Thursday, October 21, 2004
Kerryisms?
It is well known that Bush mangles the English language at times, producing what are called Bushisms. Some examples are saying that Japan and the US have enjoyed a century and a half of good relations, confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, and coining the non-word misunderestimate. Some of these are quite humorous and interesting.
So the question arises: does Kerry commit Kerryisms? Apparently the people from Slate magazine think so. They quote many examples of supposed Kerryisms in an article in Slate, and I read them and I just don't get it, somehow. This looks like normal talk, and Kerry is not misusing the words. Bush commits Bushisms, but Kerry does not commit Kerryisms.
So what does Kerry do? Kerry is a blabbermouth. Here is an example from Slate:
Kerry's Script: It's wrong to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.
Actual Kerry: But not satisfied to hold onto the drug company's profit there, they went further. Medicare belongs to you. Medicare is paid by the taxpayer. Medicare is a taxpayer-funded program to keep seniors out of poverty. And we want to lower the cost to seniors, right? It's common sense. But when given the opportunity to do that, this president made it illegal for Medicare to do what the VA does, which is go out and bulk purchase drugs so we could lower the taxpayers' bill and lower the cost to seniors. It is wrong to make it illegal to lower the cost of tax and lower the cost to seniors.
It seems he keeps going on and on and on and does not know when to stop. He overruns time limits on his campaign trail, doubling the size of a speech through the massive amount of ad libbing that he does to the script that is given him. One thing that seems to be in his favor is that he does not claim to have the answer to things. However, he can shorten his talking, and get more impact, as his essential points will not be buried in a frothing blabberia.
I have run into a few blabbermouths in my life and they have wasted hours or even days of my time. So I expect that if Kerry is elected, he will blabber on and on and waste people's time. That is not so bad as finding an excuse to put American troops in Iraq. But still, if Kerry will shorten up a bit, he will improve his chances for re-election.
By the way, on that . . . , it seems that Bush is gaining again. The race now looks closer than before. For that reason, I now am not going to name a predicted winner. Yesterday I said that Kerry was going to win. I played this game today. I gave Bush the state in the union that most favors him, namely Utah. Then I gave Kerry the "state" that favors him the most, the District of Columbia. Then I gave Bush the next state in his favor (Idaho), and Kerry his next (Massachusetts), and I went like that over and over again until Kerry's total surpassed 270. The state that did that was Ohio. I think the election will be decided on this one state. How Ohio goes, so will go the nation on 2004 November 2.
So the question arises: does Kerry commit Kerryisms? Apparently the people from Slate magazine think so. They quote many examples of supposed Kerryisms in an article in Slate, and I read them and I just don't get it, somehow. This looks like normal talk, and Kerry is not misusing the words. Bush commits Bushisms, but Kerry does not commit Kerryisms.
So what does Kerry do? Kerry is a blabbermouth. Here is an example from Slate:
Kerry's Script: It's wrong to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices.
Actual Kerry: But not satisfied to hold onto the drug company's profit there, they went further. Medicare belongs to you. Medicare is paid by the taxpayer. Medicare is a taxpayer-funded program to keep seniors out of poverty. And we want to lower the cost to seniors, right? It's common sense. But when given the opportunity to do that, this president made it illegal for Medicare to do what the VA does, which is go out and bulk purchase drugs so we could lower the taxpayers' bill and lower the cost to seniors. It is wrong to make it illegal to lower the cost of tax and lower the cost to seniors.
It seems he keeps going on and on and on and does not know when to stop. He overruns time limits on his campaign trail, doubling the size of a speech through the massive amount of ad libbing that he does to the script that is given him. One thing that seems to be in his favor is that he does not claim to have the answer to things. However, he can shorten his talking, and get more impact, as his essential points will not be buried in a frothing blabberia.
I have run into a few blabbermouths in my life and they have wasted hours or even days of my time. So I expect that if Kerry is elected, he will blabber on and on and waste people's time. That is not so bad as finding an excuse to put American troops in Iraq. But still, if Kerry will shorten up a bit, he will improve his chances for re-election.
By the way, on that . . . , it seems that Bush is gaining again. The race now looks closer than before. For that reason, I now am not going to name a predicted winner. Yesterday I said that Kerry was going to win. I played this game today. I gave Bush the state in the union that most favors him, namely Utah. Then I gave Kerry the "state" that favors him the most, the District of Columbia. Then I gave Bush the next state in his favor (Idaho), and Kerry his next (Massachusetts), and I went like that over and over again until Kerry's total surpassed 270. The state that did that was Ohio. I think the election will be decided on this one state. How Ohio goes, so will go the nation on 2004 November 2.
