January 09, 2008
First National Change Party
I know it's long over -- a whole five days ago -- but just for fun, I wanted to count the uses of the word "change" in the Democratic debate last weekend.
(No, I didn't count by hand ... I'm a Perl programmer!)
The exact word "change" appears 68 times, out of 16,786 words (0.4 percent of all words used). After removing common words -- "the," "to," "and," "I," etc. -- only four words were used more often than "change": "know," "think," "people," and "President." If you add in variants ("changes," "changing"), then "change" appears 80 times, beating out "President."
The scorecard was: Clinton 27, Edwards 18, Obama 16, Richardson 7, WMUR anchor Scott Spralding 7, ABC anchor Charles Gibson 5.
And yet, the only things I know of that any of them want to change is increasing the amount of government control over our lives.
It's not that I am against change. But I am against a philosophy of change for the sake of change. And that is what I am hearing, especially out of Edwards and Clinton. Most things do not need change. Most things are just fine. Most things are better than bad: they're good.
It is, frankly, intellectually offensive to me to be running on a platform of "change," because I don't want someone who is going to be for change, I want someone who is going to be for specific changes ... and will leave everything else alone.
Clinton says, "I am offering 35 years of experience making change and the results to show for it." It brings to mind the old SNL skit for First Citiwide Change Bank, a bank that does nothing except make exact change: "All the time, our customers ask us, 'How do you make money doing this?' The answer is simple: Volume. That's what we do."
Or, at least, it's what they want to do.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 09, 2008
06:45 PM | Email This
Just once I wish the national press would ask exactly what "change" is. I suspect the answer would be:
14% mortgage rates
$4.00 per gallon gasoline
and a healthcare system that emulates VA hospitals.
That's what democrats consider "change".
2. The change mantra which has been taken up now even by the sad crowd of Republican front runners, is so potent because there's a nation out here just itchin' to get out of the Bush era.
3. And here I thought perl was so limited.
the "change" they want is to raise taxes. Obama claims to want to cut taxes "for those who need it" and "close loopholes" for others. I'd like to know what loopholes he thinks our family is using. Because we sure send a lot of $$ to the treasury and don't know of any loopholes. Trust me, if they existed I'd love to use them, but I'm just not seeing any.
What hot air Obama is blowing. He won't cut anyone's taxes. Clinton pulled the same "middle class tax cut" hot air and didn't mean a bit of it. They talk the middle class tax cut talk and don't walk a bit of it.
The ONLY president who has cut taxes for the middle class in the last 15 years is GEORGE W BUSH.
Thank you, W! Our family appreciates a president who understands the need for more economic freedom, not less.
deadwood: Perl? Limited? On what planet?! Man.
Michele: I would thank him more if he had also cut spending. We'll be paying back the money we saved, one way or another, to pay for his drastically increased spending.
6. Anyone want to get in on an internet drinking game? Take one of the candidates and each time they mention a variant of 'change' at the Republican debate we have to drink a shot. First one out loses. That Monday forum on Fox was just as bad for the Republicans.
Yes candidate echoes, tell us what you are going to "change".
We assume you mean "change" political party of the person sitting in the oval office... well duh.
Going to "change" Social Security... tell us how, spell it out, homie.
Ditto the tax policy, the immigration debacle and whatever else you imagine you can "change".
Or is "change" just the current focus group tested buzzword of the moment?
Come on ... give us a hint... what's the next word of the week?
I referred to this little piece by Spree before. It's a Hillary thing, but buried deep within it Spree says this:
"Then we come to the mantra that we have been hearing from all the candidates on the left, the mantra of "change"."
"What the hell does that mean anyway?"
"What is going to change? Politics? The political bickering in Congress and the Senate? Does anyone think that if Hillary OR Obama for that matter, won the 2008 Presidential election that the next morning we would wake up and the sun would be brighter? Millions would suddenly be on a socialist healthcare plan, magically, over night? Everyone would simply put politics on the back burner and make nice with each other? Terrorists would all of a sudden stop trying to kill us? Peace would reign? Would poverty be gone? Will homelessness diappear overnight?"
"What? What? What???!!!????"
"What exactly would change? Would someone please ask them this question and force them to actually answer the damn thing."
"I am truly curious."
"Just like the Novemeber 2006 elections, everyone is promising "change", like that is some magical word, but no one is asking the candidates exactly how they would implement that so called change."
"I will let you in on a little secret here, I like America, I love America, I am proud of America and I am proud to BE an American."
"When I asked that question in a post of mine a while ago, amazingly enough, the only people that could not say they were proud to be an American without a "but" afterward their answer.....were the far left Democrats."
"That right there is the difference between Republicans, moderates and the far left of this country."
"Nothing against any other country or their country's citizenry, I would hope that they are just as proud of their country and just as proud to be from their country."
"To want certain things to improve is fine and dandy I could list dozens of things I would like to see run better, handled more efficiently, but improvement has a completely different meaning than "change" does."
"As long as they hold onto that mantra of "change" America, I think 2008 might just end up being a race between those proud to be Americans and those that are not and I believe that the majority of this great country is, indeed, proud to be Americans, which is going to be a huge problem for the Democrats in the 2008 elections."
8. Democrats are seious about change, but not in the sense as one might take it. They actually mean change as in pocket change (or the lack there of that American's will have once they raise our taxes)!
9. We had better change the spending habits of this country and do it quick. I don't care if the Rs do it or the Ds. Maybe Ron Paul could take that up. It is nuts that some places in Canada don't want dollars. How could the Euro go from 85 cents to $1.35 in 3 years????? I have experienced currency devaluation in another country and it is no fun. Try thinking about your $400,000 home now worth $200K overnight.
That's change as in a rapid shift towards more socialism and more government. And it also shows how much there is a daily set of talking points circulated amongst the left pundits, talking heads and political leaders.
Change is the buzzword. And it is a euphemism because the important thing to know about change is the rate and direction. Change by itself means nothing.
By the time most people figure out that changing healthcare so that it is another social security like scheme to transfer wealth from one demographic to another, it will be too late.
And it's important to understand that we may need change, like a better president than George Bush. But that does not mean we need change that leads to damaging our freedom and our economy. And that's exactly what Hillary and Obama want to do, increase socialism and government.
A change for the worse.
11. Obama reluctantly admitted to a TV reporter that he expected to 'raise taxes'. This from Orbusmax link.
12. I guess it's up to the blogosphere to ask the serious questions avoided by the MSM. Does "change" include raising taxes? socialistic health care? more leftist judges? reduction in our military capability/presence? confiscation of privately-owned guns? homosexual marriage? huge increases in "education" spending? parlay with evil dictators? more useless welfare programs? Yeah, I thought so.....
I'd like to know how many times were the words 'terrorism', 'terrorists','nine eleven', 'illegals' used during the FOX GOP debate in relation to the word 'change' and variations thereof?
Can you help me out here Pudge?
14. Cato, I will, if you do my paid job for me for the next hour or two!
Hehe, no can do...I figured you could just point your PERL script at a web based transcript and plug in the necessary key words as search parameters.
Guess it's not that advanced, nice work though. =)
16. Cato, oh, I still have it, but the analysis takes longer than running the script. :)
The "change" mantra appeals to the LCD (lowest common denominator) - the dumbed down masses of the electorate who believe what they read on the Internet and what the MSM spews forth. Problem is, change for the sake of change is as useless as boobs on a boar. Reasoned change is good, but none of the candidates have the cajones to go out on a limb and be specific about what changes they propose.
Changes for the worse - there's a big opening for the Republicans to use this in their campaign (ie change for the sake of change - its a bumper sticker - right John Edwards ?). Keep in mind though, if the Repubs propose changes, they are open to the same ridicule by the Dems.
Sure, many Americans want a change after Bush - into a new President who can actually communicate and and be fiscally responsible. (No Democrat has shown me the later, and only a few select Repubicans have so far)
How many different ways can you write the perl code and get the same answer of 68?
Is anybody interested in seeing this perl code?