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 ThisThat's what democrats consider "change".
Posted by: Walters on January 9, 2008 07:12 PMThe 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.
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.
Posted by: pudge on January 9, 2008 08:39 PMWe 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?"
"Seriously!"
"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."
"Are you?"
"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."
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.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 9, 2008 10:09 PMCan you help me out here Pudge?
Guess it's not that advanced, nice work though. =)
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)
Posted by: KS on January 10, 2008 09:23 PM