Comparing Presidential Influence & Behavior (week 6)

5/4/2014

Watch the clips below. Each short video gives an example of various forms of Presidential leadership.

What are the major differences you see in how each president chose to address the political and social problems during their terms? How were these issues defined? Who was impacted by the issues being dealt with and what were the consequences of Presidential decisions on those communities?

The videos below highlight President Clinton, President Bush (senior), President Bush (junior), and President Obama. In your post this week pick two of the videos below.

Compare and contrast what you learned from the textbook about Presidential power and what you learned from the clips below. Use the questions above as your guide.

Requirements for BLOG POSTS

You must write 250 words each post (due Friday @ Midnight), Responses to another student 50 words each (due Monday @ midnight)
Students must post during the week the blog is assigned or it will not be graded.

52 Comments

James Willoughby

5/6/2014 01:38:46 pm

Each United States President chose different ways to address the nation on its social issues. President George H.W. Bush discussed the Iraqi invasion in Kuwait. During his address, he demanded that all Iraqi troops leave Kuwait. He gives examples of why Iraq should not be involved with issues involving Kuwait, such as its wealth and high oil supply. He gives a pledge and gives sanctions that would force Iraq out of Kuwait. He provides information telling Americans that Iraq has a history or aggression, but the United States government will work with other nations to stop Iraqi aggression. President Bill Clinton chose to build awareness in different countries that act against genocide. He made remarks to those families who lost love ones in the Rwanda genocide. President George W. Bush spoke with the nation following September 11, 2001. He proposes to congress that America go after the Taliban and hold them accountable for the thousands killed on September 11th. He chose to build a sense of hope for Americans after nine days of sadness and grief. He hints at the start of the War on Terror. He speaks to the Nation with a sense of making them feel protected after the terrorist attacks. President Barack Obama speaks in an aggressive tone during his address to the nation. He is known for this trait. I believe that many Presidents should speak this way because it engages US citizens and helps them understand the issues at hand. He talks about the 2013 government shutdown and how Republicans should not hold the US citizens accountable for their mistakes in Congress. The American citizens were impacted by each of these issues except the Rwanda genocide. America was there to help and give strength to their people. The other three issues hurt American citizens emotionally, physically and financially. Unfortunately, presidential decisions did not help or give benefit to the nation.

Imani Sanders

5/6/2014 02:09:15 pm

I appreciate your analysis of the demeanor of the Presidents, I notice as well. Yet more importantly, your acknowledgement of the American peoples ability and desire to give support and show compassion stuck out to me. I say this because in all of the Presidents speeches their morals were very apparent in wanting to show support (seemingly so) of other nations that were in rough times.

Christian Ramirez

5/9/2014 04:58:09 am

Same here. I absolutely agree with your analysis. Most of these issues needed and were handled delicately. Supporting the nation at hand emotionally is key on the issues that affected us the most of course is key, like with 9/11. The people needed hope and a sense that there is a solution. Overall I feel your pride for this nation in your text. Supporting one another is key for this nation to get passed issues like the ones discussed today.

Dolly Perez

5/10/2014 05:11:26 pm

Each president present differently, each holds different beliefs and morals. Not all presidents need to speak in an aggressive tone to attain the attention of American citizens. You can’t blame the citizens for not listening and being aware of these issues. Some people are not capable of understanding the terminology that presidents use. Also many people do know what is going on and still chose not to do anything. Supposedly this is a democracy; a president speaking with aggression is not the way to go when speaking to the public. Presidents say one thing but do another. Actions speak louder than words. So speaking with aggression can mean one thing but when action comes into play it can be a different from what was expected. The way that each president handles various situations can go good and also bad. The way that President Bush handled the situation after 9/11 by starting a war, was an act completely inhumane. After all the lost lives and tears why would President Bush want to start a war; it seems that he was trying to find somebody to blame after all the tears and loved one lost. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Personally I believe that some Presidents are puppets and try to do whatever will benefit themselves.

James Willoughby

5/12/2014 03:23:10 pm

I enjoyed your analysis Dolly. Government leaders say one thing in their speeches yet do not act on the matter. I believe the way that President Obama speaks is aggressive enough to make citizens feel a certain way about the presented issue but passive enough to not upset people. Governement leaders need to stop telling people their plans and actually put it into action.

Leslie Werle

5/12/2014 07:40:44 am

I agree with your analysis here of the video clips. These were all very delicate subjects to be handled and it was interesting to see how differently each handled their issue. Though I am no fan of either Bush, listening to Bush Jr. speak about the 9/11 attacks was just as emotional for me this time around as when it was when I listened to it in my history class when he originally made the speech.

I have to disagree about American's not being effected by the Rwanda genocide. Perhaps we were never physically effected by it but watching Hotel Rwanda still upsets to this day, so many years after it happened. I believe tragedies such as these effect everyone, everywhere, no matter the distance.

Imani Sanders

5/6/2014 02:04:30 pm

Obama's response in terms of demeanor in the handling of addressing the political problems was tired, and basically fed up. In having to be patient and deal with tedious unprofessional behavior from republicans, he seems worn out. He decided to repeatedly identify republicans as the main source of strife and disagreement. He defined the issue as being misrepresented to the congress population and American population due to the name it was dubbed. Yet, if I'm correct, the President basically
said that 'raising the debt ceiling...allows treasury department to pay for what congress has already spent." In his being more aggressive and direct with 'radical' members of the republican party, his point was received and put more push onto the already pass due debt ceiling crisis. Yet the worlds economy was at stake, and our government if decision hadn't been met.
Bush senior response was of a calm demeanor. Yet, not much passion/emotion was necessarily implemented into his statement. Nonetheless, his message was received. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, without provocation. Wanted to implement four 'principles' for plans to handle the Kuwait crisis. Basically to rid Kuwait of Iraq invaders, restore the government, make sure everyone knows the U.S. is committed to the Persian gulf, and lastly he was determined to protect the lives of American abroad.
Kennedy decided to make a trip to Rwanda and speak on the 1990's genocide that the country experienced, including some of the survivors that were present in the crowd. He had compassion in his speech and expressed a through rhetoric a remorseful spirit. He used graphic detail in explaining the genocide that Rwanda recently experienced, and all the genocides across the globe. He wanted to help prevent genocide events, promoted unity, sought to prevent such crisis from happening again, starting funding, and made many promises. Future generations of Rwanda was affected through the (hopefully spent wisely) funding and donation of the US government.
Bush was riled up over attacking the terrorists of 9/11. He described the issues of our 'enemies culture' through detailed language. They were described namely in having a tyrant rule. He spoke of the middle east and the 'terrorism issue' in Afghanistan. He promised to persecute our enemies and allies of terrorist. He incited the American public, and world in general, to give any information. The American public was affected including the world, because of this a war was incited to find 'weapons of mass destruction' and then began the loss of lives.

Brenda Rangel

5/7/2014 04:32:47 am

Imani,

I do agree with you in terms of Obama seeming tired and almost irritated at behavior of the Republican Party. Yet, it felt as if he used them as scapegoat not truly providing the nation with a solution on his end. Rather, we see Obama placing blame on the Republican Party instead of spreading the blame to the government as whole. We are one nation, both parties contributed to the current debt toll. President Obama, on hand was justified in placing the blame on the Republicans for lack of corporation, yet he must have acknowledge the Democratic role as well.

Lars Velken

5/8/2014 05:37:46 am

In regards to President Obama talking about raising the debt ceiling, he stated that we would not be paying a penny more but rather it would allow us to facilitate what the Senate has already passed. To me this was clearly fallacious because in stating the Senate could enact what bills they passes, he is ultimately stating they would have to spend more money to facilitate these actions. Therefor, from what he described, raising the debt ceiling would allow us to purchase what we’ve set out to enact, but the money we use will furthermore be borrowed. So how can he say our debt will not go up because of this? If I max out my credit card and request a limit increase so I can spend more, I will clearly accrue more debt to the credit provider. That point just stuck out to me primarily.

Brenda Rangel

5/7/2014 04:22:35 am

Each president was and continues to be defined by the political and social issues they were confronted with during his presidency. President Bill Clinton sought to bring attention to the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, but not defining the issue of genocide solely to Africa but creating a global awareness of the issue. He addresses the victims of the genocide, stating the promise of America is to return hope to these victims. Clinton acknowledged the lack of quick response on the behalf of the United States, mentioning this should not have been their response. The President also states, remorse for allowing some of the killers during the genocide to find refuge in the refugee camps. He came across as genuinely interested restoring Rwanda, but more so the want of the people to return to their lives before the genocides occurred. Also, his hopes and promises to the people of Rwanda, was seeking prevention of future genocides, funding to start the rebuilding process, and the promise America in the future will intervene sooner rather than later.
In comparison to President Bush, whose presidency would be defined by the tragic event of 9/11; American soil was attacked for the first time since Pearl Harbor. His speech was to address quick action from America in going after the Taliban to seek justice for all the lives lost on 9/11; this was the initiation that America was to fight a war on terror. Bush wanted to establish a sense of security, that his administration would protect our freedom. The address brought to the attention of the people who was behind the attack, why we must act aggressively, and that the nation would stand strong in the face of this tragedy. While Bush spoke about returning peace and security to the nation, this became a broken promise; rather we would enter into two wars in which the U.S. did not benefit from.
Both men spoke in the hopes of reassuring the citizens they were willing to protect our rights as well as those abroad-in the case of Rwanda. Americans were greatly directly affected in the aftermath of the attack on the Twin Towers, yet in the case of Rwanda American turned a blind eye to what was occurring.

Nico Passalacqua

5/9/2014 03:27:42 pm

I didn't even watch George Bush's address to the United States concerning the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. I have studied this topic in much depth prior to this course. Bush and his administration painted a false picture of the events pre and post 9/11 and deceived the American people masterfully. I believe it was the worst handled situation of the examples above.

Joann Truong

5/12/2014 12:03:04 pm

I too agree with what you are saying. I believe that the event was planned. I think that the September 11th attack was a huge tragedy. I remembered being very scared because my mom was in New York during the time. I am not really a fan of George W. Bush and I just couldn't stand watching his, pardon my language, bullshit.

Cynthia Kay

5/7/2014 05:15:15 pm

I reviewed each video on each president in an attempt to determine differences in their ability to address political and social problems however, the small 10-15 min video clips on each giving their speeches were not very good examples of who or what they really are about, or their ability to convey their stand on issues or events. The reason I state this is because the clip on Clinton did not provide much on the accomplishments of Clinton while in office and his appeal to most American citizens until he fell from grace. Clinton’s speech to the citizens of Uganda certainly appeared sincere, it was too little too late as Clinton had expressed much later how he regrets not having done anything to prevent the genocide in the first place when the U.S. was summoned to do so by the U.N. Security Council. The President and Congress are obligated to come to the aid of nations if they were attacked. Perhaps it just wasn’t important enough to the U.S. Government.
After listening to the video of George W. Bush addressing Congress after 9/11, I couldn’t help but be thankful that other countries were far more sympathetic to the lives lost at the hands of terrorists in our country than we seem to have been for poor Uganda. Again, not a very good clip on George W. as he is notorious for blunders and fumbles but this speech to Congress was immediately following events of 9/11; he was delivering to an emotional appeal. The U.S. citizens were confused, frightened, and traumatized. Although I have expressed previously that I am not a George W. fan, I was impressed with this delivery to Congress. With only a few pronunciation blunders, he did not have to rely on a teleprompter or note cards to convey his thoughts and plans this time. He was direct, stated his plan, provided the information he had (or what we thought he had at the time), his expectations of the government and the people, his intent on covert operations stating, “We (government) will soon react, so be prepared” and even stated his respect and admiration to the Muslim’s not affiliated with Al-Qaida. He said all the right things and it was probably the only decent speech I ever heard him give. And for the moment many Americans had faith and trust in a government only to be let down for eight more years of failure.

Jennifer Hernandez

5/8/2014 01:45:37 pm

I agree that with the speech regarding Rwanda and Clinton it wasn't much of a representation on what he did in office for the American people at the time, since he mostly talks about how genocide can happen anywhere and as well as you stated he sounded sincere like he could have done something before it happened in Rwanda. I guess the only thing he did show, since he represented for the States is that he as a president was globally opened to other governments and their corruptions. He most likely wanted to show that the American people are dependable in the time of need for any country that has corruption and violence such as genocide.

Lars Velken

5/8/2014 05:32:25 am

I chose to compare and contrast President Clinton’s speech in 1998 with Obama’s speech regarding the government shutdown that occurred in late 2013. On one hand, Clinton remarks in hindsight on the failings of the U.S. government in reacting to the genocide for years earlier in Rwanda. His reaction involves graphic emotional narration and testimonial, and in an earnest and sincere way he illustrates the failings of the government for acknowledging the violence in Rwanda as genocide, reacting quickly in response to it, and allowing perpetrators of genocide to seek refuge in many refugee camps. These remarks indicate that the role of power was systemically misused, and mistakes were made on his behalf and that of others in his administration. More recently, Obama’s approach in addressing relations with the Republican Congress to the public demonstrated that the issues were external to his abilities as commander and chief. His tactics included blaming the Congress of extorting and blackmailing the democratic process. He highlights with common-man analogies that we cannot make demands for 100% of our wants by holding hostage or threatening opposing negotiators, and likewise that behavior cannot take place is the democratic process. The social and political issues dealt with by Clinton were open and transparent atrocities that resulted in casualties around one million people, however in contrast, President Obama’s constant altercations and the enmity of the Congress illustrates a systemic failure of the American government. The results of this are more implicit, and illustrate the corruption and financial motivation of the political process.

farkhanda

5/8/2014 09:59:36 am

Hi Lars,
I liked how you differentiated president Clintons and Obama's speech based on there speeches. Your examples on Clinton was on true as Clinton did illustrate his apologies for not acting sooner and nations around the world should have supported them immediately. Obama's urge for the parties to make a change really showed the audience how our government must succeed without the corruption that its representing to the country and its international friends. Good points on the blog.

fakhanda

5/8/2014 10:36:43 am

Each presidential speech had both similarities and differences both in style and diction. The speeches I really liked were the ones by George Bush and Bill Clinton. George Bush gave a great speech targeting the citizens of the United States and those who committed a crime against freedom (Al-Qaeda). Bush sounded confident with his decisions and future plans to represent to the audience that there will be consequences and justice will take place against the enemies. He acknowledges those countries who showed their support by letting them know that they are not alone. I also thought what he said about the practices of Islam was important to address because people need to be aware what kind of people hurt their nation and who is to blame for. Bill Clintons speech was very sympathetic to the people of Rwanda and descriptive in the beginning when explaining the genocide situation. Clinton brought up how the US should have been more aware and should acted immediately because its a responsibility for all international nations to support in crisis like this. Clinton shared the values of what Americans believe in for example standing up against injustice, equality, solidarity, unity, freedom, etch. Obama and Bush senior on the other hand were more informative but also to call upon action. Obama immediately wanted to change the situation of the government by letting parties know that he is willing to do anything to better the situation and raising the debt ceiling won't harm the economy because were just paying back what Congress already spent. His speech was about a economic concern that reflective the government and its proper role. What Bush desired was the removal of Iraq in Kuwait or else serious actions were to take place. He mentioned that countries will unite and do anything to keep Iraq away from Kuwait, even if it means carrying sanctions against them. The speeches all were specific to each event and how the presidents decided to address it was different because who they were talking to and what they were talking about. The citizens of the country they were speaking to was being impacted the most and how they chose to fix the problem were different yet similar when calling for action from the community or communities from around the world.

Kaylie Otsuka

5/8/2014 02:03:10 pm

Fakhanda,

I also liked Bush's approach in connecting with others globally and sharing their similar interest. As for Clinton, I thought he provided a great speech that shows the proactive interest of himself as an American citizen along with the rest of the U.S. I felt that Clinton had gave concrete example as to how to solve the Rwandan genocide issues and how the people from their homes may prevent another one. Overall, I think every President stood for equality yet their approaches were all quite different. Great explanation.

Have a great week!
Kaylie Otsuka

Christopher

5/11/2014 03:29:25 pm

I thought that Bush (junior's) comments about Afghanistan completely erroneous and misleading. He speaks about the harm Al Qaeda perpetrates against the people of Afghanistan, yet fails to mention US involvement in destabilizing the region. He also fails to mention the fact that Al Qaeda was originally trained and armed by the CIA during the cold war to thwart the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bush's speech was emotional and nationalistic propaganda.

Kaylie Otsuka

5/8/2014 01:57:08 pm

President Bush Senior begins his speech by asking for American support to stand up for what’s right and to condemn what’s wrong in order to achieve peace. He explains why putting military in Saudi Arabia was the best option, as we had exhausted every alternative, being the last option which is absolutely necessary. Bush makes Iraq seem like bad guy invading Kuwait, so we have to invade to stop them from occupying them any longer. He states, “[there is] No justification for this outrageous and brutal action.” Bush Senior believes that both friends and foes don’t deserve that kind of treatment and that as Americans we are required to help them. He mentions his four demands; to seek immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore Kuwait’s previous government before occupation, to remain in commitment to the security and stability of Persian Gulf, and to protect U.S. citizen’s lives. Bush explains that the U.S. supports Kuwait and froze Iraqi’s economic circulation within the United States. Because Iraq has fourth largest military in the world, is rich and has lots of natural resources, we should protect ourselves and any other nation that needs protection from there powerful grip. As the entire globe depends on their oil, we must “keep the peace in the middle east…[and] We must resists aggression or it will destroy our freedoms.” He then states that we cannot trust Saddam Hussein because his promises mean nothing so, it’s up to us as Americans to take care of this.
President Clinton explains the happenings of the Rwandan genocide, explaining how deeply Africa was affected. He bluntly explains that death of Hutu and Tutsis and 1 million lives taken comparing it as an event as bad as Nazis. Clinton believes that it is important that the world hear what actually happened, recognize that hate is root of issue, and that we owe it to everyone to try to prevent genocidal violence. He reminds us that everyone can slip into evil and evil won’t go away, but must accept evil to overcome it. Clinton points out that everyone, including himself, needs to take responsibility. He tells that the U.S. didn’t take quick enough response to the mass killings and refugee camps, didn’t call the crimes genocide, and that the only thing we can do now is to change the future by abolishing fear and restoring hope. Clinton also reminds the people that to stop discrimination you must embrace your heritage and unify people by providing awareness. Because these genocides are reoccurring parts of history, we must take a global eye to take control of such violence. As a community we must be able to act upon genocide threats.
Bush’s approach is to appeal to the people using persuasion and by demonizing who he believes is the perpetrator and glorifying who the victim is. He uses sympathy to try convinces the people that what the U.S. is doing by trying to stop Iraq is right and is 100% our business. Clinton has a very different approach than President Bush Senior as he takes full responsibility of the incident in that he was not proactive from the start and the severity may have been avoided. He also is quite blunt about the events and severity of the issue and how the people may participate to stop this hateful effort. Differently than Bush, Clinton appeals to his audience in a style which associates himself as a commoner rather than explain the steps the government itself is going to take to approach and solve the issue. It is more of a by the people choice to stop the hate rather than a power decision. Similarly, both Clinton and Bush Senior use an informative perspective to explain to the audience exactly what is happening. They both scrutinize and recognize the perpetrator to be evil, dangerous people that Americans are responsible to deny. Both Presidents make decisions that both affect the peoples of our nation as well as the corresponding nations and their terrorists. Both Clinton and Bush’s main goal is to achieve world peace and harmony with other nations.

Jennifer Hernandez

5/8/2014 02:16:10 pm

I watched both President Obama’s and Clinton’s speech just to get a different feel between the time differences, since Clinton’s was in 1998 and Obama's was in 2013. Looking at Clinton’s I saw that he mostly talked about how America was going to contribute to the after effects of genocide in Rwanda as well as doing it from a global level. He speaks with more imagery and crafty wording as if he is trying to implant to the audience the ideas he wants them to be aware at a deeper level. He mostly comes out statements that make him seem all the wiser with the very catastrophic situation. It was just one of the speeches that hyped up people to not give in to violence and to stand up to it. In Obama’s speech, he basically just goes into the main issue in a very straight manner where he is like, “Let’s cut the nonsense, because nobody has time for this.” He brings out various examples as to how the government should not act by personal interest in their parties like the Republican Party did with shutting down the government for a while. He mostly talks in a manner where he is just stating the obvious. In a way, towards the end of his speech I see that he was trying to gain the public’s approval on his “concern” and “sincerity” of the subject at hand by saying that he has recalled on planning bills to pass where it is for the good and the benefit of all. He repeatedly also states that instead of doing something that could damage the economy that we can work towards trying to solve things that could keep us moving from hitting a recession. Two things that both presidents do hit at the end is the fact that we shouldn't be separated based of groups but in a way on whether or not one agrees to help with greatness for humanity itself.

Armando Arzate

5/9/2014 02:58:23 am

Great post it was well written and well throughout. I believe both presidents know how to speak fairly well however, I do not buy either president’s speeches. I believe Clinton spoke up and talked about the issue in Rwanda only because people where already becoming aware of it. As for president Obama I believe he is looking for a scapegoat/excuse to not take action. It is true the president needs approval before taking actions which comes from our system of checks and balances however, I genuinely do not believe republicans kept shutting down his plans just because he was a democrat.

Cynthia Kay

5/11/2014 01:44:09 pm

I have to disagree with you Armando. Yes Clinton did speak up and I have always supported him but again, it was well after the fact as he knew when the genocide originally occurred, did not act on it. It's sort of like Sterling now saying "he made a terrible mistake". As for Obama, he speaks matter of factly to the American people. He and the rest of the Democrats were being criticized mostly by the Republicans for not avoiding the shutdown, and he made it clear all of the reasons, step by step, why it was the Republicans who were by no means cooperating. That is why they were referred to as "the party of no". Obama also explained in plain English to people what the debt ceiling really is and that it was NOT an increase in spending. This method of explanation is not often seen coming from a president.

Armando Arzate

5/9/2014 02:48:36 am

After watching all four presidents’ address political and social issues during their terms I decided to compare and contrast Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s speeches. Both take advantage of the opportunities to address the people in a time of fear and confusion; ultimately to not only make themselves look good but to gain the people’s trust. President Clinton addresses the issue of Genocide not only in Uganda but at on a global scale; reassuring not only the people of Uganda but everyone that the United States will help combats the genocide and help reestablish their lives to what they once knew, with the help of the United Nations. He speaks in a concern, serious, and saddens tone explaining that they wish they had done something before many lives were lost. President Clinton may have seemed genuine however; I believe he only addressed the issue because people where already becoming aware of the genocide going on and the United States had not done anything about it. So in order to make not only himself but the U.S look as heroes he decided to give the speech. One must realize that the American government has eyes and ears in almost every country in the globe I am positive they had heard of the genocide way before this speech was given however, they simply decided to address other issues that seem to benefit the U.S Government more. On the other hand President Bush also sounds concerned but rather confident and reassuring for the American people. He explains that the American government will basically do what it has to do to more or less prevent future “terrorist attacks”. When people are confused, scared, grieving and more they are easily convinced/sold as they are dealing with large amounts of duress. The American people looked for answers and direction which the president along with his government where able to provide for them. I believe that Bush’s Speech had a larger impact as it was a topic that was very serious as 9/11 was on American Soil. Many people were impacted by these decisions. Muslims, Iraq, the United States, Americans, and much more were truly affected by the outcome of these public speeches/decisions. Although, presidents may seem genuine and are convincing in their plans to help the “People” of this country they ultimately are only looking out for themselves, the government, and corporations.

Michael Plaza

5/12/2014 04:55:57 pm

Armando, you make an interesting statement when you say that the presidents you chose, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, take advantage of times of fear and confusion to make them appear as though they are people who can be trusted. I never thought of it in this way. You make good points about how the ultimate interest of the government lies within its interests and not necessarily in intervening to attempt to halt horrible acts such as genocide. I find your conclusion to your post about the presidents unadulterated appearance they are truly supporting their own interests and the interests of the government and corporations to be an interesting perception.

Christian Ramirez

5/9/2014 04:51:09 am

Each president's speech varied from topic to the way they simply responded. Clinton on one hand sympathized with the acts of genocide commented to the nation of Rwanda. Showing the most support to their nation and the families damaged by these atrocities. His concern was calm and just. On the other side we have Bush Senior who addressed the nation of Iraq in a very demanding way that they must withdraw from Kwait as they will not stand for their aggression. Showing how the dictator Saddam Hussein made false accusations that he would not attack the neighboring nations. George Bush Jr. spoke to the nation following the event that occurred on September 11th, 2001 which was very emotional for the entire nation. I feel his speech was adequate as he rallied us together with the sense that justice will be done and we americans will be secure again once the Taliban are brought to justice. Last we have Obama which addressed the nation on the issue of the government shutdown. His address was less formal and more nagging to stop the pointless issue. He showed it angered him and he was doing all he could to fix it. Most issues were handled to the best of their ability but others seem unfixed and a simpler solution could have been formed. At the end we are all in this together for better or worse. These men are human and work to the best of their abilities.

Cynthia Yang

5/9/2014 05:33:10 am

In comparison and contrast of President Bush (Senior): Address on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and President Obama’s Speech on the Government Shutdown, both presidents address the political and social problem in their own ways. President Bush (Senior) addresses his issue in terms of having Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait to allow Kuwait to reform its government again. In this situation, Iraq is considered the enemy and Kuwait is considered the ally. He wanted to help Kuwait out and stop Iraq from invading. President Bush was calmer about his issue with Iraq’s invasion in Kuwait. He showed no emotions compared to President Obama’s speech. President Bush (Senior) is informative about his issue: explaining and giving details how what and how he wanted to get things done.On the other hand, President Obama addresses his issue in terms of the government shut down: what he thinks is important and what republican thinks are important. With his speech, it showed that he cared about the issue. His tone of voice showed how serious, confident and strong he is about the issue, which is a trait that all presidents must have. He’s also very straight forward and wastes no time on silly things. Both president s impacted the citizens in the society, because they’re the ones who are the audiences. Both presidents also wanted peace to protect the people and to prevent chaos.

Leslie Werle

5/12/2014 07:34:24 am

I noticed the same thing in Bush Seniors address. He was very withdrawn and there was no emotion behind it. I think that was even more pronounced because he was alone in his office and it was quite unlike the other addresses.

All these presidents decisions impacted many people. It impacts all the people in our country and people in other countries. I'm sure our government shut down did not just affect the people in the US and the Iraq invading Kuwait impacted our society for years to come.

Alvin Luna

5/9/2014 07:34:08 am

Comparing and contrasting Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush Senior, I found that they both started out very similar. Clinton was addressing the genocide and sympathized with the people in attendance. Bush addressed the Iraqi invasion in Kuwait by sympathizing with the audience and letting it know that Kuwait didn't deserve to be invaded. I feel that President Clinton showed more emotion in his speech than Bush did in his. Bush was very monotone when discussing the issue, whereas you could actually tell that Clinton was disturbed by the genocide. Both of these presidents made in impact in their address because it shows that they are looking out for the better interest of the people. Clinton was part of the healing process for the people of Rwanda and Bush was coming up with ways to combat this invasion and restore peace. These issues were defined by their significance, there was a massive genocide in Rwanda and it was said that the speed of killing was faster than the Holocaust. The invasion of Kuwait was significant because it happened without provocation. Both speeches were empowering and gave hope to everyone affected. That is one thing that I think all Presidents intend to do and that is give hope during the darkest of times. Many people affected were watching these broadcasts, so hearing this come from the leader of the nation, meant that there was a possibility of hope being restored. Bush was specific on what he wanted done in order to make things better within Kuwait and Clinton was there to support the people affected by the genocide. He was also letting them know that this would never happen again anywhere so their situation wouldn't be taken in vain. Both presidents wanted to make a point and they made it. There were some similarities and some differences but their message was universal and that was to restore hope and peace in the people affected by these horrific incidents.

Frank Arredondo

5/9/2014 07:36:34 am

The two video clips I watched was first President Obama’s address regarding the government shut down, and raising the debt ceiling. The other video was George W. Bush’s address to congress following the events of September 11th. These two addresses really focused on two totally separate events. Within the text it discusses how the president is at times called to lead congress. In both of these clips you can see this is just what the president is attempting to do. However, with that the text as well mentioned the when a large scale event does happen you can truly see how a president reacts to it. It was interesting for sure to see the difference in how people responded to the president’s different addresses.
For Obama he was addressing the matter of Congress using the shut down as trying to gain leverage in negotiations around the national budget. Mr. Obama felt that the Republicans in the house were not willing to talk with democratic about the issues and forced the government shut down. He mentioned this argument several times in his short 15 minute speech. As well Mr. Obama was describing what raising the debt ceiling meant as he felt Republicans were stating it has a bad thing for the democrats to request. In this you can see how congress was really trying to suppress the Presidents power. Trying to show that congress had all power over the president and there was nothing he could do about it.
With President Bush though this was totally the opposite response he received from congress. Bush was determined to rally all Americans to be prepared for battle against global terrorism. Bush’s speech before congress following the attacks of September 11th really showed how a president can be called to lead congress. It as well though demonstrated how following a major event the president can almost do whatever he feels is necessary and congress will hand it to him. Bush described the things necessary for Americans to rally behind. As well the things he was ready and willing to set forth to assure the safety of all Americans. He set himself as the head of Home Land Security, and following this statement he received a standing ovation.
Whatever it may be these two address show how the president’s power tends to be like a wave. At one time the president is pretty much handed policies like Bush’s case. Or things can be fought every step of the way, and one side does not want give in at all like in Obama’s case. It was really interesting.

Tikerea Tate

5/12/2014 11:28:50 am

Hello,

Your post is really interesting to me. Reading your post made me realize that you really do not know how good a president is/ can be until a really dramatic situation happens. As you said, these 2 presidents are a prime example of that because the situations were so different, one involved the government which is pretty serious and the other involved 9/11 which is even more serious in my opinion.

Leslie Werle

5/9/2014 08:21:05 am

I am not a fan of either Bush that has been president. I thought it was interesting how differently they both addressed national incidents.

I chose to compare and contrast Bush Junior and Senior and their techniques of addressing the nation after a tragedy/national incident. Bush Senior is discussing the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. His address takes place in his office without an audience (by this I mean not in front of congress or a big press release). His address is very matter of fact and it seems to me that he is reading word for word off of a teleprompter. He discusses the invasion after Saddam had just stated that he was not going to invade Kuwait. This incident mostly impacted the country of Kuwait and then in turn our soldiers that were sent there when we jumped head first into the Persian Gulf War. To me he seemed very withdrawn from the incident.

Bush Junior on the other hand addressed the entire Congress after the attack of 9/11. Which was about the same amount of speaking but with so much clapping in between that it took quite a bit longer to watch, which if I'm being truthful means that I kind of spaced out from some of it because 40 minutes is a long time to listen to Bush speak. I suppose that's part of speaking to a life audience of that size. It made the whole address have more energy to it. He spoke emotionally about it and hearing people respond to him makes it even more so. This address, and his demands of our country and others, changed the path of our country permanently. Every single person in our country was affected by the dramatic changes the Bush administration made to our daily lives. He did a good job with pulling the strings of the listeners to feel, which is something his father didn't do in his address; not to me at least.

Both of these presidents had drastic affects of some people's lives. The United States has always been a country to get involved when another country is having problems and needs help. Whether that's exactly what our armed forces are for we will leave for another discussion but as the leaders of our country these men had the power to change things that still affect our lives today, all these years later.

Travis Himebaugh

5/9/2014 10:11:45 am

Frankly, I find the first three clips very similar in nature, with only President Obama's repudiation of the government shutdown being dissimilar enough to draw contrasts. Therefore, with the court's indulgence (my little joke) I have decided to lump the former three together and compare them with the latter. The speeches of Presidents Bush and President Clinton all share many characteristics- they were in response to very serious and poignant issues, and the presidents' responses were suitably somber. Each of them seemed personally wearied; they showed gratitude towards visitors, they publicly denounced perpetrators, and they helped provide closure for great tragedies. The last of these clips was decidedly not like the others- there was no acknowledgment of great tragedy. There was only a critique of a frankly embarrassing farce. President Obama seems more annoyed than sorrowful. He is also uses more personal language, likely because his speech is directed exclusively towards Americans, not to the world at large. He even uses something like jokes in his speech ("I'll even buy dinner"). And he does his best not to target any one group in his speech- the others are frank condemnations of terrorist groups, but in this case, he does his best to distinguish the cause of the problem from those peripherally associated with them (not to say that the other presidents did not make those important distinctions- Bush Jr. deserves some credit for separating Islam from al-Qaeda). All of these clips demonstrate above average speaking skills, which are, of course, crucial to a politician's career.

Augustus Castro

5/9/2014 12:55:07 pm

I first began with the sympathetic response from Bill Clinton, His speech clearly illustrates the horrific endeavors of the Rwandan genocide while paying respects to the fallen people. it was a clear example of how a foreign affair was handled with a firm but preventative measure to stop domestic issues similar to this global issue. I followed that video with president Obamas speech and it was the opposite in emotional response. He recognizes the domestic issue as serious yet he stimulates his speech with the potential of change. He seems to be open to change as well as suggestion which is important in that he does not want to just make a decision without hearing who this policy may affect. Clinton's approach compared to Obama's is one more heart felt than problem solving and of sympathy versus cutting losses and rebuilding.

Duc Doan

5/9/2014 01:49:27 pm

Every president has a way that they would address the social issues in America. In these four videos, there are different issues among the presidents. George W. Bush chose to address the nation about the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. In his speech, he pretty much told the nation that we are going to war. He did not say that directly but choose to indirectly address it by saying the Taliban are responsible. The tone of his speech seems serious; maybe it is because he is addressing congress. He wants the nation to know that he was serious in defending country and basically listed his enemies. This is a tactic so that the nation could want to go to war. Pretty smart move and persuasive speech. In contrast, his father, George H.W Bush addresses the situation in Kuwait where he wanted all the Iraqi troops to leave. Bill Clinton chooses to address the issue of Rwanda genocide and he proposes that every one should be aware of its environment. He speech seems apologetic. I like the way that president Clinton had always spoken, because he speaks in a happy tone. Lastly, Barack Obama chose to address the debt issues in America. He talks about the debt and how health care should keep raising the debt because everyone needs. The tone of his speech seems angry and fierce. He is known for speaking this way. Mainly I think to get his message across. He looks fatigue also. I understand that it can be tiring as a president because you’ve got so many things to do. But Obama should have a better tone in his speech. As a president you are held to a higher standard.

David Perez

5/9/2014 01:56:45 pm

Each of the presidents addresses the main issue of their presidency. Clinton speaks of rebuilding third world countries that were affected by genocide. Bush Senior spoke about the troops in Kuwait and the issues of them being there. Bush Jr. spoke of the nation having a sense of hope after experiencing the 9/11 incidents. Obama takes the aggressive angle because the nation is not experiencing a major tragedy (like 9/11), so he uses his aggressive tone and attitude towards rising issues such as unemployment and things of that matter. Every president shows very strong confidence and uses their public speaking spotlight to their advantage. Obama is a very powerful speaker. After hearing one of his speeches, you feel empowered and as if you have a voice. I feel like each president has a unique way of getting their point across and it is very effective.

Frank Arredondo

5/11/2014 02:00:52 pm

Hey David,

You make a good point that each president shows almost a skill at talking in front of these people of power. Whatever the matter on hand they are discussing they do give off just this feeling of “I know what I am talking about.” No matter what someone is going to disagree with anyone of them. But when they have the chance to speak on behalf of what they stand for they take full advantage of it. Each word you can tell is said for a reason. If it is to make a point stronger or just to create a mood within the message it truly is a skill each man has. Yes, they have speechwriters, but it is the delivery that truly helps them in the long run. Like you said I can hear a speech done by Obama and feel like I can go and conquer my plans.

Nico Passalacqua

5/9/2014 03:22:34 pm

Discussions between Republicans and Democrats shouldn’t require hanging the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the American people. Members of Congress and the House of the Republicans don’t get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs, those being passing a budget and making sure America is paying its bills. The Republicans haven’t taken a position that has allowed the two parties to hash out their differences. Instead they decided to run out the clock until a government shutdown or a default with the idea that it will them more leverage. The Democrats have shown ample willingness to discuss any issues that Republicans are concerned about, but the entire basis of Republicans is uncooperative behavior unless they receive 100 percent of what they want.

The genocide in Rwanda were not spontaneous or accidental. They were not a result of ancient tribal struggles. The people had lived together for centuries. The events grew from a policy aimed at the systematic destruction of people. Clinton challenged us to build a world in which no branch of humanity because of national, racial, ethnic, or religious origin is threatened with destruction, because those are characteristics that people should be proud of. There were people sitting in offices who didn't appreciate the depth and speed that the people of Rwanda were being engulfed with such terror. President Clinton seemed to take a large portion of the responsibility for the genocide and took responsibility for not offering more support and protection for the people in danger. His speech focused on leaders of both countries meeting to create a more secure nation and establishing the rule of law, a more stable justice system.

Bree Hart

5/9/2014 04:00:35 pm

I decided to watch President Obama's speech and former President Bush Senior.
Obama seems very fed up with the topic. He seems to be annoyed that the House Republicans spent all this time procrastinating and now that there is a shutdown. President Obama makes it very clear they were procrastinating and it was their intention to procrastinate the whole time so that the shutdown could happen. The Republicans were basically refusing to talk to the Democrats, and it was their strategy all along because they wanted to have the shut down because they felt it gave them leverage, when really it did not. He seems very anxious to end the shutdown because he doesn't want it to go any further and he is tired of the excuses he keeps hearing from the republicans. He even says, that the vote could take place today and that other serious topics could be brought up. Obama seems very smart and seems to really want to get things done. He says that we should raise the debt ceiling, and he says how raising the debt ceiling does not mean we are increasing our debt, it just allows the treasury department to pay for what Congress has already spent. During this speech, Obama addresses the nation like he is an average American. I say this because he wants us to understand he feels our frustration with this issue and that it isn't fair for us to have to go through this because of procrastination. This issue was very important because nobody knew what was going on and why it was happening, except really for the people inside. American citizens were all impacted by the decisions being dealt with, our government was shutdown because of procrastination and tactics for leverage in a situation. I think since the Republicans were very annoying with not allowing a committee to be made, that Obama feels they aren't serious and that he will always be irritated that they let it get taken this far.
While watching President Bush Senior's address, I found his address very interesting. I never saw him speak on television or in videos because I wasn't born. During the speech President bush Senior demands that all of the Iraqi soldiers leave Kuwait, so that peace can be restored. He believes if we start with this, peace will be restored. He continues to say that Sadam Hussain first promised not to invade Kuwait, and then days later he promised to withdrawal. President Bush Sr. says that his promises mean nothing. He says that this issue isn't our problem, but it is a world problem. He also says, that since this is happening it can happen again, and that we need to take action now to stop it. He makes it very clear he is working very hard to deter Iraqi regression. During this speech, he has to deal with foreign affairs, and it seems to be defined as really important because it is a world problem. With the issue of Iraqi invading Kuwait, Kuwait citizens are in danger. The consequences of us getting into this issue, are the lose of our own soldiers and lives of other foreign citizens, but also this shaped how America gets along with the middle east.

Eduardo Ruiz

5/9/2014 04:10:31 pm

In the speech given by Obama, I would call his domineer as controlled anger. On numerous occasions he and democratic leaders tried to negotiate with republican leader on the government’s budget so that we would not go into default but each time they refused, even when they gave into their demands. In Bush sr.’s speech, his domineer seem more optimistic over Iraq’ invasion over Kuwait, as if all of the sanctions and military presence in the area would certainly make them back down. In both speeches it was made apparent that the American people were the ones that were going to affected.
To me it seemed like Obama’s speech was actually trying to protect and help American citizens by trying to fix the country’s economic problem. With Bush he was interested the country’s economic problem with the loss of a major oil contributor, but it seemed more as if the loss of all that oil was more hit for the oil refiners then anything. Bush even states that this attack was in the government’s interest to stop, which shows me that it is much more then to help regular American citizens.

Bree Hart

5/12/2014 04:37:46 pm

Hi Eduardo! I definitely agree with the controlled anger. If I was in his position, I would absolutely feel the same way because he has had to wait so long for a discussion and then the government gets shut down because of it.
I also agree with the last paragraph. Obama really seems to care, after watching the other videos it didn't seem like anyone cared like he did.

Alan

5/12/2014 06:45:30 pm

I would that what Obama was feeling doing the speech was a form of anger. To me it seem that that the different between the President responses was not a matter of helping American or not, but I was an issue of global reputation and power. While Obama had lots to lose in our reputation if we defaulted, he choose to refocus it as a domestic issue, and show how it would individually affects Americans in order to pull support. While, I feel that Bush saw it as a better opinion to make this into a foreign issue that would strengthen America's power, and not affect Americans into to prevent opposition. They choose to paint the issue to relate to what would best fit them.

Michael Plaza

5/9/2014 04:53:46 pm

Bush senior posits an interesting point when he states that in the name of peace there are defensive armed forces placed in Kuwait. He makes it very known in his speech that the decision that he made was made in a dire ultimatum type circumstance. His vocabulary utilizes many words such as safety, defense, and protection when describing the United States role in the Persian gulf. He also calls the problem with the Iraqi invasion a "world problem" and takes it upon the United States to address this problem in an assertive manner.
When George W. Bush addresses the nation after 9/11 it was a very touchy subject, because as he states it created so much change in the course of one day, and there is not quite a direct enemy to point at. There organizations move all throughout the middle east, and as he says throughout 60 countries. He paints a very vivid picture about how terrible the Al Quida are, and the problems with religion faced in Afghanistan, but he is sure to point out that it is the Taliban regime that is to blame, and that religious freedom, no matter what religion, is at stake. He addresses this in a similar fashion as Bush Senior as if there was absolutely no other move to make than meet this problem head on with boots on the ground.
One can see the similarities in the concern with foreign affairs by these presidents and the timely decision making that had to be made by them concerning the supposed well being of the world in relation to the issues that they address in their speeches.

Zhi Li link

5/9/2014 05:22:44 pm

Hi Michael Plaza,

Yes, I totally agreed with you. I also liked the way of George W. Bush addressing 9/11 issue. I though Bush provided a great speech that shows a vivid picture about terrible the Al Quida. I also felt that Bush used lots words such as safety, defense, and protection in describing Persian gulf. It strongly proved that he addressed this issue confidently. Overall, I think every presidents had their own speech styles yet stood for equality.

Have a great weekend!
Tony

Zhi D. Li link

5/9/2014 04:56:01 pm

1. What are the major differences you see in how each president chose to address the political and social problems during their terms?
Four president’s speech had similarities and differences. Frankly, the speeches I really enjoyed was Obama’s speech. Not because other speech doesn’t target me (I am an international student), it just because I felt that Obama’s speech gives me a attitude of cherishing people every time. Also, his opening remarks was attracted me a lot. Comparing to other’s speech, Obama’s speech was not like reading scripts and no facial emotions, and Obama’s speech is actually presenting his great personality. Then, there was no such person who waited for “pause” to for loud applause. Moreover, Obama’s speech did not have a bureaucratic tone. Obama’s tone seemed like more confident, serious, and strong.
2. How were these issues defined?
Obama’s speech and Bush (senor)’s speech included more information. And Obama’s speech also gave a feeling of that: he tried his best to make the situation better; for example, carefully raising the debt but not hurt the economy too much. And his speech is a trend towards economic concerns. Again, Obama’s speech was less informal but more easy to understand.
3. Who was impacted by the issues being dealt with and what were the consequences of Presidential decisions on those communities?
The citizens of the United States were impacted the most, this is because most of the audience are audiences. All decisions made by presidents were both affect Americans and the world. Overall, its main purpose is to achieve a peace world and more environmental friendly.

Joann Truong

5/9/2014 04:59:39 pm

All four of the Presidents had different ways on talking about all the different topics that were important to them. Bill Clinton talked about the genocide, Bush Sr. talked about the invasion in Kuwait, Bush Jr. talked about the 9/11 attack, and Obama talked about the government shutdown. They all chose to speak about that certain topic for a reason. For example, the reasons could be reassurance or an explanation to his people. All the presidents had their own way of voicing themselves. They all had a certain touch in their speech. Their voice and attitude were also very different. A president was more strict and straight to the point. A president was more concerned for his people. Depending on the topic, different people were being impacted, but the majority of the people were the people of the United States. I feel like the President’s decisions didn’t really benefit anyone but themselves. I feel like they say that they are thinking about the people and what’s best for their people but honestly, they can careless.

Karishma Khatri

5/9/2014 05:00:00 pm

Each of the president’s address the respective social and political problems in their own ways. Bill Clinton was very genuine. He addressed the fact that the international community did not act to help during the genocide. He called on his office and the international community to act on making an effort to stop this from ever happening again. His speech also shows how much the United States has history with the international community. It has always been involved in international affairs. This was the sake for diplomatic relations. He acknowledged that his administration could have saved more lives of they had not denied that Rwandan genocide was happening. I believe that the United Nations peace keepers had been involved as well. Obamas address was very recent and very direct. There seems to be a lot of “pointing of fingers” in many of the speeches shown. The government shutdown showed that the Commander in Chief has limited power. One party in the House was able to shut down the government. The partisan speaker and Tea Party Republicans ended up prolonging the vote, in turn creating turmoil. President Obama stated he is willing to talk with the Republicans. The Republicans has refused to vote on Obamas budget. According to the textbook, the Office of Management and Budget helps the President prepare and create an annual budget.

Alan Fernandez

5/9/2014 05:00:19 pm

The first video I watched was Obama taking about the government shutdown. He appeared to tired and frustrated by the situation. He spoke very forcefully, and talk about how it was the congress job to pass a budget, and is angry that republican would stall out on passing the budget and doing their job because they want to prevent a bill from applying. He makes it seen like the republicans are a small minority making decision against what the majority has already chosen. He is frustrated by the use of Americans as pawns in political battle. His issue was defined by debt issues, and a drift in congress where they can't get anything done. Ordinary Americans were impacted by this issue, and the consequence of his decision.

I watched President Clinton's speech after that he had a calmer tone, and more sympathetic view. He talk about the genocide in Rwanda, and related to the larger issue of mass killing around the world. He express sadness for the victims, and talked about the ways the United States had missed an opportunity for action, and how it will later react to new situation of genocide. His issue was defined by the fear, and anger of genocide, and as such is main point was to calm the american people, and show how the united states is helping, and will help with genocide in general now as a global power. Third world countries, and the global community were impacted by this issue, and dealt with the consequences of his actions.

Michael Plaza

5/12/2014 04:48:45 pm

Alan, I agree with you that Obama seemed very frustrated with the way that congress was handling the budget. You make an interesting point when you say that he thinks Americans are being utilized as pawns in the American political arena. Do you think that we are just pawns in the schematics of American politics in their current state of affairs?

Leslie Ann Ong

5/10/2014 02:07:58 am

President Bush's address regarding the dispatch of US forces onto Kuwait was for the cause of peace and unity. Bush Sr. communicated his speech with reasoning that represented American principals. In other words, the audience obtains the impression that it was the United State's duty to step in and intervene with the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. Being that Iraq was one of the most powerful countries due to their oil-reserves as well as being named the 4th largest military at the time, Bush stated it is our job to protect our friends and furthermore conveyed other countries supported this act, such as Japan, UK, France, the Soviet Union, and China. Furthermore, Bush Sr. stated the assistance and defense against the Iraq was necessary, because Hussein was an aggressive leader, one who ran a "puppet regime" and more specifically, one who did not keep his promises. As Bush Sr. expressed, the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait was a global one, and obviously his decision for intervening with foreign conflict impacted American citizens, as he put an embargo on oil imports.
On the other hand, President Barack Obama's speech was expressed in a more intimate level, being his first statements about negotiations involved scenarios of everyday Americans, perhaps foreshadowing and hinting how this act would affect said audience. Further, his use of "let's" and "we" also exemplifies how citizens should also take action. Obama's speech concerning the government shutdown has a more reassuring tone than Bush Sr.'s, due to the fact Bush Sr. seemed uncertain of his hopes of a "short" war.

Christopher

5/11/2014 04:02:48 pm

There are many ways, many tactics I should say, that I saw used by the four presidents while giving their addresses. I think they could fall into two categories though, two major categories. Though all of the presidents either left out specific details of the events they were speaking of or straight up lied, Bush Sr. and Jr. both seemed concerned with using a lot of nationalistic and patriotic language while Obama and Clinton seemed (for the most part) genuinely concerned with leveling with their audience. Clinton was apologetic, Both Bushes war mongering, and president Obama seemed honest about his concerns about the use of ransom tactics in politics. I found it interesting how well Bush Jr. used the presiding sentiments of the country to justify going to war. The way he used the context of countries like Afghanistan “housing,” Al Qaeda, giving them refuge, and therefor being complicit with the 9/11 attacks to convince congress that there was a precedent for invasion made me think that even though presidents technically need the permission of congress before they commit troops to war, there are so many ways to ensure that that happens. In this case, propaganda was used to whip up nationalist and patriotic sentiment so much that the congress had little choice but to vote on going to war. Our textbook makes it seems that there are systems in place which check the power of the executive, but in reality, as we saw with both Bushes, there are ways of manipulating congress to get what one wants.

Julia Miranda

5/12/2014 08:50:50 am

All of the speeches were a response to a national or international event that had happened during their term. Obama’s speech was more of an apology for indecisive republicans and that there are a lot of problems that we are going to need to get into more debt in order to handle. Kennedy’s speech was in Rwanda and on the genocide that the country went through in the 1990’s. He offered them U.S. support and funding for everything that they had to experience and go through. He sounds very compassionate as he expresses how the U.S. is going to help prevent any other genocides from happening and to not forget what happened in Rwanda. Bush senior’s was very calm, very hard to listen to due to the lack emotion or interest in the speech. Even though it was on how Iraq invaded Kuwait which is a pretty serious topic, he just sounded so boring, he didn’t come off as sympathetic at all. He went over how the U.S. plans to help Kuwait get back on its feet and show other countries that the U.S. is supporting Kuwait to stand up to Iraq, and that our troops that we send over will be safe. Baby Bush’s speech was on the 9/11 attack, and that was a complete spin from Senior Bush’s speech. Baby Bush was so fired up as he explained his zero tolerance on terrorism and promised that he would protect the U.S. by getting rid of threats from the middle east. He also goes on and explains the culture on those who were doing the attack and how it isn't an attack on a religion but the terrorists. He then expressed our sympathy for those who lost lives from the attack.

Comparing Presidential Influence & Behavior (week 6)

Leave a Reply.

POSC 1201

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Comparing Presidential Influence & Behavior (week 6)

Leave a Reply.

POSC 1201

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS