Mike Huckabee's Concession Speech

The concession speech I chose to write about was Mike Huckabee's concession speech in the 2008 Republican primaries. Huckabee starts his speech with a quote from the famous baseball player George Brett, talking about how George Brett would want his last play in baseball to be were he gets out, but he still would run as hard as he could towards first base. This is a smart quote by Huckabee it was simple, clear and very American and it showed that Huckabee despite losing gave it his best shot. He carefully congratulated Senator McCain and sounded very sincere and asked his supports to rally behind Senator McCain. He came off as very genuine and sincere throughout his whole speech, he also uses many quotes from history and the bible to help emphasize his point. He also uses some jokes to help lighten the mood of a defeated campaign. After thanking his supporters he ends his speech talking about the Alamo and the greatly lopsided battle that took place there February 23, 1836. He alludes to how his campaign is similar to battle of the Alamo, it was unlikely Huckabee would win, but that he tried his hardest and never stopped trying. Then he is careful to once again ask his supporters to help McCain to get elected into the White House. A very good speech, didn't sound like a sore loser, and stayed positive during the majority of the speech.


here is the speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2en7F-4Xoxk

Topic for Unit 2

Energy independence was the issue I chose to write about for unit 2. How I broke down the large issue of energy independence was into three categories of energy conservation, alternating energy sources, and conventional energy sources. Energy companies and the government obviously have experience with the issue of energy independence. More specifically Boone Picken's and his plan to bring America energy independence, also both candidates have plans of energy independence. Boone Picken's, John McCain, and Barack Obama are probably the loudest voices in energy independence, Al Gore is kinda there but he is much more focused on the health of the environment. The primary sources I would use to research this topic would be credible news sources, government data on the U.S. energy consumption and levels of energy dependence. Also any information from energy companies on this issue, I will have to look out for energy companies bias's who only want to promote there section of the energy sector.

My Humorous Argument

My humorous argument is about the Bush Doctrine. It's obviously exaggerated but the point of the cartoon is to point out how many different other countries the U.S. could have "legitimately" invaded under the Bush Doctrine.




Author's Note: Does the cartoon make sense right away? I tried to use the least amount of words as possible and hope that the picture tells most of the story. Is it all funny or humorous?

Humorous Argument

The humorous I choose was the most recent Tina Fey impersonation of the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric on Saturday Night Live. SNL has done a great job in the past representing and telling stories that the media really can't. Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin is perfect, usually SNL does a good job but this is by far its best impersonation yet. First they make fun of Palin for not having any understanding of what the Bush Doctrine is. Then continues straight on to make fun of her trip to the United Nations Tina Fey (Sarah Palin) saying that she McCain would get rid of the foreigners in the United Nations and give those jobs to hard working Americans. The biggest slam against Palin and the whole set up for the skit was making fun of her stumbling on foreign policy in Palins real interview with Katie Couric. The SNL version of Couric ask Palin to one more time clarify her answer on why she has foreign policy experience. Tina Fey (Sarah Palin) stumbles around giving ridiculous answers and spewing out random empty campaign rhetoric. For example "Reigning in spending" or "health care reform is necessary" or "its all about job creation for Americans". But writing about this SNL skit doesn't do it justice you have to see it to fully understand it. Here is the link below

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Op-Ed

David Frick
The Failures of the Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine in simplest terms is the assertion that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive strike against any nation or group deemed hostile or a threat its national security. As Bush so delicately put it, “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Really?

The biggest problem with the Bush Doctrine is its unilateral and illogical nature. It lacks both meaning and boundaries. Nearly any country could be deemed to violate the Bush Doctrine anytime it acts in competition with the U.S. How does a country know when it is about to threaten the U.S? When France sells military arms to Venezuela, should the U.S. invade France or Venezuela or both? When China revokes most of the political rights of citizens of Hong Kong, should the U.S. invade China? When Russia opposes letting Poland join NATO, should we invade Russia? Should the U.S. invade when the President of South Africa refuses to acknowledge HIV/AIDS as a viral disease and acts in a manner that risks the health of not just his country, but also the least stable collection of undemocratic counties in the world? When terrorists use Pakistan as a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan, should we invade Pakistan? When Saudi Arabia raises oil prices and threatens our economy and limits the political and religious freedom of its citizens, should the U.S. invade?

The clear-cut line Bush drew in the sand with the Bush Doctrine eliminates any discussion not only between the U.S. and its allies, but also between the U.S. and its enemies. Allies that might disagree only with a couple issues could potentially be treated as terrorists. The ultimate goals of peace and stability are difficult to achieve, but impossible to achieve when attempted by force. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demonstrated that there can be continued fierce disagreement on almost every issue without requiring war for the U.S. to enjoy peace and prosperity in most years.

The idea of a preemptive strike is frightening, particularly when we discover, as we have in Bosnia and Iraq, that after the first “feel good” emotional boost from killing and overthrowing a few bad guys, the resulting situation is less stable with no ability to leave. After we have deposed the autocrats, the people who fill the political vacuum are even more vicious enemies of the U.S. At this point, they define the U.S. not winning as the U.S. losing. This dangerous mentality allows the U.S. to become its own worst enemy and to fall easily into too many wars, amplifying instability throughout the world.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East, excluding Israel and Palestine, was a relatively stable region. Although Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who killed his own people, he had control of his country. Al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found. Then, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the newly-conceived and never-debated Bush Doctrine as the rationale. The occupation of Iraq has created extreme instability in the Middle East, raising anti-American sentiment, and allowing Al-Qaeda to thrive.

The cost of the war is staggering for the U.S. government which is already deeply in debt. The total cost of the war, according to CBS News this summer, was $648 billion and is running several billion dollars each month, assuming that the government is reporting all of the relevant costs. By far America’s most precious resource is its troops, but the Bush Doctrine has thrown the volunteer army into a hasty war and occupation in Iraq that has claimed the lives of over 4,171 soldiers. Is this worth it? Ask yourself; what has America gained from the invasion of Iraq?

It is interesting to note that America chose Iraq over other dangerous countries like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. North Korea is a country ruled by a dictator, Kim Jong iI, who has allowed his country to starve itself while focusing on its military and nuclear capabilities. Across the world in Africa, Zimbabwe is suffering under President Mugabe who won yet another fraudulent election for president. Clearly democracy was threatened, yet the Bush administration did little to nothing to help change these situations. Following the Bush Doctrine’s logic, North Korea, which has never been a democracy, should be invaded. Does Congress or the American public believe that we would be better off if we invaded North Korea? Of course not. Has Congress approved the Bush Doctrine or simply been forced to cope with its consequences?

Ironically, the domestic handmaiden of the Bush Doctrine is the equally ill-conceived Patriot Act. This act “protects” our democracy by picking and choosing who has which civil liberties, authorizing torture and legitimizing unwarranted levels of domestic surveillance. If another country adopted the Patriot Act, one could argue that under the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. would be at least justified and probably obligated to invade them at once!

If the purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the U.S. safe from evil and spread democracy, then it should be repudiated immediately for the simple reason that it has not and will never work. Great goals do not keep rash actions from becoming folly. The enemies of the U.S. and democracy know that the Bush Doctrine can only accelerate the squandering of America power, prosperity and democracy.

Authors note- My biggest concern is that paragraph about the Patriot Act. Is it really relevant to the Bush Doctrine which was the point of the editorial. Also just wordiness and grammar issues.

An Argument of Definition

The article I read was titled "A reality check on 'Change'". The authors main focus of the article was to point out how the candidates are using the word change. The author is clearly supporting Obama in this article, but that is not the point. The point is how Obama is and has been a real advocate for change. John McCain although a maverick of the Republican party can hardly be called a advocate of change from the Bush Administration. As the author pointed out McCain voted about 90% of the time with Bush, and he asked is that really change?

He also points out the attacks from Sarah Palin about Obamas few legislative laws during his time as a Senator, and making the point that talking about change doesn't necessarily bring it. The author brings up an interesting point about McCain. McCain has served in the Senate for 22 years and has authored fewer than half-dozen "major laws" (very similar to the amount of "major" legislation Obama has produced). The reason for so few laws in such a long amount of time in all fairness to McCain is because of his label as a 'Maverick' in the Republican party. It has been difficult for McCain to rally support for his legislation because even people in his own party don't always agree with him. The definition of change is definitely different between both campaigns, but it is up to America to decide which definition of change they agree with the most.

Also for my op-ed piece I will be writing to Time magazine. I decided to write to time because its a very mainstream, and very balanced magazine with a large nationwide audience. With my writing I want to reach out to as many people as possible.

Argument of Fact

The article is "Going Green Eco-Buyer Beware" in Time magazine. This article was about how almost every business wants to be seen as an environmentally friendly, green company. Now whether they are or not is the point of this article. This article's main claim was that most environmentally friendly products put in the store were not truly environmentally friendly. The author cited many sources and studies done on the "eco-friendly" products that are now flooding stores across America. He also talked about why businesses would want to "go green" regardless of whether they truly are or not. The sales of organic products have increased from 10 billion in 2003 to 20 billion in 2007. That right there is plenty of reason for any company to campaign going green. As the author noted consumers must be aware of whether the "company is more interested in selling the earth than saving it".