Read the article How to Measure for a President.
Then answer the following questions:
- What is the author's (John Dickerson) argument?
- What evidence does he use as support?
- What does he want his audience to do?
- Were you persuaded? Why or why not?
The authors argument was that we need to look deeper into the candidates that are running for office and that we need to look into their traits that they have to see if they actually can do what they say they can do.
ReplyDeleteHe uses examples such as the example where he said that many candidates promise things as to not offend anyone and then once their in office, most their decisions will probably offend someone that supported him. Another example is that most political attacks on candidates are referring to the politicians character and sometimes certain politicians have to change their character to best fit the situation at hand.
The author wants his audience to look deeper into the candidates that are running for the presidential office and not just listen to their ideas but actually research and see if they are capable of accomplishing what they say. Yes, because I felt like his information was sound and intriguing, the thoughts that he had about researching candidates was useful and made me want to know more.
1.)John Dickerson's argument is that good campainers do not nessarly make good presidents.
ReplyDelete2.)The author states that some of the best campianers like Carter make terrible presidents. He also states that campaining has turned into a permenant state of the presidency. He also states that political rhetoric does not always make good government.
3.)He wants the audience to look at the actual expierence and the campainers personal character. He also wants them to look at their political skills, how well they manage things, and their temperment.
4.)The author makes some good points in this article and I tend to agree with alot of them. However idealogy of a canadite should also persade voters. Campaining for the presidency can be nasty and full of lies but with the news cycle being the way it is and the close nature of this election, campaining is a reality we all must accept.
1. The author's argument is that some candidates can talk but they can't walk. They can say what they're going to do but they can't always do them once they become president.
ReplyDelete2. The author uses evidence of how easily Nixon won his election but had a hard time dealing with the situation in Vietnam. Also, the author talks of Carter being unknown, then makes office and does nothing with it. The author states campaigning doesn't make the presidency, the action and the doing make the presidency.
3. The author wants the voters to consider what and how much the candidate has actually done instead of what they say, and then he wants voters to consider the qualities and character of the candidate.
4. I would say I am persuaded because now the more I think about it, I always focus on what candidates say they're going to do more than anyhting else. I believe this is because all of the say is what is put into the public by the media instead of what the candidate has achieved or their character. I will now look at things with equal vision and consider all factors and details that are needed to make the proper choice.
The author's argument was that there a certain qualities that we should look for in a presidential candidate. He stated that we need to look for certain things in a candidate, such as being able to communicate effectively with people, being able to handle stress, & being able to build up a team that trusts you completely. He stated that campaigning and presidency require all of these traits and more to be successful. He uses his own personal opinion to support what he thinks. He also suggests ways to improve the way we choose presidential candidates, such as looking more into their character and background. The author would like his audience to be more cautious of who they choose to be the president of their country. He would like them to look deeper into the candidates separately. Personally, his argument was persuasive enough to have me on his side, seeing his point of view. He used his language and supporting evidence to persuade the readers easily. He also wrote about a topic that concerns every United States citizen, which is persuasive.
ReplyDelete1. The author's argument is that an evaluation or interview of a presidential candidate may give a more realistic and better idea of what they are really like and if they are ready for the challenge of being the President of the United States.
ReplyDelete2. The author uses examples of previous presidents and how they were successful campaigners, but not necessarily the best president. He also gives examples of how an interview can reveal more qualities about a candidate than any political add or debate can.
3. The author wants his audience to think harder about who they want in office. He wants them to realize that the campaigns don't always reveal the whole person and that evaluating and looking at a person's qualities can give a better idea of how successful a person might be.
4. I think the author was successful at persuading me because after reading I now believe it is a good thing to look at the qualities of a candidate. I now also believe that maybe we should pay less attention to the things candidates say in their campaigns and debates because most of the time they are just saying what they know will please people.
John Dickerson's argument is that voters should pay more attention to the qualities and goals that the presidential candidates will need to possess during their presidency, rather than only looking at their campaigning skills. The author stated, "It’s hard to say what the Founding Fathers would think of the modern presidency. But there’s no doubt they’d be horrified by the modern presidential campaign. In their day, no man worthy of the presidency would ever stoop to campaigning for it." I believe that this statement really shows how campaigning has become corrupted and polluted over the years. Dickerson wants the American voters to pay attention to their beliefs, rather than the campaigning skills that the candidates possess. A presidential campaigner may be able to speak well with great ideas, but that does not necessarily mean that they can follow through during their presidential term. The author would like his audience to reevaluate their approach and guide lines to picking the appropriate president. He does not want people to get caught up in the drama and take the easy way out to pick the right president. I believe that his essay was very persuasive because I found his information to be very valid. I often despise the superficiality of the campaigns, and although it is easy to get caught up in the mess during the campaigns, I know it is necessary to approach the presidential election from his method. Dickerson's use of the logos form of rhetoric was extremely effective in this essay.
ReplyDeleteThe authors argument is that we need to start questioning how the candidates are going to do what they say they are going to do and that we need to make sure we know the kind of person we are voting for.
ReplyDeleteHe uses examples like when he says that Mitt Romney said he was going to repeal the affordable care act and replace it. The author says that we need to ask him how he is going to do so because he still would have to have majority in Congress.
The author wants the audience to go beyond just listening to the candidates and really question their promises and see if they can really do what they say they can.
I was persuaded a little. I do not really follow politics at all so I really don't know what promises were made in the first place so i can't judge or research what is being said if i don't know about it.
1. The author's argument is that presidential candidates' potential effectiveness in office should be measured upon four specific qualities (political skill, management ability, persuasiveness, and temperament); the presidential campaign of a president does not also necessarily reflect on how they will do in office.
ReplyDelete2. He uses past the stories of past presidents to support the idea that effective campaigning does not represent how effective they will be in office. Specifically Lyndon B. Johnson and how he had an extremely well-planned campaign, but failed to micromanage the situation in Vietnam. He also compares Richard Nixon's strong campaign to the failure of his presidency, and mentions how Jimmy Carter rose from relative obscurity and then was considered a political genius (but he also calls him an ineffective president.)
3. He wants his audience to evaluate the candidates based upon flexibility of views, past management abilities, personal opinion, public identity, general political skill, and how they deal under pressure; these are important to how a person deals with the presidency.
4. Yes I was persuaded. I think it's very important to better evaluate our candidates on a much deeper level rather than just picking someone because they share a couple of our views. If a person is an effective speaker but cannot handle the job under pressure, then they are obviously going to be an ineffective president. We need someone who is going to make good decisions and lead our country effectively no matter the conditions; by digging deeper we can categorize who should be in office.
In this article, the author made the argument that the modern presidential campaign has become corrupt because it no longer focuses on a candidate's raw skills needed to run a country. The author proves this by providing that when Obama was asked about his current experience, he simply stated that his campaign was successful. The author states that good campaigners are not neccesarily good presidents. He says that if this was true we would have a whole line of presidents that were successful. However, for example, Jimmy Carter was virtually unknown, but was such a good campaigner that in two years became president. Carter was, though, one of the least effective presidents of all time. By stating this the author hopes to show that it is not the campaign that matters it is the skills they posess. This then leads into the author's point that voters no longer look at a cadidate as a whole. They look at them as one dimensional and when they state their plans for the country, voters neglect to act how it will be carried out.
ReplyDeleteThe author's point of this article is to try to persuade voters to not look at the president's success in their campaign, but rather the leadership skills they posess. The author then gives the criteria one needs to evaluate to determine a good leader. He says they need to have political, management, persuasiveness, and temperment skills. He wants voters to look more in depth about the candidates as opposed to just looking at their campaign.
Personally, I thought this article was very persuasive. I think the evidence he provided for all of his points allowed me to see his opinion very clearly. I think that the author had very valid points and presented them in a way that made me agree with them.
1.) His argument is that as citizens we should have some kind of guideline to maybe follow when voting, and even what kind of process a candidate should go through. We may need to treat this as an interview, to get the best possible candidate to win.
ReplyDelete2.) He gives plenty of past presidental explanations. He explained how Carter was very unpopular until he became president, and although he may have had great ideas about politics, he was very uneffective. He explains in most of his examples that these past presidents had great ideas or were very promising at first, but then didn't prove our country anything.
3.) He tells us that, although there should never be a formula for electing a president, citizens should think more realistically. We as citizens, need to think about who they actually are, and even past jobs or any significant moment. We should take the election as more of an interview.
4.) Yes, I was persuaded. I don't really look into the elections because I, 1) don't have any interest in it and 2) don't really understand everything they talk about. This looks at the campaign as maybe a more personal competition, rather than based all on what they say. I realize that there is more to the campaign than a party and their ideas for the country. This essay gave me more insight on the campaign and how to look at it in a different perspective.
1. Dickerson is trying to make the point that we base so much of our political decisions nowadays on the campaigns, when we shouldn't.
ReplyDelete2. He brings up the point that our Founding Fathers would never think that someone does such a thing would be worthy of governing our country. He says also talks about the how many people have said that the sign of a good president is a good campaigner. However, if this were true, he says, then we would have a better presidential streak than we do now.
3. He wants his audience to rethink cmapaigns and be able to see what each candidate is really like. He wants us to take apart each part of the candidates campaign adn truly think about the real meaning.
4. I was persuaded because many of the points he brought up I was not able to counter with. Also, it made me realize that when one campaigns they are showing off, which is almost of a sign of low confidence, because if they were truly confident they would be able to not campaign and still feel okay about elections.
1. The author's argument is that presidential elections should be more in depth and based on the presidents actual skils and not how well they campaign.
ReplyDelete2. The author uses 4 main points to help guide voters to really understand the qualities actually needed to become a successful President. Such points include: political skill, management ability, persuasiveness and temperament.
3. The author wants the audience to understand what qualities are needed to be a successful President. The author is focusing on making the audience aware of just how much things have changed since Washington was President and what we have to do nowadays to see past the flare and flash of the campaigns and focus on what matters most.
4. Yes, I was persuaded. I think the author made a solid point when he/she talked about how back in the day the Presidents would have never campaigned for votes. I agree with the author that voters today are not voting for the Presidents for the right reasons. I also agree that voters today are ignorant of what qualities qualify someone to become our President. I think that campaigns now are too focused on bashing the other competitors and not on the real issues and how exactly they are going to fix/accomplish them.
1. The author's argument is that we, the people, need to look deep down inside the presidential candidates and find what they are truly about. He is mentioning in the text that voters of every election should ask questions and find answers as to who is the best candidate for the country as a whole, not just which candidate supports a single idea of yours. He also states that being a good campaigner does not automatically make you a good president who will do good for the country.
ReplyDelete2. The author supports many of his facts with cold hard evidence of previous elections such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and most recent Barack Obama. He points out that past presidents have been some of the best campaigners, yet are some of the worst presidents for the country.
3. The author wants his audience to be more cautious and aware of who the presidential candidates are. He wants his audience to better learn and understand what the candidates are truly for and what they will be able to actually accomplish, instead of "say" they will accomplish. His message is for voters to ask questions and be more aware and open to what candidate is best for the country.
4. I was persuaded to be more attentive at who our next president could possibly be. When I am able to vote, i will take into consideration for what the author in this text argued, and i will make sure to learn about and find for myself which candidate will be the best influence on our country, as a whole. I will make sure to not have bias when first choosing my decision on who i want to vote for, for i will be open and attentive on who will make a good PRESIDENT, not who is the best campaigner.
John Dickerson believes Americans should take a deeper look into presidential candidates before selecting one. Dan Quayle said, "If he governs as well as he campaigned, the country will be all right." That statement proves that presidential candidates can put up a front that is difficult to maintain. The author breaks the campaign down into several sections including political skill, management ability, persuasiveness, and temperament. He believes that leadership is a sum of those four (measurable) attributes rather than a category of its own. Dickerson encourages Americans to shuffle through the political slander to choose the right candidateto focus more on the character of candidates, which may get us closer to understanding how they would operate in a powerful office. I personally believe it is a good idea to review all candidates and their ideals before making your selection. Each of the candidates in a political party have slightly different views.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author's argument is that presidential elections should be based on more than just how well the candidates campaing. Instead, voters should take the time to examine the candidates' characters. The author also argues that voters should investigate whether or not they believe that the candidates have the skills necessary to do the things that they promise to do, before making the decision on who they will vote for in the election. To support his claim, the author gives examples of presidents, such as Carter, who made excellent campaigners but struggled once in the office. The author also intros the article by saying that the nation's founding fathers would be disgusted with the present presidential campaigns, for "no man worthy of the presidency would ever stoop to campaigning for it". Finally, the author talks about how modern voters only look at the campaigns of the candidates, instead of looking at the candidates themselves. After reading this article, the author wants the audience to begin looking at elections much more closely. Instead of just examining the candidates at the top level and looking at the campaigns, the author wants the audience to go much more in depth. The author easily persuaded me after reading this article. I have never really like politics or politicians, so I already shared some of the beliefs that the author of this article portrayed. The information that the author presented was also interesting and easy to follow.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dickerson in this article argues that presidents nowadays are not as effective as they used to be. He also goes on how that the campaigns nowadays are not needed or are just made to downsize their opponents. He goes into how that obama constantly said things against Mccain during elections. He wants his audience to not believe everything a candidate says because it all will not come true. I was persuaded somewhat by this article, but i already knew about some of this so it was not a big statement.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dickerson's agrument is that everyone should fully evaluate both candidates before deciding on which one to vote for. He exposes the reasons that people have for voting for their candidate and shows the flaws in their reasoning. The reasons people were using were generated from small generalized information on the candidates.
ReplyDeleteHe wants people to put more thought into who they are voting for before they vote. I was persuaded because all of his points were supported facts and this is an opinion based argument.
John Dickerson is arguing that we shouldn't base our voting decision on how successful a candidate's campaign is, but we should look into the candidate more deeply to understand their goals and abilities. An example of this is his four qualities that we should look at: political skill, management ability, persuasiveness, and temperament. These help to decide on the effectiveness of a candidate. Dicken's wants his audience to really research the candidates before making a decision. Most people simply look at what each candidate says he will do, but people need to ask the vital question of "How?" before coming to a conclusion. I was persuaded a little. I, obviously, am not able to vote in the next election, so I do not think about these things very much. I tend to, like most people, simply look at what the candidates say they are for and what they will do. I will now critically question each claim given by the candidates as to decide upon the best choice.
ReplyDelete1. In this essay, the author's argument is that in the United States, many voters do not see the true presidential candidate that lies behind the mask of their campaigns. He argues that citizens need to pay more attention to different deeper qualities to really obtain they type of spearheading and qualified president that the country wants.
ReplyDelete2. He supports his argument by showing different presidents and what they campaign for compared to what they actually completed while in the presidential seat. Even though Mit Romney has not been president the author showed how many people do not look past what the advertisement shows. They claim that he is flip floppy on his ideals. However, the author pointed out that a good president does not have opinions that are stuck in stone. This showed his opinion of looking past the advertisement and digging into the character of the candidates.
3. The author wants this article to give a new perspective to the voters. He wants to show them some techniques on how to really examine a candidate in a way that will benefit the country in the end. He hopes that this will improve the elections in the future. Not by diluting anything, but by giving voters real qualifications that they are looking for instead of being persuaded by the “hopeful” promises of the candidates.
4. I was persuaded by the argument of this author. He showed many valid arguments that made me re-evaluate how I perceive the cookie-cutter plans that presidents offer. I liked how he did not completely discredit anything. He just gave readers something to base opinions on. This article as a whole was very beneficial and informative.
The Authors arugment is that we need to look deeper into the candidates that are running.
ReplyDeleteHe uses past examples of what past presidents to show that effective campaigning does nto mean that it will be effective when they are in office.
The author wants the reader to become more catuious of who the presidential candidates are.
Yes, I was persuaded. I believe we should get to know the presidential candidates better and on a much deeper level.
The author's argument is that just because a candidate can campaign well, does not mean that they are able to be a good president. The author gives examples of other presidents and how they ran for office. He describes how Carter was able to come out of nowhere and take the presidency and then did not do anything important once he was in office. He wants the reader to focus more on the person behind the campaign and their characteristics instead of what they say they will do when they get in office. I am persuaded because I have realized that I look at what the candidates say and promise they will do and not what their past behavior says about their character.
ReplyDeleteThe author is arguing that we need to look further into the skills of our presidential candidates. He says that just because the candidates are could campaigners does not mean they would be the right person to lead the country. He leads of with arguing that past presidents looked down on campaigning, and they states that it was wrong. He also states that presidents should be focusing on what the country needs rather than just telling the people what they want to hear. The author wants his readers to understand that they should vote for the president they want based on similar beliefs and not because the candidate is a good campaigner. The person the voters choose should be because the voter thinks that person is the best fit for our country. Yes, I was persuaded because the author did a good job illustrating his point. I think that he gave many valid reasons and explanations as to why his point was important and that his argument did effect the readers.
ReplyDelete