“Real Virginia” may be a new key meaningless term for McCain

19 10 2008

Recently, John McCain’s aide said that McCain was strong in “real Virginia.” This looks like it could become another one of those terms that politicians use to rile-up support while the words don’t really mean anything.

Maybe "real Virginia" should be added to the cloud

Maybe "real Virginia" should be added to the cloud.

“Real” Virginia is anyone who helps encompass what Virginia is as a state. That includes everyone who lives there, not just the people who support McCain, so I don’t see what they could really be getting at by the term.

McCain’s aide, Nancy Pfotenhauer, said that the poeple who live in the more populated areas in the northern parts of Virginia are commuters and people moving from D.C. who don’t count as “real” Virginians.

This is different than the southern par, which is more rural.

It’s pretty well known that republicans do better in rural areas, so why create a term that pins down those in Virginia? The logical reason seems to be one that’s a little slimy.

Instead of getting people in Virginia to support McCain by making him hear what their needs are, and helping them with their problems, the big strategy is to back-handily lie to them. By using the term “real Virginia,” all McCain does is instill a sense of ownership and pride in the rural south of the state.

If someone told me I lived in the “real California,” I would feel pretty proud of myself, but at the same time, it doesn’t really help me with my bills. I don’t really care if I live in the “real” part of the state, if the state is still getting screwed over.

When the “real” parts of the states are hurting just bad or more than the “fake” parts, then what’s the real difference? The only difference is one part of the state is going to have a chunk swayed to vote for someone who did nothing more than give them an empty compliment.

This is the video:

Advertisements




Key meaningless political terms in the VP debate

7 10 2008

As the election gets closer, I can’t help but notice more meaningless political words coming out. These are words politicians use without understanding the meaning of the word, or at least not using the word in the correct way.

This makes the word or phrase take on a new meaning that helps the person who is using the word. For example, using the word “freedom” will strike certain emotions in people without the politician needing to use the word correctly.

Tag cloud of meaningless political words, the larger are more dangerous

Tag cloud of meaningless political words, the larger are more dangerous

I came up with a list of meaningless words (with some help from a post at DoubleThinkBlog and one at KVNUForThePeople), and I put them in a tag cloud-style grid with the most construed and misused words being the largest.

I also tallied how often some of those words were used in the recent vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

___________________________________

 

Tally of key terms in VP debate:

Change: Palin – 18, Biden – 22, Maverick: Palin – 6, Biden – 9

Freedom: Palin – 5, Biden – 1, Patriot: Palin – 3, Biden – 2

Rights: Palin – 2, Biden – 7, Democracy: Palin – 3, Biden – 1

Terror: Palin – 3, Biden – 5, Security: Palin – 3, Biden – 3

Equal: Palin – 1, Biden – 0, Victory: Palin – 2, Biden – 0

Experience: Palin – 4, Biden – 0, War on…: Palin – 2, Biden – 0

Total “Victories”: Biden – 4, Palin – 7, Tie – 1

“Change” was by far the most used term during the debate, but there were questions about change, so that statistic was pumped up. Biden used the word “maverick” more than Palin did, and he never mentioned experience.

Also note that:

  • “equal” includes “equality”
  • “terror” includes “terrorist” and “terrorism”
  • “patriot” includes “patriotic”