You are Senator and was invited by Bostwick's family for dinner. Write a diary entry describing your experience you had at their place in 60 to 70 words who will write it will definitely mark as brain list
Answers
Answer:
please mark me as brainliest
Explanation:
IN Oklahoma this spring a famous football coach, Bud Wilkinson, easily defeated two professional politicians for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. In Ohio, astronaut John Glenn won over 200,000 votes in the Democratic primary against the incumbent Senator, even though he had withdrawn from the race. In California Republicans chose a onetime movie dancer, George Murphy, as their candidate for the Senate, while Pierre Salinger, a former Presidential press agent, untested at the polls, battled an experienced vote‐getter for the Democratic nomination and won.
In this capital, where the politicians can spot a threatening trend a continent away, there is already a good deal of mumbling about what these “celebrity types” will do to the Senate. It is not that Washington has anything against such men. But the city cherishes, along with its cherry blossoms and its cheap liquor, the notion that it takes something very special to be a Senator of the United States, and it is not sure that mere fame fills the bill.
Just what qualities mark a man as fit for membership in the world's most self‐exalted legislative body are undefined. But the imprecision of the standards in no way lessens the intensity of the belief that there are standards to be maintained.
The difficulty of judging the quality of a Senator was discussed in this Magazine seven years ago by John F. Kennedy. “There are no standard tests to apply to a Senator,” he wrote, “no Dun Bradstreet rating, no scouting reports. His talents may vary with his time, his contributions may be limited by his politics. To judge his true greatness is nearly an impossible task.”
Mr. Kennedy, at the time, was engaged in the task of selecting the five greatest Senators, whose portraits were to adorn the Senate reception room. But the difficulty of picking the outstanding men in the history of the institution is essentially the same as the problem of defining the qualities that make for distinction in the Senate today.
MUST the “good Senator” be a man of eloquence, who can supply the oratorical gloss to finished legislation during floor debate ? Or is it more important that he have the legal skills that make him a superb craftsman behind committee doors?
Answer:
i also want this answer
Explanation: