal with the nub of the problem. Will the Secretary of State be addressing intellectual property laws or will that issue be put in the file marked “Post-election: someone else’s problem”?
Mr. Simon: That issue is very firmly in the file marked “Announced by my right hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last week.” As the hon. Gentleman says, we need reform of licensing and copyright legislation to bring the system into line with the new technology. That goes hand in hand with the measures to enforce copyright online, as does the message sent out clearly from the Government that the content industries, which will profit from these measures, need to step up to the plate and put some work in to develop new business models and new technology to give people what they need, at a price they can afford.
- The Washington Post 7 March 12Kathleen Parker, Opinion Writer
Dear Mitt: Ignore the man in the bow tie
Dear Mitt: Consider me a neighbor leaning over the picket fence. You have a picket fence, don’t you? An ivy-covered wall? Fine, I’ll get a ladder.
This is what I want to say: Pay no attention to that man in the bow tie. Just because George Will says something doesn’t make it so. Just because he has written you off as unable to defeat President Obama, don’t believe it. This isn’t over.
Also, not in any way to compare these two: Do not fear Rush Limbaugh. When he utters something repugnant, say so. When he calls a young woman a “slut” on the public airwaves, do not say you would not have chosen those words. Be offended! Be outraged! Do you need Limbaugh’s base to win? Are those really your people? You had an opportunity to establish yourself as a leader and missed it. Though not irreparable, this is a shame and is symptomatic of what ails your campaign. Too eager not to offend, you are reluctant to say what is true.
You have my sympathies. At this point in the campaign, your autopilot has been recharged to within an inch of its life. You’ve said the same things so many times, you’re not sure you believe them anymore. You don’t remember what it’s like to kick back and enjoy a quiet cup of cocoa by the fire. You’re winning, but it feels like you’re losing. (Thanks, George.)
This is when friends are supposed to intervene and remind you of who you are. The problem is, a candidate doesn’t have friends. He has advisers, consultants, contributors and All Those People out there — Everyday Americans with their cellphones pointing, snapping and clicking. You need them to love you, but it’s not your nature to ingratiate yourself. The whole process is exhausting and humiliating and — can we be frank? — monumentally stupid at times. Most of the time.
If you’re lucky, you have a good dog. Never mind. You do have a family and a fabulous wife, but she can do only so much. At the end of one endless day after another, you’re alone with your sound bites, the fleeting thrill of a win coupled with the ever-dawning possibility of crushing defeat. While others foam and fiddle on the periphery, this is the existential bubble in which you dwell. Some of us just like to call it hell.
In the spirit of neighborliness, herewith a few thoughts to consider as the wolf sniffs at the sliver of light beneath your door:
First, your wall is too high. You have constructed a barrier around you, perhaps to protect yourself from the cruelties of a world that remains skeptical of what’s at the core of your being, and that’s your religion. Or maybe it is a function of always trying to get everything just right. Sometimes too careful, you’ve also made yourself remote and concealed your best stuff. People feel that distance no matter how rolled-up your sleeves are or how many pancakes you flip. Relax. Stop trying so hard. Find the strength and humility you express so beautifully after losses, and bring it on now.
By the way, I’m sorry I called you a “dork” on “Meet the Press.” I was thinking about how uncool you are and how much I like that in a president. It’s an outdated word that meant out-of-step back in our day. Kind of dorky, actually. I followed that remark with an analogy: You’re like the doctor who doesn’t have a good bedside manner. Who cares? His cure is what we want.
No one in this country thinks you’re a cool, with-it kind of guy — and they’re fine with that. They don’t want you to be cool. They want you to fix the economy. They want you to be serious, presidential and the grown-up you are.
There’s no predicting what will happen in November, no matter what the pundits say. But if you go down, enjoy the ride by being fearlessly yourself — uncool, unafraid, intelligent, experienced, determined and, as you put it, resolute. Be as liberated in seeking victory as you would be in defeat. This includes being outraged at the outrageous, willing to tell unpleasant truths, temperate in matters grave (steering you away from statements such as Iran will have nukes if Obama wins) and being willing to lose.
True Mitt can win, by George.
- The New York Times November 10, 2009By Bob Herbert
OP-ED COLUMNIST: A Word, Mr. President
If I were a close adviser of President Obama’s, I would say to him, “Mr. President, you have two urgent and overwhelming tasks in front of you: to put Americans trapped in this terrible employment crisis back to work and to put the brakes on your potentially disastrous plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.”
Reforming the chaotic and unfair health care system in the U.S. is an important issue. But in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.
We have spent the better part of a year locked in a tedious and unenlightening debate over health care while the jobless rate has steadily surged. It’s now at 10.2 percent. Families struggling with job losses, home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies are falling out of the middle class like fruit through the bottom of a rotten basket. The jobless rate for men 16 years old and over is 11.4 percent. For blacks, it’s a back-breaking 15.7 percent.
We need to readjust our focus. We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.
I would tell the president that more and more Americans are questioning his priorities, including millions who went to the mat for him in last year’s election. The biggest issue by far for most Americans is employment. The lack of jobs is fueling the nervousness, anxiety and full-blown anger that are becoming increasingly evident in the public at large.
Last Friday, a huge crowd of fans marched in a ticker-tape parade in downtown Manhattan to celebrate the Yankees’ World Series championship. More than once, as the fans passed through the financial district, the crowd erupted in rhythmic, echoing chants of “Wall Street sucks! Wall Street sucks!”