LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2016/17
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.
1. BARACKOBAMA.COM OBAMA BIDEN
[FACES OF THE CAMPAIGN] Michael Apodaca
2.
ABC News 11 November 2009
Name: Michael Apodaca
Title: Texas State Field Director Hometown: El Paso, Texas
Based in: El Paso and Austin, Texas
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.
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!
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.
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2016/17
3. House of Commons1 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:
1
from Hansard House of Commons Debates: Hansard is the edited verbatim report of proceedings in
both Houses. Daily Debates are published on www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm.
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.
4. DAVID CAMERON, PM ADDRESSES PARLIAMENT: 27 June 2016
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
the result of the EU referendum. […] Mr Speaker, the British people
have voted to leave the European Union. It was not the result I wanted
– nor the outcome that I believed is best for the country I love. But
there can be no doubt about the result.
Of course, I don’t take back what I said about the risks. It is going to
be difficult. We have already seen that there are going to be
adjustments within our economy, complex constitutional issues, and a
challenging new negotiation to undertake with Europe. But I am clear –
and the Cabinet agreed this morning – that the decision must be
accepted and the process of implementing the decision in the best
possible way must now begin.
Turning to our economy, it is clear that markets are volatile, there
are some companies considering their investments and we know this is
going to be far from plain sailing. However, we should take confidence
from the fact that Britain is ready to confront what the future holds for
us from a position of strength.
As a result of our long-term plan, we have today one of the strongest
major advanced economies in the world and we are well placed to face
the challenges ahead.
The markets may not have been expecting the referendum result
but, as the Chancellor set out this morning, the Treasury, the Bank of
England and our other financial authorities have spent the last few
months putting in place robust contingency plans. As the Governor of
the Bank of England said on Friday, the Bank’s stress tests have shown
that UK institutions have enough capital and liquidity reserves to
withstand a scenario more severe than the country currently faces. And
the Bank can make available 250 billion of additional funds if it needs to
support banks and markets. […]
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2016/17
Mr Speaker, tomorrow I will attend the European Council. In the last
few days I have spoken to Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and a
number of other European leaders. We have discussed the need to
prepare for the negotiations and in particular the fact that the British
government will not be triggering Article 50 at this stage.
Before we do that we need to determine the kind of relationship we
want with the EU. And that is rightly something for the next Prime
Minister and their Cabinet to decide. I have also made this point to the
Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission and I
will make this clear again at the European Council tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, this is our sovereign decision and it will be for Britain –
and Britain alone – to take. Tomorrow is also an opportunity to make
this point: Britain is leaving the European Union, but we must not turn
our back on Europe – or on the rest of the world. […] although leaving
the EU was not the path I recommended, I am the first to praise our
incredible strengths as a country. As we proceed with implementing this
decision and facing the challenges that it will undoubtedly bring, I
believe we should hold fast to a vision of Britain that wants to be
respected abroad, tolerant at home, engaged in the world and working
with our international partners to advance the prosperity and security of
our nation for generations to come. I have fought for these things every
day of my political life and I will continue to do so. And I commend this
Statement to the House..
5. THERESA MAY, PM speech on Brexit to diplomats on 17 January 2017
A little over 6 months ago, the British people voted for change. They voted to shape a
brighter future for our country. They voted to leave the European Union and embrace the
world.
And they did so with their eyes open: accepting that the road ahead will be uncertain at
times, but believing that it leads towards a brighter future for their children – and their
grandchildren too.
And it is the job of this government to deliver it. That means more than negotiating our
new relationship with the EU. It means taking the opportunity of this great moment of
national change to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be.
My answer is clear. I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change
stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be
a secure, prosperous, tolerant country – a magnet for international talent and a home to
the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly
Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country
that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to
build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.
I want Britain to be what we have the potential, talent and ambition to be. A great,
global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united
at home.
That is why this government has a Plan for Britain. One that gets us the right deal
abroad but also ensures we get a better deal for ordinary working people at home.
It’s why that plan sets out how we will use this moment of change to build a stronger
economy and a fairer society by embracing genuine economic and social reform.
Why our new Modern Industrial Strategy is being developed, to ensure every nation
and area of the United Kingdom can make the most of the opportunities ahead.
Why we will go further to reform our schools to ensure every child has the knowledge
and the skills they need to thrive in post-Brexit Britain.
Why as we continue to bring the deficit down, we will take a balanced approach by
investing in our economic infrastructure – because it can transform the growth potential
of our economy and improve the quality of people’s lives across the whole country.
It’s why we will put the preservation of our precious Union at the heart of everything we
do. Because it is only by coming together as one great union of nations and people that we
can make the most of the opportunities ahead. The result of the referendum was not a
decision to turn inward and retreat from the world.
Because Britain’s history and culture is profoundly internationalist.
We are a European country – and proud of our shared European heritage – but we are
also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world. That is why we
are one of the most racially diverse countries in Europe, one of the most multicultural
members of the European Union, and why – whether we are talking about India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, countries in Africa or
those that are closer to home in Europe – so many of us have close friends and relatives
from across the world.
Instinctively, we want to travel to, study in, trade with countries not just in Europe but
beyond the borders of our continent. Even now as we prepare to leave the EU, we are
planning for the next biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018 – a
reminder of our unique and proud global relationships.
And it is important to recognise this fact. June the 23rd was not the moment Britain
chose to step back from the world. It was the moment we chose to build a truly Global
Britain.
I know that this – and the other reasons Britain took such a decision – is not always
well understood among our friends and allies in Europe. And I know many fear that this
might herald the beginning of a greater unravelling of the EU.
But let me be clear: I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interests of
Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the
EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead we will all
reflect on the lessons of Britain’s decision to leave.
So let me take this opportunity to set out the reasons for our decision and to address the
people of Europe directly.
It’s not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important
though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom’s place in the
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2016/17
European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free
trade with the wider world.
There are other important reasons too.
Our political traditions are different. Unlike other European countries, we have no
written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of our
unwritten constitutional settlement. We have only a recent history of devolved
governance – though it has rapidly embedded itself – and we have little history of
coalition government.
The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a
result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit
very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life.
And, while I know Britain might at times have been seen as an awkward member state,
the European Union has struggled to deal with the diversity of its member countries and
their interests. It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility. […]
We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success.
Because we are a great, global nation with so much to offer Europe and so much to offer
the world.
One of the world’s largest and strongest economies. With the finest intelligence
services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power, and
friendships, partnerships and alliances in every continent.
And another thing that’s important. The essential ingredient of our success. The
strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen. Because after all
the division and discord, the country is coming together. The referendum was divisive at
times. And those divisions have taken time to heal.
But one of the reasons that Britain’s democracy has been such a success for so many
years is that the strength of our identity as one nation, the respect we show to one another
as fellow citizens, and the importance we attach to our institutions means that when a
vote has been held we all respect the result. The victors have the responsibility to act
magnanimously. The losers have the responsibility to respect the legitimacy of the
outcome. And the country comes together.
And that is what we are seeing today. Business isn’t calling to reverse the result, but
planning to make a success of it. The House of Commons has voted overwhelmingly for us
to get on with it. And the overwhelming majority of people – however they voted – want
us to get on with it too. So that is what we will do.
Not merely forming a new partnership with Europe, but building a stronger, fairer,
more Global Britain too. And let that be the legacy of our time. The prize towards which
we work. The destination at which we arrive once the negotiation is done. And let us do it
not for ourselves, but for those who follow. For the country’s children and grandchildren
too.
So that when future generations look back at this time, they will judge us not only by
the decision that we made, but by what we made of that decision. They will see that we
shaped them a brighter future. They will know that we built them a better Britain.
.
6.
Editorial The Guardian
The Guardian view on triggering Brexit: into an unknown future
It is weeks since the prime minister posed for the US Vogue photographer Annie
Leibovitz in January. The images released today that portray her sitting, hair blown off her
face as if riding into battle, coincided aptly with two announcements that emerged from
Downing Street which underline how she has recovered authority in the week since the
humiliating defeat on a key budget proposal. The first was that the letter triggering article 50
will be sent next week, on 29 March, starting the two-year countdown to Brexit. Within 24
hours of receiving it, Donald Tusk, the European council president, will publish the draft
negotiating guidelines to the 27 member states. The preliminaries in the Brexit process are
over.
The second was that there really won’t be a general election before this parliament’s fiveyear term expires in 2020. Number 10’s denial was as firm a denial as could be given. Within
minutes of the announcement, the latest Guardian/ICM poll came out putting the Tories on
45%. That is a 19-point lead over Labour, almost the biggest lead ever in this ICM series, and
the biggest it has shown since the early 1980s. Not even last week’s rapid climbdown in the
face of backbench pressure over national insurance contributions for the self-employed, only
days after the budget, has dented either the Tory lead, or voters’ opinions of its economic
competence. Neither a prime minister unable to carry a key economic proposal, nor the wider
impression of a government in office but not in power, has undermined support for the Tory
party when the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
In the eyes of many of her MPs and constituency workers, Mrs May’s refusal to go back on
the no-election pledge she made after she became prime minister last July is wantonly
squandering the kind of once-in-a-century opportunity to win power for a generation. From
their perspective, the arguments in favour of finding a way around the Fixed Term
Parliaments Act, or even repealing it altogether, as former leader William Hague suggested
last week, are overwhelmingly persuasive. The projections from the Guardian/ICM poll
suggest an election tomorrow could deliver a Tory majority of 140. Compare and contrast
with the current reality of a working majority barely in double figures, preparing for a
complex and gruelling legislative programme to enact the consequences of picking apart a 40year relationship. The Institute for Government reckons at least 15 different acts will be
required, filling the parliamentary timetable almost to capacity.
And then there is the state of Her Majesty’s opposition, the wide-open goal offered by the
continuing tragedy of Labour’s internal contortions. These were made all the more obvious
after a meeting of the shadow cabinet this morning, when Jeremy Corbyn and his deputy Tom
Watson jointly declared they were agreed on the need for party unity, without offering any
explanation of how they hoped to achieve it. The leadership’s energies are focused on just the
kind of internal battle for control of the rule book that so alienated voters 35 years ago. It is
not only eager Tories who can see that opposition might be eliminated for a generation.
There is something rather admirable about a prime minister rejecting this kind of easy
opportunism. If it really did start to heal distrust of the political class, as she told the Vogue
interviewer she hoped to, it would be welcome. Yet avoiding an election also allows her to
keep her absolute discretion over the nature of the Brexit outcome. It leaves unchallenged her
claim to a mandate derived from delivering on the referendum result, rather than the
manifesto, even though the national insurance retreat emphasised the constitutional reality
LM1
Prof. M. Boyd
AA 2016/17
that her government’s authority comes from the general election 2015, not the vote on 23
June last year.
There is a principled case against a snap election. It could not provide satisfactory
answers to any of the big questions that an election should settle. It is not in the gift of any
party to make commitments about the relationship with Europe they would deliver. No party
could lay out its plans for the future when the shape of the economy it will inherit is in the
hands of the EU-27, yet it would hold out a version of the future – including a renewal of the
case for Scottish independence – that cannot be delivered. That would do nothing to help Mrs
May’s declared objective of restoring trust, of keeping faith with the voters. It would be a
recipe for disenchantment..
7.
The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK 15/10/08
Speakers:
US Sen. John McCain (AZ)
Rep. Presidential Nominee and
US Sen.
Barack Obama (IL)
Dem. Presidential Nominee, Bob SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR
[*] SCHIEFFER: Good evening. And welcome to the third and last presidential
debate of 2008, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I'm Bob
Schieffer of CBS News. The rules tonight are simple. The subject is domestic
policy. I will divide the next hour-and-a-half into nine-minute segments. I will
ask a question at the beginning of each segment. Each candidate will then have
two minutes to respond, and then we'll have a discussion. I'll encourage them
to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will. […[ Gentlemen,
welcome. By now, we've heard all the talking points, so let's try to tell the
people tonight some things that they -- they haven't heard. Let's get to it.
Another very bad day on Wall Street, as both of you know. Both of you
proposed new plans this week to address the economic crisis. Senator McCain,
you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax
breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things. Senator
Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lowerincome people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works
projects to create jobs. I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?
Senator McCain, you go first.
MCCAIN: Well, let -- let me say, Bob, thank you. And thanks to Hofstra. And,
by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our
thoughts and prayers are going with you. It's good to see you again, Senator
Obama. Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry. They're hurting,
and they're angry. They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street
and as well as Washington, D.C. And they're angry, and they have every
reason to be angry. And they want this country to go in a new direction. And
there are elements of my proposal that you just outlined which I won't repeat.
[…]
SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to thank Hofstra University and the people of
New York for hosting us tonight and it's wonderful to join Senator McCain
again, and thank you, Bob. I think everybody understands at this point that we
are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the
financial rescue plan that Senator McCain and I supported is an important
first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayer
can get their money back if they're putting money up. Making sure that CEOs
are not enriching themselves through this process. And I think that it's going
to take some time to work itself out. But what we haven't yet seen is a rescue
package for the middle class. […] Now Senator McCain and I agree with your
idea that we've got to help homeowners. That's why we included in the
financial package a proposal to get homeowners in a position where they can
renegotiate their mortgages. I disagree with Senator McCain in how to do it,
because the way Senator McCain has designed his plan, it could be a giveaway
to banks if we're buying full price for mortgages that now are worth a lot less.
And we don't want to waste taxpayer money. And we've got to get the financial
package working much quicker than it has been working. […]
SCHIEFFER: All right. Would you like to ask him a question?
MCCAIN: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama
was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his
name is Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in
for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the
business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay
much higher taxes. You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which
was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to
employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.
Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you,
I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for
and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and
affordable health care for you and your employees. […]