Bad Bill

First, I want to say to all of you that, as you might imagine, I have been on quite a journey these last few weeks to get to the end of this, to the rock bottom truth of where I am and where we all are.

I agree with those who have said that in my first statement after I testified I was not contrite enough. I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned.

President Bill Clinton, September 11, 1998; addressing his sin

President Clinton is using touchy words to make a simple fact much more complicated than it need be. Granted that this is a president speaking to his nation and there should be some sort of eloquence to it; there is a basic message to all of this that could be said in a much shorter way. The biggest problem with this statement is that he is trying to play-down the fact that he lied to the nation.
He says that his original statement was "not contrite enough". He wasn't sincere enough? Come on, he came out and straight lied to the nation. "I did not have sexual relations" is a very contrite statement. He was very sincere with his lie.

He refers to what has been going on as a ''journey'; but there is no journey going on...only a twisted path of lies. He beats around the bush as the rest of us simply want him to come out and admit that he cheated on his wife, or "sinned", as he called it. By saying he sinned it almost dumbs it down to mean less to the rest of us. All of us sin; but not all of us cheat on our wives. That is something that is going to affect the emotions of religous people and atheists alike.

The way he could have said this is pretty simple.

"I apologize to you all as I have lied for the past few weeks. I did in fact have sexual relations with that women and am an adulterer. I am deeply embarrassed and hope that in time you can all forgive me for taking you all down this path of lies I have led you on."

That would be a little bit more clear.

Devin Kelley

Speech Blog

”America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.”

President George W. Bush January 28, 2008

I believe that this statement by the president hold an empty answer. By empty answer i mean that he is just tell people whatever they wanted to hear to help them feel more safe at night. I the address you can see that there isn't a really clear solution on how he is going to solve the problem. It is all just blind trust that the people must put into him and his administration. when he brings up the issue on solving the problem he just states "we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy." This shows that he has given little thought on how to solve the problem and that he doesn't even know how. This empty answer is just his way of letting someone else deal with the problem and tackling it himself. Another example on how this piece blurs the truth is the expression "Catch and Release" statement. By catch and release what does he really mean by that. It seems that his administration have been just catching illegal immigrants then just tossing them back into Mexico. Is that what we really pay taxes for? I believe that this was a long problem and that it just didn't spark up right at the end of his term as president.

"America needs to secure our borders. First by hiring more Agents to patrol the border. Then by working with the Mexican government to help prevent illegal crossings. This will be costly but if the American people believe it is necessary then it will be done."

Robbie's blog post 9-28

“Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.”
-Sarah Palin, interview with Katie Couric, 9/25/2008

The question was asking about Palin’s opinions on past attempts of spreading democracy and how she would help the spread of democracy. This quote was her response to that question. First, Sarah Palin completely avoids the first question Katey Couric asked. She doesn’t state lessons she had learned from the past few years or how she plans on changing the ways to spread democracy.
Palin’s statement here is repetitive. Therefore, you can eliminate the entire second half of this quote and make it more a more efficient statement. Words like freedom, independence, tolerance, and respect for equality can be summed up into one word. That word could be just freedom. Perhaps, it could be replaced with liberty or any other synonym.
Finally, there is a word so often used that I feel like it has lost any meaning that it would have otherwise had. This word is “terrorism”. Every day, at least five times, I hear this word. Each time, this word loses a little more meaning. This word is an excuse to do anything. It motivates any action by government.
In analyzing this, I have definitely broken some of Orwell’s rules, but sometimes it is necessary to accomplish some goal.


Rewrite of above quote
We will do our utmost to spread democracy to nations that welcome it and its values.

Brandewie's Blog

Words from Senator McCain’s acceptance speech at Republican Nation Convention
"I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Sen. Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. "

Dissecting an acceptance speech is great way to learn about the many persuasive techniques of the English language. Many campaign workers spend countless hours crafting the perfect speech that can resonate with the majority. Needless to say, although these words said live in front of thousands of people, they are in no way the adlib thoughts of the politician. Each sentence is thought through and precisely placed in the speech for a reason. Politicians must convince thousands of people: why they are right, why they have all the answers for the future, and why they are better than the other candidate. Today, in my common place blog, we take a look at John McCain’s acceptance speech as the Republican nominee for President of 2008. This particular paragraph addresses the state of the Republican Party. Many argue that the party has taken a hit with the unsuccessful current term of President Bush and many scandals within their party. In the first sentence, McCain specifically addresses the concern that the Republican Party has lost pride and principles. However, cleverly he does not say anything losing pride and principles; rather he just mentions that he will fight to restore it. This language usage is almost a trick technique to distract from the percieved downfall of the Republican Party. The first sentence includes a strong verb, fight, when many other writers would have constructed the sentence to use fight as the noun. This was an excellent way to avoid a weak nominalization. In the second sentence he uses two words that help deliver an effective message: change and Washington. According to National Public Radio website, Polls have shown that more than two thirds of likely voters believe that America is heading in the wrong direction. Thus the word change is used to display that the nominee is not going to keep with the status quo. Also, the word Washington is cleverly used to exhibit that John McCain is not part of the current government that is viewed so poorly, even though he is a senator. Also throughout the speech McCain uses general phrase that evoke emotions such as, Dependence on foreign oil. Discussed in the Orwell essay, these phrases may not truly address an issue, rather bring out a emotion in the people that will bring them towards the politician’s camp. Below the first sentence will be restructured for another sentence that could be used for a political speech.
I volunteer to restore family and community in our city.

Blake's Blog

What a year we Democrats have had. The primary began with an all-star lineup. And it came down to two remarkable Americans locked in a hard-fought contest right to the very end. That campaign generated so much heat, it increased global warming.
Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, August 27, 2008

This is a very good statement by Bill Clinton. He is direct and to the point with this quote. He praises both candidates when he says all star line up. Bill also calls both candidates two remarkable Americans. He describes very well how close the two fought for their position. At the end of the phrase he uses a great metaphor. With the great use of the metaphor this will help people remember what was said in his speech.
The phrase is divided into two parts. In the first part, Clinton praises the Democrats and the two candidates. He includes many good adjective including all star and remarkable. With Clinton praising the two candidates, Americans will think that they are great people. This is a very good persuasive speech for the Democratic Party.
The second part of the phrase is a very good use of a metaphor. It is very smartly used because global warming is a big topic in America today. The metaphor also uses some humor in it. This will allow people to not get bored with his speech. I think Clinton did a very well job getting his point across to the American audience.
The Democrats have had a great year with two nominees battling for the presidential candidate. The campaign has cause a lot of heat.

"For those who lost loved ones, it's been a year of sorrow, of empty places, of newborn children who will never know their fathers here on earth. For members of our military, it's been a year of sacrifice and service far from home. For all Americans, it has been a year of adjustment, of coming to terms with the difficult knowledge that our nation has determined enemies, and that we are not invulnerable to their attacks."
- George W Bush, 9/11/02


This section of President Bush's address to the nation one year after the September 11 attacks grew great interest to me. These sentences parallel each other as you read them. All three sentences have "it's been a year" embedded inside them. President Bush uses this phrase to emphasize the time in between now and the time those horrible events took place, one year ago. The three topics President Bush singled out share a common action as well, suffrage. The love ones suffered because they lost their significant half, the military suffered since they are away from their families and friends, and Americans suffered knowing that their is a country that wants to destroy them. To end this section, President Bush makes a bold statement claiming that us Americans are "not invulnerable to their attacks." This sums up the attitude of the people of the nation. When the towers were attacked, we responded with force. We did not hide and get pushed around.

"This past year, lost loved ones, members of the military, and Americans have gone through great suffrage. Newborn babies have no clue who their fathers were. Our military have been away from the peolpe they love, some never seeing them again. Americans need to adjust to the fact that we have a distinct enemy now."

Political Speech

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure.  The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

 -President Bush, declaring war on Iraq, 3/20/03

This quote is interesting and I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it was the correct one for this blog.  The way President Bush declares war on Iraq is cunning.  Without rereading his speech I would not have picked up on the word "reluctantly", which is an adverb the blurs the truth.  The people who did pick up on this word during his speech will think he has a heart and does not want to go to war, but because Iraq has weapons of mass murder he is forced to. According to Macintosh's dictionary reluctantly is unwillingly or hesitant.  I believe ever since 9/11 he has always wanted to go to war, but needed some more proof.

If the nation is so reluctant/hesitant to enter this conflict then how can the purpose be so "sure?"  He put the word sure, which is his real motive on going to war, to tell people he is confident about the war.  President Bush goes on with the next sentence to give an example as to why we are going to war with Iraq.  If the United States "will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder" then why are we so reluctant to go to war?

"Our nation enters this conflict readily, yet our purpose is sure.  The people of the United State and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.