In so many words-Bush's simpler speaking style is more effective than Kerry's longer sentences.

In tonight's debate, watch for Sen. John Kerry to be more wordy than President Bush.

An analysis of their interviews and news conferences found that, by every measurement, Kerry is more difficult to understand than the president. He spoke in longer sentences - an average of 19.9 words per sentence compared with 14.2 for Bush; he spoke at a 10th-grade level, the president at a seventh-grade level; he used slightly larger words and had more passive sentences.

The results suggest why Kerry has been struggling to convey his message. His wordy style leaves many voters unsure what he wants to do as president.

"Take Kerry's plan on Iraq," said George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. "Kerry has a four-point plan, but almost nobody can remember what the four points are."

"It's all about style," said Craig Crawford, a political analyst for MSNBC and Congressional Quarterly. "Bush's style, with shorter, declarative sentences, communicates directness and decisiveness."

The St. Petersburg Times analyzed news conferences and interviews to study Bush and Kerry's unscripted comments. Four events were analyzed for each candidate.

The Times used Microsoft Word's grammar tool to do the calculations. It measures syllables per word and sentence length and estimates the Flesch-Kincaid grade level.

The Flesch-Kincaid rating is the grade level necessary to understand it. A lower grade means it should be easier to comprehend. Writers often aim for a seventh or eighth grade level. (This story, according to Word, is written at a seventh-grade level.)

In the 2000 presidential debates, YourDictionary.com calculated Bush spoke at an average grade level of 6.6; Vice President Gore was 7.9.

Linguists say shorter sentences usually are more effective. But there are exceptions.

John Adams delivered a 727-word sentence in his inaugural address. Allan Metcalf, author of Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, said the sentence was effective because listeners quickly understood its point - that Adams was humble and would not act like a monarch. Read the sentence at the Times website.

Bush has received lukewarm reviews for his oratorical skills and is famous for verbal blunders. For example, he recently said OB/GYN doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they cannot "practice their love with women." He is renowned for creating words, including misunderestimate and subliminable.

But as the Times analysis shows, Bush speaks concisely and directly. He uses shorter words - 4.3 letters per word versus 4.5 for Kerry - and gets to the point. Kerry speaks in passive sentences about twice as often as the president. Only 5 percent of Bush's sentences are passive, compared with 9 percent for Kerry.

When Bush answered a question about Iraq at an April news conference, he used short sentences and repetition that conveyed his confidence.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence."

Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at Stanford University, said Bush's short sentences are often "empty assertions," such as, "Terrorists hate freedom." But Nunberg said the content may be less important than the strong image they convey.

Metcalf, the author of Presidential Voices, said Bush's short sentences give the impression "that he is speaking the plain truth. The plain style implies directness and sincerity."

President Clinton had the same skill, analysts said. He took complex ideas and boiled them down to simple phrases.

"Bush uses the language of guys sitting around a bar - without the cursing," Crawford said. "Kerry uses the language of people sitting around a university faculty lounge."

Kerry honed his oratorical skills in the wordy confines of the U.S. Senate. He has difficulty getting to the point, even when discussing his difficulty getting to the point. Here's how he answered a recent question about whether people were confused about his position on Iraq:

"What they should be confused about is what President Bush has done, where he actually says to Americans that if there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to al-Qaida - all of which have been proven to be true - his own - the 9/11 Commission has shown the president wasn't truthful. His own weapons inspectors have shown the president wasn't truthful."

"This is one of the reasons that Bush is seen as more decisive and Kerry as a flip-flopper," said Crawford. "When you answer in long, twisted sentences you don't seem as though you are really confident in what you are saying."

Lakoff said Kerry "is used to speaking before the Senate. Speaking to ordinary people is a different matter."

Nunberg said Kerry's problem is common for Democrats, who he said tend to have difficulty condensing complex ideas into slogans or short sentences. Kerry tried to use a variation on Bush's, "W is for Women" slogan by saying, "W is for wrong." Nunberg said it was about as effective as saying, "G is for gnome."

By contrast, Republicans use effective slogans such as No Child Left Behind, ownership society and compassionate conservatism, Nunberg said.

Kerry has improved in the past few months, the Times analysis found. He went from 24.2 words per sentence at a Los Angeles Press conference in May to 14 words in his Larry King interview in July. Over the same period, his Flesch-Kincaid level declined from 12th to seventh grade.

Some analysts have criticized Bush for being too simplistic. But Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager, said Bush doesn't need to alter his style.

"He is not a person who is into rhetorical flourishes. He will leave that to Sen. Kerry," Mehlman said.

Likewise, Mike McCurry, an adviser to Kerry, said the Massachusetts senator won't dramatically alter his style tonight.

"I don't think the goal of these debates is to try to dumb-down the discourse," he said.

McCurry said voters want substance. "There may be an appetite out there for a little more sophistication and complexity."

Kerry has fared well in debates. His performance against Massachusetts Gov. William Weld helped him win re-election in 1996. James Fallows, a former speech writer for President Carter, wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that Kerry had sharp lines against Weld. Fallows said Kerry "was engrossing in a way that reminded me of a climactic courtroom scene in a Scott Turow novel, in which a skillful prosecutor eventually traps an evasive witness."

The candidate with the snappiest lines often wins a debate. As Metcalf put it, the candidates "are like kids tossing firecrackers at each other. The firecracker that makes the most bang will be the winner."

I have to agree with the writer.

Someone else posted the debate transcript, and when you read the written words, Pres Bush comes across much stronger than Sen. Kerry.

"It is always easier to understand a straight talker than on who speaks in circles"

Kerry is speaking in circles so when he grows up he can become a big wheel.

the president didn't sound like a straight talker tonight, he seemed ill prepared, and used the same expression over and over and really couldn't justify why we went into iraq. i think the only thing that can save him is capturing bin laden.

Have faith. Kerry wants a global test and to give Iran nuclear fuel. Kerry made numerous false statements which were difficult to challenge in this type of format. Bush will win the election, absent massive voter fraud.

CNN poll. The American people have spoken. Kerry won the debate and Bush wins the election. I can live with that.

2. Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate: John Kerry or George W. Bush?

Kerry 53%, Bush 37%

5. Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq.

Bush 54%, Kerry 43% (Pre-debate: Bush 54%, Kerry 40%)

sKerry: "whine, whine.... Bush bad, Bush bad.....I can do better.... I have a plan (?) oh, and I was in the war....I know better... yada yada yada blah blah..."

Bush: "we are fighting terrorists on their turf .... bringing freedom to middle east.... defending America.... defeating terrorists..... trying to defuse nukelar threat... I am resolved.... I will continue to follow course and not send mixed signals and waiver... I want your vote of confidence for 4 more..." Amen!

SKerry more presentable debater about same old wafling crap - Dubya solid defender and fighter for America.
Who you gona vote for? Wafling POS or real commander?

FReeper Leo

I think Bush could have done a little bit better job, but wasn't bad. Kerry gained some advantage.

But I think this debate provided a lot of material for future ads and if they are smart they will have ads out tomorrow using things Kerry said in the past with clips from this debate.

I don't know what happened to Kerry's comment a few months ago that "Knowing what we know now I still would have gone to war". Kerry has been contradicting this left and right and the republicans need to use it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

In so many words, image made

An analysis shows President Bush's simpler speaking style is more effective than John Kerry's longer sentences.