In this article "what will Sen. Ted Cruz do now?", the author David Jennings is asking what Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas would do now after announcing his support for presidential candidate Donald Trump. According to the author, the purpose of this work is to clearly show that Sen. Cruz is confused in his stand. This article is based on apolitical point of view.
Jennings starts his article with a rhetorical question, ‘Where did Ted Cruz’ political instincts go? And how did it happen so fast?’ (David, 2016). These questions are directed to Cruz and by this questions, it’s clearly evident that Cruz has lost his political integrity as the author points out.
The author uses very convincing words and compels the reader that Cruz was confused and made a wrong decision of endorsing Trump. ‘On September 23rd, he made his choice, posting a 756 word endorsement of Trump on Facebook.
He states that three days after Cruz made his decision, Trump begun losing support after posting a video about sexually assaulting women and Cruz started rumoring about rescinding his endorsement on Trump.
Jennings asks another question, ‘Now what?’ he tries to show us that Cruz is completely confused on what to do.The author continues and claims to advice Cruz but I consider this a mockery and not advise, ‘Shut up. Just shut up for once. Focus on doing the actual job of being a Texas Senator’ (David, 2016). The author presents his work in a sarcastic manner.
In general, I enjoyed this piece of work and the way the author lays out his thinking in form of more or rather rhetoric questions.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
Critique on San Antonio Express News on ‘‘Wolff, Rodriguez deserve re-election to Commissioners Court’’
This article ‘‘Wolff, Rodriguez deserve re-election to Commissioners Court,’’ in the San Antonio Express News by the Express News editorial board is on the subject of the recent nominations on who should be elected or re-elected to Commissioners court in Precinct one and three respectively. The article starts with a suggestive heading, ‘‘Wolff, Rodriguez deserve re-election to Commissioners Court’’ (San Antonio Express News), by this type of heading, the editorial board points out that these nominees deserves to be re-elected back to the Commissioners Court.
The editorial board objectively suggests that Kevin Wolff should be given a third term in Precinct three and Sergio Rodriguez a fourth term in Precinct one. The editors argue that Wolff is knowledgeable and thoughtful on all matters of the state and the local government. They praise him for being honest and transparent. The editorial board endorses Wolff even after being caught in bizarre incidents.
On the other hand Wolff is being challenged by Brandon J. Johnson, a nineteen year old sophomore from the University of Texas at San Antonio (San Antonio Express News), but the editors of this article suggests that he is better off as an intern than a commissioner of which I disagree and think he would be better than Wolff because he is young, fresh, has new ideas and has never had a bad reputation unlike Wolff.
Rodriguez has no negative issues as observed from this article; the editors apprise him of his good work and recommend him back to the Commissioners Court although he is challenged by John V. Garza.
Overall the authors of the article have kept the facts straight but could have not recommended which candidates should be sent to the Commissioner’s office but should have left the recommendations open.
The editorial board objectively suggests that Kevin Wolff should be given a third term in Precinct three and Sergio Rodriguez a fourth term in Precinct one. The editors argue that Wolff is knowledgeable and thoughtful on all matters of the state and the local government. They praise him for being honest and transparent. The editorial board endorses Wolff even after being caught in bizarre incidents.
On the other hand Wolff is being challenged by Brandon J. Johnson, a nineteen year old sophomore from the University of Texas at San Antonio (San Antonio Express News), but the editors of this article suggests that he is better off as an intern than a commissioner of which I disagree and think he would be better than Wolff because he is young, fresh, has new ideas and has never had a bad reputation unlike Wolff.
Rodriguez has no negative issues as observed from this article; the editors apprise him of his good work and recommend him back to the Commissioners Court although he is challenged by John V. Garza.
Overall the authors of the article have kept the facts straight but could have not recommended which candidates should be sent to the Commissioner’s office but should have left the recommendations open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)