1253 lines
63 KiB
Plaintext
1253 lines
63 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
H. Ross Perot National Press Club Information Page:1
|
||
|
||
PEROT '92 !
|
||
|
||
Please copy, print, and distribute this information everywhere.
|
||
|
||
This is a copy of a speech given by H. Ross Perot before the
|
||
Press Club. It has been distributed to many electronic Bulletin
|
||
Board Systems around the country by Steve Moraff. I have been
|
||
fascinated by the almost messianic tone of many people who are
|
||
working for Mr. Perot's election. The man on a white horse has
|
||
always been a popular undertone in American political life and,
|
||
like Bonapartism in France, it reappears with some regularity.
|
||
|
||
Many friends of mine refer to Mr. Perot's clear and plain
|
||
speaking. One of the first things I did for fun when I bought my
|
||
first grammer and style checker was to run a couple of political
|
||
speeches through it. Since speeches are usually turned into
|
||
so called sound bites they tend to be something people take
|
||
seriously when they prepare for them.
|
||
|
||
I make no judgement about Mr. Perot's expression. But since this
|
||
speech has been distributed as a way to find out what he says, I
|
||
think it is valid to look at how he says it as well. According
|
||
to the program, he does well. The analysis was done with
|
||
RightWriter 5.0 set to General Style.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
H. ROSS PEROT: Thank you very much. It's a privilege to be with
|
||
you again. You all are going to get to punch me around here for
|
||
the last 30 minutes, so let me open by asking you a question. How
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
many of you ate broccoli today at lunch? That's good. The last
|
||
thing I read, it cures cancer. I think we ought to all try it.
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Replace "I think we" with a stronger sentence start. *>>
|
||
<<* Is "ought to" correct? *>>
|
||
Now, you're going to have to endure my speech , but the Q&A
|
||
<<* Should there be space before this punctuation? *>>
|
||
period is fun, so that gives you something to look forward to.
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
There's a reception before this thing, and that's always fun
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
because there's a pattern of questions. I'll sweep those out of
|
||
<<* Is "those out of" correct? *>>
|
||
the way first. The most frequently asked question is, "Why did
|
||
the Press Club invite you again?" Well, I don't know, so that's
|
||
easy. Then this one nice person came up and looked pretty
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "nice" with more
|
||
original wording. *>>
|
||
stressed out and said, "Do you still write your own speeches?"
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "your own" with "your" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this quote closed? *>>
|
||
Well, that's the bad news. I'm still writing my own speeches, so
|
||
<<* Replace the redundant "my own speeches" with "my
|
||
speeches" *>>
|
||
don't expect too much. One nice lady came up, and she looked
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "nice" with more
|
||
original wording. *>>
|
||
really concerned. She said, "Now, will you promise to keep the
|
||
same ground rules, particularly, the last part?" I said, "Yes, I
|
||
will." Now, you don't know what she's talking about, but here are
|
||
my normal ground rules. I don't care whether you agree with me or
|
||
not. I just come in here to get you stirred up, and then I leave
|
||
town. Now, that's the last part she wanted to make sure of--that
|
||
I would leave town. I'll be out of town quick. Normally I have
|
||
<<* Is a comma missing? Replace with "Normally, I" *>>
|
||
to. Millions of people from all over the world can only dream
|
||
about coming to America. Just think how many people would leave
|
||
Russia today to come to our great country. Now, aren't we lucky
|
||
<<* Is "great" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
we're here? We own this country. It belongs to us. That's the
|
||
central theme of everything I have to say today. We have a
|
||
history of being first and best. Remember when everybody said we
|
||
couldn't build the Transcontinental Railroad, that we'd
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:2
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
never get it through the Continental Divide and what have you? We
|
||
built it. Remember when everybody else tried to build the Panama
|
||
Canal and couldn't build it? We built it. Remember when Thomas
|
||
Edison, whose teachers thought he was dumb, changed the world?
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
You say, "Wait a minute, didn't he have an NSA grant?" No! He
|
||
<<* Replace "an" with "a" *>>
|
||
gave the world the electric light, and I hope you never land at
|
||
night when you come into a huge city and look at that sparkling
|
||
<<* Is "huge" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
city down below you that you don't think, "One American did that
|
||
on his own initiative." Never forget while you're in that
|
||
<<* Reconsider the use of the cliche "" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Rephrase "Never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
airplane that two bicycle repairmen from Dayton, Ohio, taught the
|
||
world to fly. Never forget there was a Dr. [Samuel Pierport]
|
||
<<* Rephrase "Never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
<<* Is "a Dr." correct? *>>
|
||
Langley that had a government grant, but the Wright brothers had
|
||
to fly. Now, that's the history and the American dream, and
|
||
that's what we've been. We changed the world with radio and
|
||
television. We were the first to put a man on the moon. We
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "man on" with
|
||
"person on" *>>
|
||
harnessed nuclear power, and the list of firsts could go on and
|
||
on. Every person listening to this program, I hope, will take a
|
||
minute and think. You know, you or I could be dying in the
|
||
streets of India right now. Or we could be in a little boat off
|
||
Vietnam dying of thirst. Happy accident of birth or for one
|
||
reason or another, we're here. This is the place the rest of the
|
||
world only dreams of coming to. They look up to and respect our
|
||
great country. We must continue to be an example to the world in
|
||
<<* Is "great" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
everything we do. It is important that we continue to earn this
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "It is important
|
||
that" *>>
|
||
respect. You say, "Well, how important is it that the rest of the
|
||
world respect us?" I suggest to you it is very important, because
|
||
as long as the world respects and admires our country and as long
|
||
as we deal fairly with other nations, there is no more
|
||
cost-effective deterrent to war. Nobody picks on the strong guy.
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Few people pick on the strong nice guy. The weak guy is in
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "nice" with more
|
||
original wording. *>>
|
||
trouble. It's as old as the history of man. Trust and respect are
|
||
fragile on a human and a national level. You have to earn it
|
||
daily. You can lose it in an instant. The real question is, are
|
||
our actions those that would continue to earn us worldwide
|
||
<<* Is "worldwide" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
respect, particularly on our domestic issues? Let's take a quick
|
||
glance. We were blessed with a huge land mass and a tiny
|
||
<<* "were blessed" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Is "huge" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
population. We had an abundance of natural resources. We were a
|
||
new, growing, free nation that had barely begun to tap its
|
||
potential. Anytime we exhausted the resources in one area, the
|
||
call went out: "Go west, young man, go west." Today we are a
|
||
mature country with a large population. We have occupied the land
|
||
and creatively tapped our natural resources. We simply cannot
|
||
<<* Is "creatively" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
continue to spend beyond our means. When you're small and
|
||
growing, you can bury some of those mistakes, but at this point
|
||
in time you cannot. And when you have creatively tapped your
|
||
<<* Consider using "now" instead of the wordier "at this
|
||
point in time" *>>
|
||
<<* Is "creatively" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
minerals and natural resources, it is brains and wits time. Never
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
forget that--brains and wits time. Somebody can't understand good
|
||
Texas talk. We don't like to accept this, but we live in a tiny
|
||
little world, and we're stuck with international competition. You
|
||
don't have to like it, but you're stuck with it. Somebody wins
|
||
<<* "you're stuck" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
and somebody loses, and they don't even give you a red ribbon
|
||
when you lose in business. We've got to out-think, out-invent and
|
||
out-
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
produce our international business competitors if we want to
|
||
<<* Is "our international business competitors" ambiguous?
|
||
*>>
|
||
maintain the high standard of living that our people have enjoyed
|
||
until now. Many of our international competitors have an
|
||
advantage over us at this point. Now, we like to strut around and
|
||
boast that we're the only remaining superpower. Any time you see
|
||
anybody strutting and boasting, get nervous. But, now, just watch
|
||
<<* Reconsider using the word "but" to start this sentence.
|
||
*>>
|
||
them. You know, we're the last superpower. Well, you can't be a
|
||
superpower unless you're an economic superpower, and if you don't
|
||
believe that, look at Russia, and I rest my case. That's all I've
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "don't believe that" by stronger,
|
||
more direct wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
got to say about that. We've got to be economically strong to be
|
||
a force for good throughout the world. If you question that,
|
||
think of the finest person you know who gives away millions of
|
||
dollars each year to good and worthy causes and so on and so
|
||
<<* "good and worthy" is colloquial or slang. Replace with
|
||
more formal wording. *>>
|
||
forth. Suddenly they're broke. Same instincts, can't do anything,
|
||
<<* Consider omitting "and so forth" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* "they're broke" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "broke" with "broken." *>>
|
||
right? You've got to be able to have the ability to help other
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "be able to" with the simpler "can"
|
||
*>>
|
||
<<* Consider using "can" instead of the wordier "have the
|
||
ability to" *>>
|
||
people. Just the desire is not enough. We had the world's
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "Just the" with "The" *>>
|
||
greatest economic engine that lets us do these things. We let it
|
||
<<* Is "greatest" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
<<* Is "the world's greatest economic engine" ambiguous? *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
slip away, and with it went a significant part of our tax base.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
And yet we continue to spend. Our present policies will move us
|
||
from superpower to Third World status. If you don't believe that,
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "don't believe that" by stronger,
|
||
more direct wording. *>>
|
||
the principal exports in New York harbor are scrap paper and
|
||
scrap steel going to Japan, and now they want to buy wood chips
|
||
from Texas to make paper in Japan and sell us paper in Texas.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
Now, if that happens, I think we maybe ought to start looking for
|
||
<<* Replace "I think we" with a stronger sentence start. *>>
|
||
a place to hide. Just think about that--how far those wood chips
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
have to go to come back. You'd think we could make paper right
|
||
here, right? We can make paper right here. At this point in time,
|
||
<<* Consider using "Now" instead of the wordier "At this
|
||
point in time" *>>
|
||
it is absolutely irresponsible for both the White House and
|
||
<<* Is "absolutely" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
Congress not to be linking arms, working together night and day
|
||
to fix these economic problems. Unfortunately, this city has
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers and
|
||
media stuntmen, who posture, create images and talk, shoot off
|
||
Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. If they want
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
to debate that, I'll buy my own television time. We need deeds,
|
||
<<* Replace the redundant "my own television" with "my
|
||
television" *>>
|
||
not words, in this city. In Churchill's own words, we need
|
||
"action this day," not talk. Here's where we are. Let's look at
|
||
where we are. We're $4 trillion in debt. We own another $5
|
||
trillion we don't like to talk about. We just kind of keep it
|
||
down there in the basement. You say, "Well, what are you talking
|
||
about, Ross?" I'm talking about a $1 trillion unfunded federal
|
||
<<* Is this quote closed? *>>
|
||
pension liability. Any question in your mind we're going to have
|
||
to cough that up someday? No. The additional debt piled up in
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
1992--just this one year, the election year--will exceed the
|
||
total expenditures of the federal government for the first 155
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "expenditures of" with the simpler
|
||
"use of or payment of" *>>
|
||
years of our country's existence. See, the man on the street
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "man on" with
|
||
"person on" *>>
|
||
doesn't know what $400 billion is. That kind of clears his head.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
The interest on the national debt just this one year exceeds the
|
||
cost to fight and win World War II. Please never forget that
|
||
<<* Rephrase "never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
paying interest does not buy anything for the American people.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
The total national debt was only $1 trillion in 1980 when
|
||
President Reagan took office. It is now $4 trillion. Maybe it is
|
||
voodoo economics. Whatever it was, we are now in deep voodoo,
|
||
I'll tell you that! <<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:4
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In 1992, we're going to go in for another $400 billion. You
|
||
say, "Well, wait a minute. Let's just do some radical things and
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
balance the budget this year. Let's do really strange and weird
|
||
<<* "really strange" is colloquial or slang. Replace with
|
||
more formal wording. *>>
|
||
things, just think about them." Well, I'm going to throw a really
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Are there matching quotation marks at the end of this
|
||
quote? *>>
|
||
stupid one on the table. Let's just shut down the Defense
|
||
<<* "really stupid" is colloquial or slang. Replace with
|
||
more formal wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Many readers will find "stupid" offensive. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just shut" with "shut" *>>
|
||
Department. You don't get 400 billion bucks. Well, that one
|
||
didn't work. Let's just shut down all the public schools
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just shut" with "shut" *>>
|
||
nationwide. Sorry, that won't get me $400 billion. Well, what if
|
||
we just seized all the Social Security money coming in this year
|
||
and use that to balance the budget? Maybe if everything stays
|
||
right on track, that would just about do it. Okay, now, let's
|
||
<<* Is this comma needed? Replace with "track that" *>>
|
||
just go over and take it away from business. Let's confiscate the
|
||
Fortune 500 companies' profits. I don't have half what I need.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Well, that didn't work. Okay, year in and year out we're saying
|
||
to rich folks. "Let's just tax the rich and fix it." Let's
|
||
<<* Are there matching quotation marks at the end of this
|
||
quote? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this quote closed? *>>
|
||
confiscate the Forbes 400 wealth. Doesn't give us nearly what we
|
||
need, but we solved the problem--we're all blue-collar now,
|
||
right? But we just took all the wealth, and we don't balance the
|
||
<<* Reconsider using the word "but" to start this sentence.
|
||
*>>
|
||
budget for one year. You say, "Okay, Ross. Give us the bad news.
|
||
How much are we going to have to raise personal income taxes to
|
||
balance the budget this year, an election year?" Watch my lips.
|
||
You're going to have to double it. You don't think anybody would
|
||
bring that up, do you?" I doubt it. Okay, you can't do that to
|
||
<<* Are there matching quotation marks at the end of this
|
||
quote? *>>
|
||
the people, so let's just raise them 500 percent, and that
|
||
dramatically exceeds all corporate profits, so you can't do that.
|
||
<<* Will your reader understand the word "dramatically?" *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
That's how big $400 billion is. Now, I'm not talking about the $4
|
||
trillion. I'm just talking about the $400 billion. The tax and
|
||
budget summit in 1990--this was a study in the White House
|
||
arrogance as far as I'm concerned. We were told if we agreed to
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "as far as I'm
|
||
concerned" with more original wording. *>>
|
||
<<* "I'm concerned" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* "were told" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
the $166 billion in new taxes, the 1991 deficit would be $63
|
||
billion. The following April, we said, "Oops. It's going to be
|
||
<<* Is this quote closed? *>>
|
||
$318 billion. That's a $255 billion mistake. That would get you
|
||
fired in most soft-headed company in corporate America. Now,
|
||
there are a lot of reporters here today. I never got the word,
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "a lot of reporters" with "many
|
||
reporters." *>>
|
||
and I read the paper. Nobody ever told me that while they were
|
||
increasing our taxes by $166 billion, they increased federal
|
||
spending by $304 billion, or $1.83 in new spending for every tax
|
||
dollar raised. I'm not too smart, but I can figure out that we
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
spent more than we took in, and as far as I'm concerned, we were
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "as far as I'm
|
||
concerned" with more original wording. *>>
|
||
<<* "I'm concerned" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
conned. Who conned us? The people working for us, our elected
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
officials. We were told at the tax and budget summit that the
|
||
<<* "were told" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
five-year deficit would be $92 billion. Now we're told it'll be a
|
||
trillion. That's just a $900 billion mistake. The chief financial
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just a" with "a" *>>
|
||
officer of a publicly owned corporation would be sent to prison
|
||
<<* Consider rephrasing "would be sent" *>>
|
||
<<* "be sent" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
if he kept books like our government. We used to have a saying in
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
Texas that maybe they put lunatics in charge of the insane
|
||
asylum. I don't quite know what the problem is here, but this is
|
||
<<* Rephrase "insane asylum" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
<<* Replace the colloquial "quite know" with "know" *>>
|
||
an out-of- control financial situation. To me this is like flying
|
||
a 747 down on the deck at night through the mountains with no
|
||
engines. It's just a question of which hill you're going to hit.
|
||
<<* Replace "It's just" with a stronger sentence start. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just a" with "a" *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
We cannot continue to tolerate this. The average citizen works
|
||
five months a year just to pay taxes. Forty-two percent of <<* Consider using "to" instead of the wordier "just to" *>>
|
||
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:5
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
his income goes to taxes. All the personal income taxes collected
|
||
west of the Mississippi are needed just to pay the interest on
|
||
<<* "are needed" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider using "to" instead of the wordier "just to" *>>
|
||
the national debt. That's kind of depressing, isn't it? Just
|
||
<<* "kind of depressing," is colloquial or slang. Replace
|
||
with more formal wording. *>>
|
||
think of all those folks working west of the Mississippi not
|
||
buying anything new--just paying interest on debt. Let's look for
|
||
the good news. Well, surely all this spending created utopia here
|
||
in the United States and everything is wonderful and perfect and
|
||
we've just got to kind of scramble around and clean it up, right?
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
Surely we bought a front row seat, a box seat for the main event.
|
||
<<* Is a comma missing? Replace with "Surely, we" *>>
|
||
Where do we stand? Let's take a hard look at utopia. We're the
|
||
<<* Use the verb form. Replace "take a hard look at" with
|
||
"look at" *>>
|
||
largest debtor nation on Earth. We're the most violent,
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
crime-ridden nation in the industrialized world. Millions of
|
||
innocent people have created their own prisons. They have to put
|
||
bars on their windows, bars on their doors because we've
|
||
abandoned their neighborhoods to crime, and you don't have to go
|
||
10 minutes from the White House or 10 minutes from the Capitol of
|
||
the United States to see that. That's inexcusable. We spend over
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
$400 billion a year on education including colleges, yet we rank
|
||
at the bottom of the industrialized world in terms of academic
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "in terms of"
|
||
*>>
|
||
achievement. We have the largest number of functional illiterates
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
in the industrialized world. We spend, but, see, we've got all
|
||
these things that don't work for us. We spend a lot on education
|
||
<<* Consider using "these" instead of the wordier "all
|
||
these" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
that doesn't work. We spend more than anybody else on health
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "anybody else" with "anyone else."
|
||
*>>
|
||
care, and yet we rank behind 15 nations in life expectancy and 22
|
||
other nations in infant mortality. We've got 5 percent of the
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
world's population, 50 percent of the world's cocaine use. Until
|
||
we get rid of that we're going nowhere. Getting rid of it won't
|
||
be free. Our system of justice has failed the people. We've got 5
|
||
percent of the world's population, two- thirds of the world's
|
||
lawyers, and the average fellow on the street can't afford one to
|
||
go to court. Strange. Young lawyers out of law school make more
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
than judges. There's a legal system upside down. Go to London,
|
||
Paris, Rome and the other cities in Europe that have existed for
|
||
many centuries. They work. Now, then, go to our cities, which are
|
||
relatively brand-new. New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "which are relatively" with
|
||
"relatively" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "relatively" with more
|
||
original wording. *>>
|
||
and many other major cities are dirty, run-down, ravaged with
|
||
drugs, crime and violence. What's wrong with us? Now, let's just
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
start right here in Washington where the president can look out
|
||
the window at Washington and the Congress can look out the window
|
||
at Washington. I love this. They are just covered up with
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
security. All the folks that work for us are just covered up with
|
||
security, right? But the folks that are the bosses of the
|
||
<<* Reconsider using the word "but" to start this sentence.
|
||
*>>
|
||
<<* "bosses" is colloquial or slang. Replace with more
|
||
formal wording. *>>
|
||
country, the people, are in high-crime areas and totally exposed.
|
||
<<* Consider omitting "totally" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Kind of strange, I think. Maybe it even seems normal here, but it
|
||
<<* "Kind of strange," is colloquial or slang. Replace with
|
||
more formal wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "seems" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
seems odd when you get away from it. We've got the murder capital
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "it seems" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
of the United States here. Fifth- and sixth-graders in this city,
|
||
31 percent of them have witnessed a drug deal and 75 percent have
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "witnessed" with the simpler "saw"
|
||
*>>
|
||
witnessed an arrest? Think about it. Is this an alabaster city
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "witnessed" with the simpler "saw"
|
||
*>>
|
||
gleaming undimmed by human tears? That's what the rest of the
|
||
world thinks we are. That's what we had been. That's what we can
|
||
be, but that is not what
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:6
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
we are today. Now go to Singapore. There's a jewel of a city.
|
||
When you are there, you're looking at tomorrow. Some of our
|
||
cities, you leave and you think you've seen yesterday. Okay,
|
||
who's at fault? You know, the first thing you've got to do in our
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
country is blame somebody, right? Well, go home tonight and look
|
||
in the mirror. Everybody watching television, go home tonight and
|
||
look in the mirror. You and I are at fault because we own this
|
||
country, and there is the problem in a nutshell. We have
|
||
<<* Reconsider the use of the cliche "in a nutshell" *>>
|
||
abdicated our ownership responsibility. As owners of this
|
||
country, we hold the future of this in the palm of our hands. I
|
||
ask you now, can we agree that going $4 trillion into debt did
|
||
not create utopia? We've wasted the money. We've got to pay the
|
||
$4 trillion back, and we've got to pay the interest. Obviously,
|
||
throwing money at problems has not created utopia, and yet we
|
||
continue to do it this year. Today we have a government in
|
||
gridlock. Nothing happens unless Congress and the White House
|
||
work together constructively for the benefit of the people.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
That's the way our founders planned it. That's the way it ought
|
||
to be. Daily we watch with fascination as Congress and the White
|
||
<<* Is a comma missing? Replace with "Daily, we" *>>
|
||
House finger-point, shout, fight with one another like children.
|
||
Recently it's been more like mud wrestling as far as I'm
|
||
concerned. You know, if you and I don't like one another but we
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the overused "as far as I'm
|
||
concerned" with more original wording. *>>
|
||
<<* "I'm concerned" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
are equals and nothing's going to happen unless we work together,
|
||
we have no choice. I just think it's ludicrous that we seem
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
<<* Should "think it's ludicrous" be possessive? *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "seem" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
fascinated by this as opposed to being so repelled by it that
|
||
<<* "being so repelled" is passive voice. Consider using
|
||
the active voice. *>>
|
||
they'd cut it out. I feel as owners of this country if we're
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
going anywhere, you've got to sent them a message. You work for
|
||
<<* Is "to sent them" correct? *>>
|
||
us. We don't work for you. Under the Constitution, you are our
|
||
servants. Grow up! Work as a team. Serve the people. Solve the
|
||
problem. Move on to the next one. Build a better country, and
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
stop throwing away money we don't have. We're spending our
|
||
children's money. Never forget it. On the trend we're on now,
|
||
<<* Rephrase "Never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
<<* Is "trend" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
it'll be a $12 trillion debt by the year 2000. Now, that's so big
|
||
nobody can think about it. Let me just put it to you in plain
|
||
terms. Do you realize that at $12 trillion, you could buy a
|
||
$120,000 house for every family in this country? We can't afford
|
||
a $12 trillion debt because the interest alone on a $12 trillion
|
||
debt would be approximately $1 trillion a year. And guess what
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "approximately" with the simpler
|
||
"about" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
the gross receipts in our country are right now. One trillion
|
||
dollars a year. You'd just be spending it all on interest. It
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
won't work. The primary rule of finance is never finance long-
|
||
term projects with short-term debt. How many of you know what
|
||
percent of our debt is due and payable in the next five years?
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Sixty-eight percent is due and payable in the next five years. Go
|
||
home tonight and pray that the Japanese, the Germans and the
|
||
Arabs keep showing up to buy or T-bills. You don't want to put
|
||
this country in that kind of a situation, and whose fault is it?
|
||
<<* "kind of a" is colloquial or slang. Replace with more
|
||
formal wording. *>>
|
||
We all have to go look in the mirror. I ask everybody that's
|
||
listening and watching this today to think, "Did I know that 68
|
||
<<* Is a comma missing? Replace with "Did, I" *>>
|
||
percent of our national debt is going to turn over in the next
|
||
five years?" If the answer is no, why not? You own this country.
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? If so, is there a comma
|
||
missing? *>>
|
||
The message to us from both political parties this year--I love
|
||
the message coming from both parties--is, "Can we buy your
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
votes with your money this year? And, by the way, we'd like to
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
borrow $400 billion of your children's money this year." And, of
|
||
course, we and our children will have to pay it all back with
|
||
interest, but that comes later, after the election. Your first
|
||
<<* Replace the redundant "but that" with "but or that" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
reaction is, "How dumb do they think we are?" Well, wait a
|
||
minute. It's worked for years. Who knows, maybe it'll work again.
|
||
<<* "It's worked" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
We need fundamental long-term solutions to these problems, and at
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "fundamental" with the simpler
|
||
"basic" *>>
|
||
this point we're running around Washington with a hypodermic
|
||
needle loaded with novocaine trying to give everybody quick
|
||
temporary pain relief just to get past the election. These quick
|
||
<<* Consider using "to" instead of the wordier "just to" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
fixes will, with certainty, produce additional long-term damage
|
||
to our economy. The best analogy I can give you is an old race
|
||
horse that has a good record. It's got bad knees, but we've got
|
||
<<* "It's got" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
to get one more race out of him. We shoot him up. He runs the
|
||
race, and that's his last race because we wrecked his knees. This
|
||
is absolutely irresponsible, particularly if you love your
|
||
<<* Is "absolutely" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
children. If I haven't touched you yet, I'm sure I just touched
|
||
everybody listening to this speech right now. Look at those
|
||
little children or the big ones. Are you willing to put this
|
||
burden on them? Absolutely not. Fixing these fundamentals is far
|
||
<<* Is "Absolutely" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
more important than who gets elected. Delaying work for one year
|
||
is irresponsible. Can I prove that point? Yes. We know in 1984
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
the president of the United States was formally told by a
|
||
<<* "was formally told" is passive voice. Consider using
|
||
the active voice. *>>
|
||
presidential commission that the savings and loan industry was a
|
||
mess. It was a $50 billion problem then. Don't you wish it were a
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
$50 billion problem now? We didn't do a thing until the day after
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
the election in 1988. Do you know why? The savings and loan
|
||
<<* Is "why" correct? *>>
|
||
crooks were pouring into this city with money, just taking care
|
||
<<* "crooks" is colloquial or slang. Replace with more
|
||
formal wording. *>>
|
||
of everybody that needed anything. But isn't it interesting, the
|
||
<<* Reconsider using the word "but" to start this sentence.
|
||
*>>
|
||
day after the election we started to fix the problem. By then it
|
||
was a several-hundred- billion-dollar problem. But the PAC money
|
||
<<* Reconsider using the word "but" to start this sentence.
|
||
*>>
|
||
kept flowing. Any business executive who behaved in this manner
|
||
would go to jail-- not be fired. Think about it. Why is it that
|
||
<<* "be fired" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
these people who work for us put other people in jail, skate off
|
||
with the money and keep the party going? No, the folks in
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
Congress and the White House, in my judgment, are not villains on
|
||
<<* Rephrase "not villains" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
this whole economic situation. They just don't know what to do.
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Most of them are either lawyers or career politicians. They don't
|
||
understand business, so they just stand there frozen, worrying
|
||
about their images, taking polls, bouncing personal checks and
|
||
raising money from foreign lobbyists as the economy deteriorates.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
You're here and I'm not, but when I'm here in the halls of
|
||
Congress, I just find it fascinating who's wandering up and down
|
||
<<* Is "fascinating" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
the halls of Congress and what their mission is. Never forget the
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Rephrase "Never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
United States government is the world's largest and most complex
|
||
business. Anybody want to disagree with that thought? Can you
|
||
think of any more complex business? Now, for a moment let's
|
||
assume you own the country, a hundred percent. With that thought
|
||
in mind, ask yourself which of these candidates for president you
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "With that
|
||
thought in mind" *>>
|
||
would let run your business. You say, "Well, that's too big a
|
||
problem." Fine. But maybe it's just
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:8
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
a normal medium-sized business. Let's say it makes $100 million
|
||
revenue. Which of the current presidential candidates would you
|
||
let run your medium-sized business that you own personally? When
|
||
<<* Replace the redundant "own personally" with "personally"
|
||
*>>
|
||
you own the business, you really think about that sort of thing.
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
You own this country! For some reason we disconnect and don't
|
||
think in terms of who can make it work. Here are a few
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "in terms of"
|
||
*>>
|
||
basics--things we've got to do. We're deeply in debt, we're
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
spending beyond our means. We've got to protect the job base.
|
||
"Why do you come to that, Ross?" That's where the taxes come
|
||
<<* Is this quote closed? *>>
|
||
from. People who are not working don't pay taxes. With our $4
|
||
trillion debt, we need all the taxes we can get. You can't sit
|
||
back and let the job base deteriorate. When you lay off a worker,
|
||
never forget--you had a taxpayer, right? Now you've got a welfare
|
||
<<* Rephrase "never forget" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
user. Do you understand that his welfare check will be bigger
|
||
than his tax deduction used to be? It's a double hit, and it's
|
||
more than a double hit. We need a growing job base to produce a
|
||
growing tax base. We need taxpayers, not tax users. We need
|
||
strong growing companies to keep America at work, and it's got to
|
||
<<* "it's got" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
be our highest priority. There is no place to run, no place to
|
||
hide, you've got to make the words "made in the U.S.A." the
|
||
world's standard for excellence once again. Otherwise people
|
||
<<* Replace the redundant "once again" with "again" *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
won't buy our products. If you wonder about that, just go home
|
||
and look a your television and your consumer electronics tonight.
|
||
<<* Is "a your" being used correctly? *>>
|
||
<<* Is "a your" correct? *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Look at the car you're driving. We've got to make "made in the
|
||
U.S.A." the world's standard of excellence. We can help at the
|
||
government level by ceasing the adversarial practices with
|
||
business and by not getting our pockets picked at international
|
||
trade negotiations. I hope you'll bring that up in the Q&A
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
because, boy, oh, boy, is that a sad event! In our country, there
|
||
<<* Is "A because" correct? *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
is an adversarial relationship between government and business.
|
||
In our international competitors who are winning, there is an
|
||
intelligent supportive relationship between government and
|
||
business. We'd better study it, we'd better copy it, we'd better
|
||
improve it. Our educational system has to be the finest in the
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
world. We know what needs to be done. Let's stop reading to
|
||
<<* "be done" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
children in school. Let's stop having two-day summits for
|
||
governors that don't amount to anything, and let's get down to
|
||
blocking and tackling and fixing it now because you won't have
|
||
the benefits for 15 to 20 years. Every day is precious, and we
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
just talk about it. We've got to have strategic plans industry by
|
||
industry. There are industries we've got to keep in this country,
|
||
and we're losing them right and left. We've got to target them.
|
||
They will create millions of jobs. We've got to make sure that
|
||
we're first and best. In Japan, that's called MITI (Ministry of
|
||
<<* "that's called" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
International Trade and Industry). Study it, analyze it, improve
|
||
on it, instead of trying to dismantle our companies. In
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
Washington, the principal contribution to American industry is to
|
||
try to break its legs every day. Anybody that's a businessman
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "businessman"
|
||
with "businessperson" *>>
|
||
will tell you that. People in Washington do not know how to do
|
||
this. Take a page out of FDR's book. Bring up people who do, pay
|
||
them a dollar a year, pay them nothing. Have them figure it out,
|
||
get it done. Right now our government will not accept that kind
|
||
of outside assistance. Until you change that, you won't have the
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "assistance" with the simpler "aid or
|
||
help" *>>
|
||
people up
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:9
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
here you need. We think 10 minutes ahead. Japan thinks 10 years
|
||
ahead. I suggest we start thinking 15 years ahead and ace them.
|
||
Our current tax system is like an old inner tube with a thousand
|
||
patches. I suggest we throw it out and start with a blank sheet
|
||
of paper. Set the criteria. Number one, it must be fair. Number
|
||
one, a), it's got to raise the revenues. Number 2, it should be
|
||
<<* Is , a), correct punctuation? *>>
|
||
<<* "it's got" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
paperless for most Americans. This is nothing more interesting
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "it should be
|
||
paperless" *>>
|
||
than running several different computer models, building a
|
||
consensus with the American people and marching forward from
|
||
there with a new tax system that works. Philosophically I'm for
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
free fair trade. We don't have free fair trade. The White House
|
||
is all excited about the new trade agreement with Mexico. This
|
||
agreement will move the highest paid blue-collar jobs in the U.S.
|
||
to Mexico. This is going to create serious damage to our tax base
|
||
<<* Capitalize "To" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
during this critical period. We have got to manufacture here and
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "have got to" with "have to" *>>
|
||
not there to keep our tax base intact. I hope we'll talk about
|
||
that in Q&A. We've got to have an intelligent energy policy.
|
||
<<* Is "an intelligent energy policy" ambiguous? *>>
|
||
We've known that since the '70's. Nobody wants to touch it. We'd
|
||
<<* Is "the '" correct? *>>
|
||
better get started. We're divided by racial strife. I just hate
|
||
this! Look, we're not Japan where everybody's the same race, same
|
||
religion, same background, same philosophy. We're a melting pot,
|
||
right? Okay, we ought to love one another. That takes care of
|
||
most of us. Then for the guys who can't quite cross that bridge,
|
||
we ought to get along with one another, because divided teams
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "along with" with "with" *>>
|
||
lose and united teams win. Now, I am sick and tired of watching
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Reconsider the use of the cliche "sick and tired" *>>
|
||
both political parties try to divide our country during the
|
||
campaign. We need to unite as a team. Now, then, finally you've
|
||
got a few hard- core haters. My advice to them is just pretty
|
||
simple and blunt. Nobody's going to leave this country. Nobody's
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
going anywhere. We're stuck with one another, so let's get back
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
up into category two. Let's get along with one another, form a
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "category" with the simpler "class or
|
||
group" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "along with" with "with" *>>
|
||
united team and stop wasting all this energy on racial strife. We
|
||
will not have a winning team, if we do all these other things, if
|
||
<<* Consider using "these" instead of the wordier "all
|
||
these" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
we left that unattended. You say, "All right, Ross. Which one of
|
||
the presidential candidates can fix this?" Solomon can't fix
|
||
this--the wisest man that ever lived. You know why? Because we
|
||
<<* Is "why" correct? *>>
|
||
have to fix it. You cannot just go vote in November, send some
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? If so, is there a comma
|
||
missing? *>>
|
||
poor devil up there and go home. You're going to have to get in
|
||
<<* Rephrase "poor devil" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
the ring, stay in the ring and act like you own this country. Our
|
||
founders created a government that come from us. Please listen
|
||
carefully to this. We now have a government that comes at us. The
|
||
process has reversed itself. That's why you have to get in the
|
||
ring. You must never leave the ring again. Once millions of good
|
||
decent citizens assume this ownership role, anything is possible.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
If you had problems of this magnitude in your business, you'd
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "magnitude" with the simpler "size"
|
||
*>>
|
||
grab control. You, the people, must take control of this great
|
||
<<* Is "great" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
country. And since we, the people, own this country, here are
|
||
just a few unsolicited ideas. Number one, you got to be fully
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just a" with "a" *>>
|
||
<<* Is "a few unsolicited" being used correctly? *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
informed. How can you become fully informed? Not with sound
|
||
<<* "be fully informed" is passive voice. Consider using
|
||
the active voice. *>>
|
||
bites. We've got to
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:10
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
have, using television, an electronic town hall where we explain
|
||
each of these issues we're talking about today in great detail to
|
||
<<* Is "great" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
you, and with the current technology we have today, you can
|
||
respond by congressional district and send a laser-like signal to
|
||
every congressman in Washington about what you want as a way of
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "congressman"
|
||
with "representative" *>>
|
||
clearing their heads. You just ride around the special interests.
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
You say, "Even those dudes from Asia that are spending $400
|
||
<<* "dudes" is colloquial or slang. Replace with more
|
||
formal wording. *>>
|
||
million a year in this country?" Yes. They're going to listen to
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
you because you own the country if you act like owners. The
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
American people will then understand the problems and the
|
||
alternative solutions. With this knowledge you can make sound
|
||
decisions. Then you can respond, and Congress will know. If you
|
||
say, "Well, generally, what are you talking about, Ross?" you saw
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "generally" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
the CBS program after the State of the Union. You can do that
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? If so, is there a comma
|
||
missing? *>>
|
||
sort of thing now. You can do that sort of thing much refined
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "thing" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
now, and when interactive television comes, you can do it right
|
||
on the bull's eye. We've got to stop deficit spending
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
immediately. We've got to replace Gramm-Rudman with a real bill
|
||
that cuts out all tricks, loopholes and improper accounting
|
||
procedures. You've got to take away Congress's right to raise
|
||
taxes. Now, there's a radical idea. You say, "Well, that means a
|
||
<<* Is this comma needed? Replace with "Well that" *>>
|
||
constitutional amendment." Fine. Now, you say, "Why am I doing
|
||
<<* Capitalize "Constitutional Amendment" *>>
|
||
it?" These boys are drinking to much, that's why. You've got to
|
||
<<* Is "why" correct? *>>
|
||
take the bottle away from them for a while at least. Now, if they
|
||
need more money, just put it on the ballot and let the owners of
|
||
the country sign off. The board of directors and the stockholders
|
||
of a company would want to. Well, that would be controversial,
|
||
but that's why I put it on there. You know, step one is stop the
|
||
bleeding. Step two is make sure you don't just tax and spend, tax
|
||
<<* Is "is make" correct? *>>
|
||
and spend, tax and spend. Now, then, here's one. From now on, if
|
||
they want a raise, put it on the ballot. That's all federal
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
employees. You own this country. You know, any publicly owned
|
||
company, you can't give yourself a raise. I think the Congress
|
||
would be a lot more comfortable with that. Congress, White House,
|
||
the whole bunch-- if they want a raise, just put it on the
|
||
ballot. If we think they're doing a good job, we'll give it to
|
||
them. Give the president the line-item veto to get rid of
|
||
porkbarrel and waste. Now, I say that for three reasons. Number
|
||
<<* Consider using a less wordy phrase than "for three
|
||
reasons" *>>
|
||
one, we ought to do it. Number two, I'd like to see what he does
|
||
with it. And number three, I'd like him to stop whining about it.
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Now, just put it on there, and then go from there. Now, finally,
|
||
Congress absolutely must not exempt itself from the laws it
|
||
<<* Is "absolutely" explained and justified by the
|
||
surrounding text? *>>
|
||
imposes on us. You know all about that. This includes, but not
|
||
limited to the Disability Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, the
|
||
Occupational Safety Act, etc. Cut the retirement plan. It's two
|
||
to three times as good as the one we have for ourselves. It's
|
||
unrealistic for the servants of the people to have a better
|
||
retirement plan than the people. Restructure the whole system--I
|
||
can summarize what I've tried to say--where citizens come to
|
||
Washington to serve us, not to cash in. Require all members of
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
Congress and the president to turn in excess funds from each
|
||
campaign. Some guys have war chests
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:11
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
now of up to $13 million, $15 million. A non-incumbent doesn't
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
have a chance. The founders of this country would be shocked to
|
||
<<* Consider rephrasing "would be shocked" *>>
|
||
<<* "be shocked" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
know that. Stop cashing in on public service. Pass a law. On
|
||
this, if I could have one wish before I turn out the lights, this
|
||
is it: Former federal officials--elected, appointed and career
|
||
officials- -cannot serve as lobbyists for domestic interests for
|
||
five years after they leave office and they cannot lobby for
|
||
foreign countries, companies or individuals for ten years, and
|
||
there are criminal penalties if you do. Now, these boys come up
|
||
<<* Rephrase "criminal penalties" in a more positive way.
|
||
*>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
here--and I'm not talking about elected necessarily--the
|
||
<<* Consider omitting "necessarily" *>>
|
||
appointed guys on the staff, stay a few years, cash in, make
|
||
30,000 bucks in a month and are on the campaign staffs. What can
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
be more obscene than that? These are lobbyists for foreign
|
||
countries. You don't come to Washington to cash in; you come to
|
||
serve the people. Pass a law making it a criminal offense for a
|
||
<<* Rephrase "criminal offense" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
foreign companies or individuals to influence U.S. laws or
|
||
policies with money. Here's one I am particularly interested in.
|
||
<<* "am particularly interested" is passive voice. Consider
|
||
using the active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Pass a law that no former president, vice president, cabinet
|
||
officer, CIA director, Federal Reserve chairman, Senate majority
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "chairman" with
|
||
"chair or chairperson" *>>
|
||
leader, speaker of the House and others you may want to put on
|
||
the list can ever lobby for either foreign or domestic interests,
|
||
accept gratuities or fees, or cash in any way on their service.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
They came to serve us, not to cash in. You say, "What if they
|
||
write a book?" Give the money to charity. Okay, eliminate PACs.
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "eliminate" with the simpler "cut or
|
||
drop or end" *>>
|
||
Make our elected officials responsive to the people. Eliminate
|
||
all possibilities of special interests giving large sums of money
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "possibilities" with the correct form
|
||
of the simpler "chance" *>>
|
||
to candidates. Leave no loopholes. Limit political contributions
|
||
to $1,000. No large gifts. Shorten the time for campaigns. Cut
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
them to five months. That'll cut the costs. Now, here's a weird
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
one. Why do we have elections on Tuesday? A working fellow can't
|
||
<<* Consider using "here's weird" instead of the wordier
|
||
"here's a weird one" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "on Tuesday" with "Tuesday" *>>
|
||
get there. Let's have elections on Saturday and Sunday. Why can't
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "on Saturday" with "Saturday" *>>
|
||
we leave the polls open two days? If anybody has a good reason,
|
||
call me collect. You know, I would like for everybody to vote. I
|
||
would like for everybody to really know the issues, not to be
|
||
<<* "to really know" is a split infinitive. Could this be
|
||
confusing? *>>
|
||
sound-bitten to death, and then go vote. Make it easy for people
|
||
to vote. It's really fun when you get interested in it. The
|
||
Seventh Day Adventist says, "Can't go on this day." Well, if you
|
||
<<* Are there matching quotation marks at the end of this
|
||
quote? *>>
|
||
do Saturday and Sunday, you can kind of handle everybody. You
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "can kind of" with "can" *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
know, Baptists can vote on Saturday. Folks who go to church on
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "on Saturday" with "Saturday" *>>
|
||
Saturday can vote on Sunday. It just all works out. No exit
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "on Saturday" with "Saturday" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "on Sunday" with "Sunday" *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just all" with "all" *>>
|
||
polls. A criminal offense if anybody prints exit polls. And no
|
||
<<* Rephrase "criminal offense" in a more positive way. *>>
|
||
data from East Coast polling booths until the last booth closes
|
||
in Hawaii so that you don't influence the election. Now we're
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "Hawaii so that" with "Hawaii so" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
getting things a little bit straightened out. You say, "Ross,
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "straightened out" with
|
||
"straightened" *>>
|
||
this is kind of basic, simple stuff." Well, let's start with
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "is kind of" with "is" *>>
|
||
<<* "kind of basic," is colloquial or slang. Replace with
|
||
more formal wording. *>>
|
||
basics. Make adequate television time available for all
|
||
candidates so the incumbent doesn't have an advantage. Get rid of
|
||
all the freebies. These are things that just look bad. You know,
|
||
<<* "freebies" is colloquial or slang. Replace with more
|
||
formal wording. *>>
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
you got the free haircuts, the big gymnasiums. One electrician
|
||
stopped me one day and said, "Why don't these boys join a health
|
||
club? It's hard times." You know, we're talking about all this
|
||
fancy stuff--free prescription drugs, parking
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:12
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
places and so forth. Get rid of the 1,200 airplanes worth $2
|
||
<<* Consider omitting "and so forth" *>>
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
billion that are used to fly our servants around like royalty.
|
||
<<* "are used" is passive voice. Consider using the active
|
||
voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
Keep an airplane for the president if you want to. Downsize it to
|
||
<<* Is "Downsize" misleading? *>>
|
||
a Gulfstream. The Cold War is over! Now let me just lay it out
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "just lay" with "lay" *>>
|
||
for you. It costs the taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars
|
||
every time the vice president goes to play golf the way we fly
|
||
him now. Here's my advice. Let him, let everybody else that's up
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
here go to the airport, get in line, lose their luggage, eat a
|
||
bad meal and get a taste of real life! No, I don't want to leave
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
anybody out, so if somebody needs to go to the dentist, just tell
|
||
him to catch the bus. Okay, now, slash the White House staff, the
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
cabinet staffs, the congressional staffs. If I've learned
|
||
anything in my business career, nothing happens at headquarters.
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? If so, is there a comma
|
||
missing? *>>
|
||
All the action's in the field. In summary, we own this country.
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
Government should come from us. It now comes at us with a
|
||
propaganda machine in Washington that Hitler's propaganda chief
|
||
Goebbels would have just envied. We've got to put the country
|
||
back in control of the owners. In plain Texas talk, it's time to
|
||
take out the trash and clean out the barn or it's going to be too
|
||
late. We've got a choice. We can wait until the clock stops
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
ticking and it'll take us two decades to fix it or we can move
|
||
now. It's our choice. I make no bones about it, and I think I
|
||
<<* Reconsider the use of the cliche "make no bones about"
|
||
*>>
|
||
speak for most everybody here. I love this country, and I love
|
||
the people in this country. And I love the principles this
|
||
country was founded on, and I am sick and tired of seeing those
|
||
<<* "was founded" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
<<* Reconsider the use of the cliche "sick and tired" *>>
|
||
principles violated. My comments today are dedicated to millions
|
||
<<* "are dedicated" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
of folks who don't get to speak at a place like this, but I think
|
||
I share their views. As I look at our country today, I can't help
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
thinking of General Motors in the mid-'80s. There was plenty of
|
||
time and money to fix it all, and they waited and waited and
|
||
waited and waited. Now they're losing $500 million a month.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too complex to read easily. *>>
|
||
<<* Does this long paragraph discuss a single topic? *>>
|
||
They're permanently downsizing. This is our greatest corporation.
|
||
<<* Is "downsizing" misleading? *>>
|
||
<<* Is "greatest" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
I started with IBM. Nobody could have ever convinced me that IBM
|
||
would have had to downsize, and yet they are. Time is not our
|
||
<<* Is "downsize" misleading? *>>
|
||
friend. It's unconscionable not to move now. The American dream
|
||
can survive, but it'll only survive if we're willing to accept
|
||
responsibility that goes with this country. Go home tonight.
|
||
Think about the history of this country. Think about the problems
|
||
we have today. They're nothing compared to those that the people
|
||
had at the time of the Revolution. And if you say, "Gee, I can't
|
||
just get caught up in all this," we're not asking the average
|
||
citizen to do anything except know the issues and be alert and
|
||
let his congressman know and the White House know what he wants.
|
||
<<* Consider replacing the gender-specific "congressman"
|
||
with "representative" *>>
|
||
<<* Would this sentence be clearer if it were split into two
|
||
or more sentences? *>>
|
||
Contrast that--I'm just going to give you one man who signed the
|
||
Declaration of Independence, John Hart. He was driven from his
|
||
<<* "was driven" is passive voice. Consider using the
|
||
active voice. *>>
|
||
wife's bedside by the English as she was dying. Their 13 children
|
||
had to flee for their lives. He had to live in the fields and the
|
||
forests and caves until the end of the war. He returned home
|
||
after war to find his wife dead, his farm and his house
|
||
destroyed, and his 13 children had disappeared. A few weeks later
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too negative? *>>
|
||
he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Now,
|
||
|
||
natpress.txt Page:13
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
that's what people did to give us this country. And won't we do
|
||
the little simple things we have to do to make it what it can be?
|
||
<<* Consider replacing "things" by stronger, more direct
|
||
wording. *>>
|
||
Think about the sacrifices your parents made for you. Did they
|
||
love you more than you love your children? Of course not. Okay,
|
||
<<* Is this a complete sentence? *>>
|
||
then let's start making some sacrifices to leave our children a
|
||
better country. We can do it. Let's leave them a country where
|
||
they can dream great dreams as we did and have those dreams come
|
||
<<* Is "great" explained and justified by the surrounding
|
||
text? *>>
|
||
true. If we will do that, then without any question we can be a
|
||
shining beacon to the rest of the world whose best days are in
|
||
the future. It's a privilege to be with you. Thank you.
|
||
<<* Is this sentence too long? *>>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<<** SUMMARY **>>
|
||
|
||
RightWriter analyzed the document C:\TEXT\PEROT!.092
|
||
using the style file C:\RIGHT\MANUAL.RWT:
|
||
This style file is for writing user's manuals and instructions.
|
||
The document was produced by Standard Text (ASCII).
|
||
|
||
READABILITY INDEX: 5.66
|
||
|
||
4th 6th 8th 10th 12th 14th
|
||
|****|
|
||
SIMPLE | ------ GOOD ------- | COMPLEX
|
||
Readers need a 5th grade level of education.
|
||
|
||
Average Number of Syllables/Word: 1.41
|
||
Average Number of Words/Sentence: 11.76
|
||
|
||
STRENGTH INDEX: 0.52
|
||
|
||
0.0 0.5 1.0
|
||
|****|****|****|****|****|
|
||
WEAK STRONG
|
||
You can make the writing more direct by using:
|
||
- shorter sentences
|
||
- less wordy phrases
|
||
- more positive wording
|
||
- fewer weak phrases
|
||
|
||
DESCRIPTIVE INDEX: 0.59
|
||
|
||
0.0 0.5 1.0
|
||
|****|****|****|****|****|***
|
||
TERSE | ------------ NORMAL ------------ | WORDY
|
||
|
||
|
||
JARGON INDEX: 0.00
|
||
|
||
SENTENCE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
|
||
|
||
14. No Recommendations.
|
||
|
||
<<** END OF SUMMARY **>>
|
||
|