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 **>>