What’s wrong with this image from the New York Times? It’s a graphical representation of the “number of times words were used per 25,000 words spoken” from the convention speeches of both parties over the past two weeks. Unsurprisingly, change ranks highest in the Democrats’ list (89 mentions), followed closely by McCain’s name (78) and Bush’s (46). But while the Democrats were eager to tie their opponents to the incumbent president, the Republicans have taken a sharply contrasting stance on things. With Bush’s name hardly appearing in Republican speeches (with a grand total of 7 mentions), someone tuning in to the conventions with nary a knowledge of contemporary American politics would be hard-pressed to know which party Bush would have been attached to.
It is no secret that part of the Republican strategy for the past 18 months has been to distance McCain from the Bush administration that everyone has had enough of. Cynical though this may sound, how convenient it must have been for the GOP then to have an excuse to have Bush give the prototypical rite-of-passage speech from one party leader to the next from very far away.
But what interests me more than this is something new I’m seeing — a call for change from within the Republican Party rivaling the cries from Denver last week. “It would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition,” writes the Times, “As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment.”
Since when did the Republicans start talking about change as if they owned the word?
Filed under: Uncategorized , election, political communication, rhetoric
