On 60 Minutes, Pelley used GOP-favored "Democrat leadership"
During his interview with President George W. Bush on the January 14 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, CBS correspondent Scott Pelley twice used the word "Democrat" as an adjective -- "Democrat Party" and "Democrat plan" -- a usage that, as Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly, is one that originated with Republican operatives. Republicans consistently refer to the "Democrat Party," even though that is not what members of the Democratic Party call themselves, and use the noun "Democrat" as an adjective, which New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg identified as an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic," or as Hertzberg wrote, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation."
In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:
The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.
Hertzberg further noted:
There's no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be -- a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat."
As Hertzberg documented, Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who "made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults," and former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), who "denounced 'Democrat wars' ... in his [1976] Vice-Presidential debate with [former Sen.] Walter Mondale [D-MN]."
Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " 'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book ... entitled 'Words That Work.' "
Bush frequently employs the "Democrat" slur when describing the Democratic Party or leadership. For instance, following the 2006 midterm elections, Bush stated in a November 8, 2006, press conference that "it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories"; noted that he had "spoke[n] with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate"; and while vowing to work with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion, promised to "begin consultations with the Democrat leadership" on ways "to accomplish big objectives for the country."
From the January 14 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
PELLEY: Back at home, there is a raging debate over the president's plan on Capitol Hill even within his own party. The congressional leadership said it might try to stop him. The president has not answered that challenge until now.
The Democrat leadership says, "We want to support the troops who are on the ground; we just want to redline the extra 20,000."
BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. Listen, we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work. They're saying, "We're not even going to fund this thing." They're not going to give it a chance.
PELLEY: There's no Democrat plan?
BUSH: It doesn't look like it to me. And the interesting thing is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, "Well, we can't afford to fail." In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. And -- but what's deafening is those who say, "We can't afford to fail, and here's the plan that will cause us not to fail." Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility is to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.
It just demonstrates the power of propaganda. I kept expecting him to say "defeatocrats". Why didn't he challenge Bush's obvious lies? This was a puff piece masquerading as "tough journalism".
because they wouldn't want We The People to think that Democrats are Democratic. Iheard the vile Rush Limbaugh state several years ago (I think early 90's) that they should always call us the Democrat Party in order to lable us properly, and not to confuse us with the party that is for all people--the Republicans.
The fact that it has spread to media other than FOX "News" is disgusting. Journalism used to be where you would find near flawless language, not anymore.
Anyone who uses the "Democrat Party" name is clearly doing it deliberately and showing their bias-- it's intentional.
Every time a Democrat gets called this at an interview, they should immediately correct it-- otherwise it's going to stick.
These repubs, I tell 'ya-- they're such jerks. Get it, the ugly sounding 'Democrat Party,' sounds like 'Democrap Party'?
Why don't Dems start calling Republicans 'Re-Poob-licans?' It's on that level.
There was an article today about Obama making a move towards a presidential bid today that called him a "black" in the first paragraph of the article -- specifically, that he would be "the first black" to hold the Presidency.
At this point, I don't know whether to blame a general lack of education and proper methods of communication, or a deliberate methodology to dehumanize political opponents for this improper grammar. I've also noticed that "Dems" is perfectly fine to use in articles anymore, what is the diminutive of Republican? Reps? Repubs? Whatever it might be, no serious commentator or journalist would dare use it.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please inform Mr. Pelley that there is no such thing as a "Democrat Plan" nor is there such a thing as "Democrat Leadership." The proper terminology is "Democratic Plan" or "Democratic Leadership," and not only is it a mistake that betrays grammatical ignorance, but it is also an insulting and diminutive reference to one of the two leading political parties that help guide this nation.
I would appreciate it if this mistake be pointed out to your commentators and interviewers, so the error may be avoided in the future.
Good letter.
also please kindly inform the members of the rePUBlICan PARTY that we will respond in kind until the error on their part is rectified.
Thank ewe.
Get it? Aren't we as funny as they are?
This Democrat Party thing is so out of line. It's depressing that things have fallen so low.
Dear CBS,
I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard Scott Pelley twice use the derisive term “Democrat” Party in his interview with President Bush.
This was one of the most blatant episodes of “sleaze” journalism I have ever seen at CBS.
I am ashamed for you; Scott Pelley is a disgrace to America, and I can tell you, I’m through with “Sixty Minutes.”
Pelley made the Pithy assertion to Bush instead of asking a question. He leads the President around by giving his own opinion.
It could have been in the form of a Rhetorical Question but that, I think, would have been too weak to please Pelley.
Pelley: - "There's No Democrat Plan!"
Bush: - "It Doesn't Look Like it To Me!"
Bush has just reviewed a variety of plans, including Democratic Plans. He rejected them all in favor of his Escalation.
Then the questions were... - People think your Stubborn? - - And - - How can you continue to go against the American People?
Bush Explained:
I'm a very flexible and open minded person. I listen to lots of good people.
Then Bush Said:
"But, what I won't do is change my principles."
"You can't make sound decisions if you trying to chase popularity. "
"When you make your mind up you stand by your decision."
Pelly:
Is all of this just crushing? Is it crushing upon your spirit?
Bush said quite the contrary. - See following Link:
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
by Stephen Colbert: "This President believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday, no matter what happens on Tuesday."
Publicans.
The - Republic - Party.
OR - Repuglican't
Oh! I give up on this. I'd rather just show respect and use Republicans.
Is GOP.
Nice job-- you're right. But it's complimentary, you know, Grand Old Party and all. But Dems, that's derogatory.
The right to arbitrarily decide which of my points are good and which arent? Dems isnt derogatory, no one said it was. Try all you want to pretend there is no ulterior motive for the right to keep referring to the Democrat party which doesnt exist. None of the liberals here are dumb enough to buy it.
If the diminutive of "Republican Party" is truly GOP, then it follows that the diminutive of "Democratic Party" is DNC. There is no existing diminutive term for the word "Republican" that is used in the media or political public discourse.
.. and I will be the first to raise my hand and say YES, official use of the term "Dems" to describe the Democratic party is not only journalistically lazy, but it is offensive, because these diminutive terms are ascribed only to the Democratic Party - not the Republican Party.
The only diminutive or disrespectful term widely used for the Republican Party would be "cons," which has its counterpart of "libs," and isn't necessarily a Republican-specific term anyhow.
Would be the RNC. That is a specific entity and cannot be used for the Democratic party, or Republican, party
filthy hack.
It is just that simple.
I watched 60 Minutes Sunday night and this part of the interview jumped out at me for the use of "Democrat" and for one other reason:
PELLEY: "There's no Democrat plan?"
Excuse me MMFA, where did this question mark come from?
Pelley may have been repeating Bush's words back to him for clarification(he does this at other times in the interview) but I'm sorry, there was no hint of questioning in his voice. It was a declarative sentence, and was no doubt seen by many people as an afirmation of Bush's point.
Now I'm really pissed.
If you are a member of the Democrat Party you are a Democrat not a Democratic. If you are member fo the Republican party you are a Republican. It has only been recently, past 8 years, that I have heard Democrats try to call themselves the Democratic Party. Heck a lot of Democrats cannot decide what party they belong to half the time referring to themselves a Progressives.
If you are a member of the Democrat Party you are a Democrat not a Democratic.
There is not now, and has never been, a "Democrat Party." It has always been "Democratic Party."
I understand Democrat party is incorrect, it should be Democratic party........but can you tell me why is it offensive because I really don't know?
Is it just disrespect or something else? (no sarcasm, a serious question)
I think Hendrik Hertzberg summed it up pretty well in his article, excerpted above. I agree with him.
I admit, I didn't read that. But I will.
The GOP came up with this because it sounds ugly, and like 'bureaucrat,' too.
Word has it that they tested it out and found that it had the most derogatory connotation.
It is the Democratic Party (trade marked), not Democrat Party. You bought the conservative bait. The Republi Party lost the ending of their name because they are the party that "can" not do anything right in Iraq:) Maybe it should be the Republican't Party>
As the MMFA entry indicates, several sources are in agreement regarding the term "Democratic Party." It's also in keeping of the historical origins of the party. See [link to en.wikipedia.org]
In any event, it is not a recent effort to redefine the name. If you've only noticed it within the last eight years or so, you weren't listening before then (except to Newt, apparently).
Furthermore, "liberal" and "progressive" describe political philosophies rather than party affiliation.
If you are a member of the "DEMOCRATIC" party you are a "DEMOCRAT". Pretty simple.
... the difference between a noun and adjective, right?
So diagram the sentence "What is the Democrat Plan?" for the rest of us.
Can you fill in these sentences with the proper word?
Last night I watched an exciting show on my color/colorful/colored TV. Hint: (noun/adjective/adjective)
There are Oreos in the cookie/cookie-like jar. Hint: (noun/adjcetive)
The injured firefighter was taken to the burn/burning center. Hint: (noun/adjective)
All of the terms you used are nouns. "Cookie jar" is one term, and a noun. "Cookie" does not describe the appearance of the jar, it says what it is for. "Plan", on the other hand, is a noun by itself, which "Democratic" would modify.
Welcome to America!
Oh enlightened one:
Please explain to this poor idiot how "burn center" is one term, a noun, while "Democrat plan" is improper.
It seems to me that both use a noun as an adjective, and there are countless more examples with this construction, used by native English speakers without giving it any thought nor hesitation.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary only gives noun status to the term "cookie sheet" and not "cookie jar" nor "cookie dough". Perhaps the unabridged edition lists them all--I am not curious enough to check.
It's awkward, just like 'Democrat Party.' Two wrongs don't make a right.
The rule is that if there are already adequate appellations for an idea or thing, creating another one is engaging in jargon. 'Democratic' has also been the functioning adjective in English for centuries, and it does not need a sudden replacement.
The harshness of this new adjective will probably weed it out of the language, if it takes on a life. Unless, of course, the Re-poo-bli-cans keep on winning...
I agree with you with the objective to minimize formation of new words (jargon).
In the case of "Democratic", in its written form, there is no confusion with "democratic". However, in spoken form, confusion does exist. You can write: The Republicans attended a democratic forum, but spoken it just sounds funny. Also, saying "Big D Democratic" sounds awkward too.
I am a Catholic, and we find humor when Episcopalians and Lutherans say the Apostles' Creed aloud:
"...I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church..."
Of course, we know they mean small c catholic not large C Catholic, but it still brings out a chuckle.
If you check dictionary.com, all three of your examples show up as nouns. Not a noun and an adjective, nouns. They are each a term made of two words, as I said. To be fair, none of your examples show up at m-w.com, but "coffee table" does. Isn't it supposed to be "coffee-like table"?
Additionally, "Democrat" simply means a member of the Democratic party. Even if we accept that we should make a single specific term out of it, it would still be "Democratic plan". We could say "GOP plan", but GOP is the party itself, not specifically a member of that party. Why would you describe a plan as a member of a party instead of the actual party that came up with it?
And sorry, but anyone who makes the basic argument that "we don't say 'cookie-like sheet', therefore we should say 'Democrat plan'" is either being intellectually dishonest or is just naturally a dim bulb.
Its an attempted framing. It has ALWAYS been the DemocraIC party.
try telling that to the Canadans.
which is why I'm not surprised that you don't understand.
"If you are a member of the Democrat Party you are a Democrat not a Democratic. "
"Democrat is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. The adjective "Democratic" modifies the noun "Party."
What part of that don't you understand?
A couple of months ago, during a press conference, Dubya referred to the establishment of a "democrat Lebanon." Apparently he's so thoroughly internalized this little scrap of Republican childishness that he can't even use the word "democratic" when talking about a form of government.
At least the use of "Democrat party" is a handy way to identify brainless dittoheads.
Why don't democrats get even and simply start referring to republicans as "republics"? Oh wait. That sounds too much like America. You know: "...and to the republic, for which it stands..."
And someone might get curious and read Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
We wouldn't want this dirty little secret to get out now would we?
Why don't democrats get even and simply start referring to republicans as "republics"?
I do that when I hear/read some dumbass say/write "Democrat party." I wouldn't do it if I were President of the United States though.
That's the new noun we're looking for. Because what's good for the goose, is....
Repukes.
striving to turn our republican form of government into an empire.
From [link to www.m-w.com]
Republic: 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
When the Constitution was written. In that context republican means rule by representation. I think Democrats should get even and call the GOP the ReNAMBLAcan party
...because we're supposed to be above this kind of nonsense. Yet we have our leaders in the current administration and throughout the Republican party workin' this kind of third-grade playground crap constantly. Worse, a significant portion of the populace eats it up.
"Anti choice"
Not objective, not what the group described wants to be called, used by liberals since the 70's.
This has been documented before. What does it take to get a journalist to be told, in no uncertain terms, STOP adopting administration/thinktank language? (rhetorical, mind you... real answer is: It takes one hell of a lot, but mainly one thing: Economic consequences that sting.)
makes one sound like a moron who can't differentiate between a noun and an adjective.
Thanks, MMFA, for being so observant and astute.
Then wouldn't it go more to the person using the incorrect verbage as opposed to those it was describing?
Sure. Incorrect usage reflects badly on the user, but I think that MMFA is correct in its concern. "Democratic" carries connotation that "Democrat" doesn't. I suspect that its misapplication in "Democrat Party" is contrived and probably affects those whom don't know correct usage. And given the correlation between education and party affiliation (Dems tend to be better educated.), the error might be missed by most conservatives while the connotation has its intended effect.
What is the negative connotation that Democrat carries as opposed to Democratic?
...demogogues like Coulter, Savage, etc. They use "democrat" as if it were a slur, both in application and intonation. However, "democratic" is sacrosanct, for we are a democratic nation, irrespective of affliation.
They wouldn't want We The People to think that Democrats are Democratic.
But the fact that we know and they know that it is an intentional dig at Democrats. It's like when a little kid finds out what gets on your nerves and does it repeatedly to get your goat. You know the adult thing to do is ignore it, but deep down inside you want to bitch-slap the brat.
To me, it just reflects the abject shallowness of many conservatives, kind of like the ridiculous "freedom fries" and even more ridiculous "homicide bomber". What's funny is that Rush Limbaugh always criticizes Liberals for emphasizing "symbolism over substance", when his fellow conservatives have raised it to an art form.
of allowing them to emphasize RAT at the end of the word ( I dont expect most pundits to be so crude) It is a way to divorce the term from the positive connotation of BEING Democratic. A term people see positively and allows for a purely partisan portrayal of the party just having a name.
It's sort of like being the butt of the jokes of the boorish, drunken guy at the party. It's insulting. You know that no one intelligent actually cares what he says, but it hurts on a personal level.
...the moron who can't differentiate between a democracy and a republic?
meaningful distinction between a democratic republic and a republic then there is no such thing as a democracy anywhere in the world.
The big problem with 'Democrat Party' is that it's an ugly expression-- it doesn't flow as well as 'democratic,' it's abrupt, harsh and ungainly.
It also sounds--literally-- like 'Democrap,' and that's intentional.
Its intentional. You made the important point before when you said whenever there is already a valid name in use and it is changed you can bet there is a reason
I am a knee jerk liberal, largely socialist (government needs to seriously regulate if no own energy, health care - especially drugs -and petroleum). That said: In my view, there is a disproportionate reaction to this verbal jousting both here and over at Huffington Post with Bob Cesca at [link to www.huffingtonpost.com] He was raising this for the second time, which is why this item caught my attention here.
My American College Dictionary, Random House 1963 (I keep it on my desktop 43 years later): n. "democrat 1. an advocate of democracy. 2. one who maintains the political or social equality of men. 3. (cap) U.S. Pol. a. a member of the Democratic party. b. obs. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party. Also, democratical. -democratically, adv.
"democratic, adj. 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political democracy. 3. advocating or upholding democracy. 4. (cap.) U.S. Pol. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party. ...
"Democratic party" one of the two major political parties in the U.S., founded in 1828.
If one wants to challenge Bush's lack of grammatical skills because he uses nouns as if they were adjectives, that would be okay, but I expect that one would find that most of us, including academicians and world leaders ... even a President who distinguishes "is from is" ever get all their pronouns and verb tenses (remember subjunctive mode?) correct. Correctly. I don't know. "Say correctly" but "get correct?" ...
7th grade English really should last for four or five years ...
And I understand the marketing concept involved and the possibility that the media figure and Bush both actually understand what Gingrich set out to do, but does anyone really know whether that term was botched from time to time before Newt made a science of what works? What made them ask "what works" with that term? I think the fact that it rhymes with rat is stretching pretty far (Cesca's point).
With all the life and death stuff needing attention, I think MMFA has better things to do.
Well said.
I just think if you ask most people they wouldn't even notice the difference as it was spoken, and then if it was pointed out to them they wouldn't find it offensive - just gramatically incorrect.
But I am not a Democrat so I may see it differently.
...and shifting it from "But I am not a Democrat so I may see it differently." to "But I am not a Democratic so I may see it differently."
"Democratic," in the shifted assertion, carries connations that make the sentence sound somewhat treasonous. So, I conclude, the words aren't synonyms, even though they seem similar.
Now, I might be quibbling because I'm writer or I might have professional grade-acuity. I suspect it's the latter.
Doesn't it strike you a tad interesting that something this obviously offensive to you and many here, has to be explained as to why it is so offensive to such a degree?
As I said, I am not a Democrat and admittedly that may cloud my sensibilities where this is concerned.....but I still haven't seen where it rises to any serious level beyond a grammatical gaffe?
to be frank, your role as contrarian might cloud your sight, thus the considerable explaining. The hardest thing for every person to do is to quiet their internal monologue and listen, for most people, when they listen, aren't empty, open, and receiving, but rebutting and denying. Olivegardens disagrees with me and that's more than fine. I'm especially open to his disagreement because it is contrary to the typical role that he fills. He and I generally agree. When he disagrees with me, I immediately assume that I'm missing something...and I'm probably right in assuming this. You, on the other hand, tend to disagree with MMFA. So, you are in this role again in this thread and you have the momentum of hundreds of prior disagreements hurrying you through potential understanding.
I apologize if my sincere attempt to ask a question provoked such a disappointing and defensive response - and a backhanded insult.
Apparently any discussion is viewed as lazy and confrontational by those who are asked to explain their position. That is unfortunate.
if I was short with you, it's due to my sense that you'd sometimes rather win than be right. As regards your role as contrarian, it's always good to range. You garner a lot of attention by disagreeing and attention is rewarding for many, whether it's positive or negative, so disagreeing might have seduced you.
In this debate, I've felt that you've repeated yourself rather than listen and learn. You know that words are my profession and so, I think that this might be a moment for you to listen more than oppose.
From Holly: "You know that words are my profession and so, I think that this might be a moment for you to listen more than oppose."
That's right, Tommy. Holly is speaking. You sit there like a good little boy and LISTEN, DAMN-IT!!!!
You're right........a little downright condescension and warranted admonition is in order here, apparently. My bad for disagreeing on this or any other thread, for it disrupts and distracts the prevailing wisdom that permeates the posts from the left.
And you know, my whole goal in life is to win on an anonymous blog. There is nothing more satisfying, I usually light up a Marlboro right after I declare victory for myself. Forget being right, it's all about the ultimate prize - whatever that is???
Thanks for your humor.
Holly is right. You have been repetitve and thick headed in this thread. Intentionally, perhaps. Perhaps not.
Your reputation as contrarian preceeds you and that is why you seldomly enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I think that was Holly's point.
That's right, Tommy! You've been "repetitive", "thick-headed", and, and...well...nobody here likes you anyways and you'll never amount to anything!!! Now go to your bedroom and take your contrary views with you if you know what's good for you!!!
I'm sure you have never been cranky scold on these threads. Right?
Glass houses, nanee nanee boo boo and all that rubber and glue stuff back at ya!
Frankly, I don't much care if I am given any benefit of any doubt. As for the contrarian label, well considering the many topicson these threads and the far left leanings of many posters, it is no wonder I am at odds much of the time. With many of you parroting one another post after post, it does become uncomfortable for some to consider an alternate point of view - well take it up with the moderators if you feel I just get in the way.
I would suspect that this website encourages contrary opinions because it should ultimately strengthen and raise the bar for everyone. Because you automatically discount mine due to their "differing point of view" is really your right and your business.
I love that you post here, man. I don't automatically discount your opinion, that's just how you perceive my opposition to your opinion.
I like opposing points of view, I just think your obstinate my friend. BFD, most of us here are obstinant, I am too.
As for the contrarian label well, you have stated in the past that one of your primary objectives here is to contradict our dominant currents of thought.
Anyway, in an effort to settle the dust, how were your Christmas and new year celebrations? I hope they were as wonderful and magnificent as mine. It was a joy to celebrate with my five month old her first Christmas!
See ya round, if you don't go square in the meantime ; )
Francis? (not sure??) I don't remember ever saying that my primary objective was to be contrary? I have said that a difference of opinion is good for all, but I post my opinion not based on it being contrary, but rather on my positions on issues.
In any event, no offense taken and my holidays were wonderful actually. And congratulations on your little five month old!
Peace!
No problem, Tommy. Your line about the Marlboro had me laughing out loud. Keep up your posts. They add spice to the dialogue here.
is gettin' tubed again!
You got my user name. If you've never been "tubed" before, check out the link below. It doesn't matter if you're "Left", "Right", "Middle", "asleep", I promise you will enjoy it. [link to www.surfline.com]
Sorry, I meant to link to this one. It's even better. You have to wait 10 ~ 15 seconds for the video to start but it's worth it. [link to www.surfline.com]
Enjoy!
did the republicans make a deliberate effort to use it. if it didn't mean anything why did newt bother?
Doesn't it strike you a tad interesting that something this obviously offensive to you and many here, has to be explained as to why it is so offensive to such a degree?
It strikes me a tad bit interesting that some posters take issue with and minimize any legitimate complaint, and do their best to minimize it with rhetoric.
The proof is in the pudding, Tommy. GOP leadership have been deliberately and improperly labeling their political opponents to attempt to remove them from their historical roots and redefine them as befits their own personal and political interests. This is documented. For supposed journalists to swallow this horsehockey and distribute it to the American public unfiltered is blatant bias, and exactly the kind of thing that MMFA is designed to highlight.
Language is a very important part of politics, and the people who control the definitions hold more than a little sway over the tone of modern politics. This is one example of how the GOP seeks to redefine its political opponents in ways that are convenient to them, and to them alone.
I know! I know!
Because they can't stand on their agenda, therefore their only option is to try to minimize their opponents.
Their agenda is so odious, that they must constantly set up Straw Men for their drooling, knuckle-dragging base fear and hate.
it's equivelant to misleading the country by referring to the republican party as the nazi party. Oh, wait. Let me try again...
this is about respect. It is disrespectful to take a known name and purposely change it. It's like calling a lesbian "sir" or a gay "ma'am". The intent is to label you as something you are not not out of respect, but out of derision.
I think MOST people--INCLUDING Democrats-- well other than those posting here--don't even notice.
In any case I truly doubt that Pelley was using the term as an insult.
I think MOST people--INCLUDING Democrats-- well other than those posting here--don't even notice.
Great. Please inform Frank Luntz, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and all the other childish Republicans who are very careful to always use this ineffective strategy.
It is an ineffective strategy IF most people don't notice.
Now of course you & I & everyone posting here knows the difference between the usage of Democrat as opposed to Democratic...BUT it's here at MMFA that I first became aware of the fact that certain Republicans were using *Democrat Party* as some sort of slur. So Newt, Coulter & the rest of the gang didn't get to me first ;-)
I watched this 60 Minute interview and it didn't even register [to me] that Pelley was using "Democrat" rather than "Democratic". Guess I was paying more attention to what that smirking fool had to say.
"I watched this 60 Minute interview and it didn't even register [to me] that Pelley was using "Democrat" rather than "Democratic"."
Because you didn't notice increases your susceptibility.
That doesnt mean I dont notice and understand the rhetorical trick. Even when they dont notice conciously what makes you think that translates into NO effect? There IS an agenda behind this. There is a REASON they are doing it. Marketing is the GOP's true genius and they know what they are doing. The Democratic Party shouldnt allow it without a fight and for CERTAIN the media should not be complicit in the attempt.
...you're a knee-jerk liberal, but such surprising analysis reveals otherwise. You're a thinking man and I admire that, even if I can't concur and dismiss the significance of the mistake.
words of wisdom.
I think the tenor of the MMFA piece is that misusing the term isn't a mistake. But you knew that...you probably were mistaken in referring to it as such. Or, perhaps I am mistaken and you were conceding the possibility of Pelley's being mistaken. But we language police people should be particularly cautious in our investigations, such as when we write "because I'm writer," with "writer" not normally being used as an adverb. Oh, you omitted an article? Heaven forbid.
I need to quit teasing before I insert a run-on-sentence that my 11th grade English teacher sees and writes "F! ROS!" in her huge red letters!
are you familiar with Adventure Divas, Inc.?
I just googled Adventure Divas, Inc. Are you affiliated with them?
just recalled your writing for mother jones. Google again and check out the editor.
and understood your position from your original posting. I once took a class at Harvard where every typo was challenged and analyzed. You probably would have felt like you were on crazy pills in that class. The focus on error might have been obsessive or it might have been wise and brave. The prof in the class admitted uncertainty about what it was, but there are parallel theories, such as "there are no accidents." Like Nicolas Cage in the movie, "Moonstruck," if we cut off our hand, we do so to escape something: in his case, he escaped impending matrimony.
As regards, "I am writer," most days, Hun, it feels like that. I emerge from the cave of my office and declare, "I AM WRITER!" And then I skulk back, for writers belong in their caves.
But I suspect that "democrat" has been tested and found to be more pejorative than "democratic," due to sustained demagoguery.
I should throw fewer stones. Too often, my work demands consideration of how to work the greatest harm through a turn of phrase, as well. Anyway, that's the funnest thing I've done today. Back to the files. At least my cave has a window, though through it I see our suburban library branch that beckons me, however fruitless its lure may be.
It's a term focus-tested by Luntz.
"Democratic," "Democratic governments" and "Democracy" are words conservatives are allowed to use positively. "Democrat" is always used negatively. The on-purpose mistake means they can demonize Democrats 24/7 without ever letting it slip that that Democrats are committed to Democracy.
The deadpan, repeated insult also tickles their overgrown bully sense of humor.
"Democrat" is always used negatively.
***********************
Then what would you call a person who belongs to the Democratic party?
From the context of her paragraph it seems clear that Sagra meant that "Democrat" is always used negatively by conservatives, not by the general public.
Ok, clarification accepted. But when I use the term I don't do out of some stealth insulting of the person it's directed to. Some may, you might be right. But I cannot believe it is very widespread or always negative.
But I cannot believe it is very widespread or always negative.
Then maybe you oughta sit out of this discussion until you're better informed. It may not always be used negatively, when properly used as a noun, but the usage of it incorrectly is certainly widespread. To say otherwise on your part is either disingenuous or just ignorant.
You must not watch a lot of political talk shows or listen to talk radio. I hear this misuse of "Democrat" on a regular basis, especially by the professional liars like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck....as well as Republican politicians.
This is the way I look at it and this may be a poor analogy, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Would you be offended with being a member of the Charisma party as opposed to the Charismatic party? Isn't it the same thing?
...if 100 demogogues for 10 years used "charisma" as a slur.
It would depend on how I wanted to be addressed. Did I name my party the "Charismatic party"? Then I would be irritated if my political opponents willfully called it the "Charisma party" even though they knew it was wrong. It's a cheap way to take control of the language, and thus a little of the power.
It isn't that the word "Democrat" is per se offensive. Obviously it isn't. "Democrat party" is simply a cutesy little way that Republicans can flaunt their lack of respect for Democrats (while claiming to seek bipartisanship). Yet it sounds so close to the proper term that they can claim innocence when called on it. That's the definition of disingenuousness.
It's to be expected from Rush, Savage, Coulter, etc., but it's unacceptable from elected officials and supposedly legitimate journalists, who should have more respect and/or know better.
I appreciate your explanation......
If the media truly were liberal and the Democratic party leaders and think-tanks began referring to the opposition party as "The Repub Party," its leaders as "Repub Leaders," etc., because it had been tested that there is a stronger negative connotation to Repubs than Republicans, would it be insulting to Republicans to see themselves and their party and leadership referred to in that matter?
"Would you be offended with being a member of the Charisma party as opposed to the Charismatic party? Isn't it the same thing?"
Look up the meaning of "liberal" in any dictionary. Then think about the poisoning that conservatives have done to that term over time. When you have those two concepts together in your head, perhaps you will see that your question is a bit naive.
Besides, "charisma" is its own word, from which "charismatic" is derived. "Democrat" is not. It doesn't quite carry the obvious positive connotations of "Democratic". It's just part of conservative efforts to control the terms of the debate for their own gain.
The opposition to define them? That's why "Democrat Party" is offensive. It's been used almost exclusively for the last six years by their opposition to define them as something they are not. Every political party has the right to name itself. The members decided that their party was to be called the Democratic party. To systematically call it anything else call it anything else is insulting.
[link to www.democrats.org]
If it's petty or innocent, why does every right-wing performer in the media use the phrase? Don't get me wrong. I know the term has even been used by Tailgunner Joe back in the 1950's.
I understand it is and has been used, but I still fail to see why? What is so offensive about "Democrat party" besides it rhymes with rat, which is ridiculous......who thinks that is relevant to anything? You are a Democrat, it is not offensive in that usage, why should it be when describing or putting an adjective in front of party? I know it's grammatically incorrect, but that is not the jist of the argument.
And then others say Nazi party or RENAMBLican or such silly comparisons - those by their very mention are offensive, not hard to discern why. But Democrat party is not. It all goes to intent I suppose? But I would imagine even if you asked those that throw that around and ask them why, they would probably answer "Because it gets under their skin and they don't like it, that's why, no other reason".
So, what better way to diffuse it and render it meaningless than to laugh it off and embrace it - as many have done with the term "liberal". That is by far the best way to take the sting out of it - and with the sting gone, so will the fun for some, and then it goes away by itself. To keep harping on it and acting all offended only emboldens those predisposed to use it, to continue.
It's obviously not an insulting word per se. For example, I once registered as a Democrat. What is disingenuous is the attempt by one group of people (i.e. right wing talk show hosts) to relabel another group of people (i.e. the Democratic Party) in order to strip that group of people of any positive connotations associated with it's (historically accurate and affirmed) actual name. Just try calling people from Belgium Belgiums, or our northern neighbors Canadans. I understand there are no real connotations either way with those, but it is still disrespectful.
That when conservatives arbitrarily change the KNOWN name of the Democratic party its just no big deal but if WE change the name of the GOP it is obviously wrong. You know it isnt an accident. They are doing this for a reason. That reason is not for them to look dumb. US doing it only makes the point more blatant but it is EXACTLY the same thing.
That framing WORKS. This kind of almost subliminal derogation IS effective. The GOP has been VERY effective at exactly this. Framing the argument and dominating the terms used IN an argument. Even if it was a small thing, and I dont think it is. We really do need to fight back against such framing all the time. There is a positive connoatation in the minds of people when they hear the term democratic. It is not a good idea to give that up without a fight. Divorcing the name of the party from the context of what it stands for is itself a win for the opposition, it should not be allowed and more importantly if the very TACTIC can be exposed and people can catch on to the rhetorical trick it might be less effective across the board.
There is a positive connoatation in the minds of people when they hear the term democratic
**************
On the other hand, which of these terms connotates a more positive thought in people's minds - Republic or Republican? I would say Republic. But you don't see the Republicans running around demanding they be called Republics, do you? Because getting hung up on silly, subliminal hidden meanings in words is ridiculous.....it's the actions and results that people should be focused on, not labels.
Because YOU say it is. Framing works, marketing works. These guys are not doing this for no reason. You wont mind if I dont take YOUR advise on how democrats ought to act in their own interest.
you're the best.
That's right, that was the "Best"
I was waiting for Tommy to Reply?
What could he say after that one? But I'm sure Tom would have stuck to his guns.
and I think that's why it makes me mad. It is the choice by the speaker to use the code word for all the negative characterizations of Democrats. It matters not whether said characterizations are true, the speaker has telegraphed his feelings about the party. It would be no different than a liberal media person (assuming there are any besides Kieth O) using ... well I guess we don't have a code word that carries so much meaning.... hmm
I dunno. To me it just makes those (republican or other) who use the word "democrat" instead of "democratic" look like linguistically challanged fools, rather than making the D-party itself look bad. Just my take on it.
I'm a part-time lecturer of English at a major university, and I've always been fascinated with semiotics. History teaches us that only the people decide the connotations and even the definitions of words over time. The recent popularity of the Democratic Party -- and should they continue their success -- will certainly ensure that even the term "Democrat Party" remains a compliment. Look, the Academie Francais can't get their citizens to stop saying "le hamburger" any more than a puny Newt can assign connotations to words by a meglomanical fiat. I do agree it's evil of the conservative to try, but I'm amused by their over-reaching egotism to think they can change the English language overnight.
Of course, it's intended as an insult... childishly, if you ask me. Taken in the context of Newt Gingrich's 1994 plan to anihilate the two party system the term was intended to rob the Democratic Party of any noble connotation associated with its name: Democratic... Democracy, get it? Further, it was Gingrich's way of saying to Democrats "We're going to stomp you so bad that we're even going to dictate what the public calls you from now on." Sophomoric and petty... but typical of Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour and their successors. Yet another reason why I could NEVER be a member of the Republican Party.
After being gently chastized by Holly for my lack of full appreciation of the intended slur, I tracked down the New Yorker article by Hertzberg at [link to www.newyorker.com] Anyone commenting on this issue who has not read it problably should take a look. Newt was a mere babe in the woods on this subject.
Gosh, I hope not. I'm your fan. I did and do disagree with you, but I respect you sufficiently to still consider that I might be wrong and you might be right.
In this thread, I have taken a firmer stand than normal because I wrassle words everyday and have conservations about words with other writers and editors every other day. So, language is my domain, which still doesn't mean that I can't be a dolt, wordwise.
but please explain "have conservations about words with other writers and editors ....." Do writers really try to conserve words?
If I were Howard Dean, I would get some mileage out of this and even make fun of the Republicans and news correspondents who incorrectly refer to the Democrat Party. I'd even consider a funny ad plastering THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY all over it and then superimpose clips of Bush and company snidely saying "Democrat Party". Then follow with a tag line such as, "They can't even get our name right."
I think you just answered my question below! I like it.
verbalist so I be learnin' lots today 'bout dis here language stuffs from y'all. All I be knowin' is that when the Limbaugh guy says democRAT, i understand what he be sayin' and it ain't never good. Thank you Holly and Olivelawyer for teachin' me more 'bout correct English today than I learn'd in my 9 years of high school. But I do know that trying to make Democrat a terrible sounding word is the work of fools.
Next week can we diagram sentences. Great reading, keep it up.
I thought you were dead.
Consider this. How would Republicans react if suddenly every Democrat began publicly saying "The Republic Party"... or, better yet, how about "The Gop" (as in GOP)? Don't you think insult would be taken, if for no other reason than the disrespect shown for the history and tradition of the Republican Party? Of course, they would be insulted and, I can assure you, there would be a Republican Party reaction.
Personally, I like "The Gop"... In fact, until further, that's what I'm gonna call'em. Gops!
I've always found it amusing and ingenious the way our fore fathers handled derision. When the british called the patriots "yankee doodle" the patriots embraced the song as their own and used it to mock the british at the battle of lexington and concord. Our national anthem? The lyrics came from a british drinking song.
Now, I didn't quite approve of adopting the term progressive as the only means necessary to overcome the excessive negativity that the term "liberal" was given by the radical right, so part of me has to wonder how things might be different if we liberals had instead found a way to be like our fathers of yore and instead embraced the sneering jibes and sung their filth back at them as a badge of honor. Could it have been done?
OT, but I never thought of the term "progressive" as a replacement for "liberal." In my mind, the two are distinct political orientations, as unalike as "neoconservative" and "libertarian."
Ted Kennedy is a liberal Senator. Paul Wellstone was a progressive Senator.
There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Nancy Pelosi is not a member.
but it is true that progressive is often used in place of liberal for the very reasons stated. In wickepedia, they note that American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Taxes and regulation are #1 on the list of things conservatives use to attack liberals.
The lyrics were written by Francis Scott Key. The melody comes from an old English drinking song called "To Anachreon in Heaven."
On second thought, that would be way too popular.
Saying "Democratic" makes the sentence unclear...Democrat clears it up by signaling that it is referring to the party, not the procedure (i.e. characteristic of a democracy).
if you're speaking to idiots. Anyone who, given the context, didn't know what "Democratic Plan" is referring to, is either stupid or not paying attention.
Oh, please! Look at the context. He refers to "THE" Democrat leadership. The man is interviewing Bush himself. Don't you think he thought he was scoring points by using Bush's own lingo? How about if he asked "What about the Gops eho don't agree with your plan, Mr. President?"
You Democrats make me laugh with your tortured logic that the words "Democrat Party" are a slur. You don't see how silly you sound. So it is okay to refer to people of your party as "Democrats" but it is an insult to refer to the party as "Democrat"? Hmmmm..... Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Geeze get a life. What a bunch of whiners.
I like that idea a few posts ago by just stating the fact the Republicans are getting the name wrong.
Now I could give a rip if Democrats or the media incorrectly refer to the GOP as the "Repbulic Party". So please, be my guest.
But thanks again for today's laugh. :-)
Thanks for your little rant that doesn't actually address anybody's points, Christofascist. (What? It's just a name. Get a life.)
Rusty,
Thanks for making my point. Some of you Democrats argue that it is an insult to call your party Democrat but you feel free to show your bigotry by using a denigrating term for a "Christian".
Your lack of self awareness is very amusing.
ps. weenie: Slang. A person, especially a man, who is regarded as being weak and ineffectual.
What a whiner you are, Christofascist. Get a life. "Christofascist" isn't denigrating, because I say it isn't. You're such a thin-skinned little pussy. But thanks for the laugh. :-)
I love this one, hahahahaha.
I almost fell off my chair.
it's even funnier to know that AntiAmerican is the only one who doesn't get it. Hell, people who haven't even read your post are laughing.
A Webster's troll.
That's new.
"Christofascist" showed up around the same time some idiot on the right came up with “Islamofascist.”
"Theologian Dorothy Soelles, coined the term 'Christofascist' to describe fundamentalist Christians" in 1982.
YOU can continue to show the ignorance and stupidity we have come to expect from the ReNAMBLAcan party.
weenie 1. [on BBSes] Any of a species of user resembling a less amusing version of BIFF that infests many BBSes. The typical weenie is a teenage boy with poor social skills travelling under a grandiose handle derived from fantasy or heavy-metal rock lyrics. Among sysops, "the weenie problem" refers to the marginally literate and profanity-laden flamage weenies tend to spew all over a newly-discovered BBS.
If that's what you think, then will you mind if I refer to you as The Bigot? Or the Anti-American?
Understand (I know it's hard, so focus) Democrats are members of the Democratic party. Any other usage, especially by opponents, is to minimize Democrats (members of the Democratic Party) belief in Democratic values. The fools on the other side of the isle do it for this reason only.
You are a moron and dont get the tactic. We are NOT morons and we do get the agenda. As a ReNAMBLAcan you arent bright enough to know what is and isnt a slur. Thats ok, we do, and thats what is important.
Now class, we're going to recite the pledge of allegiance. Ready? Begin: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Class?...CLASS??? WAKE UP!!!!
Now, class, please dust off your Constitution and read Article IV Section 4. Ready? Begin: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Class? Class??? Never mind. Go back to sleep....
That you dont think you made some kind of point. I mean you do KNOW that there was no such thing as a Republican Party when the Constitution was written RIGHT? your post was inane.
Please tell me that you understand the difference between the name of a political party and the form of government...(Uh, that would be REPUBLICAN, Solon...) that the United States Constitution guarantees its citizens.
Your inane post had NO POINT WHATSOEVER. Of course I know the difference. I just wasnt that sure YOU did.
The Federalists (aka the people who supported the US)
The GOP evolved from a nativist party absorbing others small parties like the Know Nothings. As I see it they care about only one thing. Protection of Privelege. Any care they have for the country as a whole is purely incidental. The Democratic Pary cares about the people of the country all of them and THAT is a more meaningful definition for me of caring about America.
is that they call it the white house because what goes on in your home is your business and nobody elses.
where to start with that one.
with no oversight.
was written in 1892 by a socialist who was looking for a way to increase sales in his flag business. OK, guess that does sound republican.
about this crime against humanity.
It is weak, petty and stupid manipulation but its not a crime against humanity. Now lying to take a coutnry into a war of aggression causing the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, THAT is a crime against humanity
would probably have been murdered as a result of Saddam Hussein's genocidal policies.
thank God the U.S. is murdering them instead of some genocidal dictator! I'll sleep sounder tonight.
they are being killed as a result of sectarian violence carried out by fundamentalists who do not care about human life. But then again, Bush is responsible for the thousand or so years of violence between Shiites and Sunnis I suppose.
why are we even there if all we're doing is standing in a crossfire? There certainly doesn't seem to be any issue of national security that is being attended by our soldiers presence in Iraq. Right?
Bush isn't responsible for the history of the region. However he and his supporters are responsible for breaking our military with their failed imperialistic dream.
And yes, our bombs murdered innocent Iraqi women and children unless of course, perhaps, our bombs magically killed only terrorists.
and it's not the same as murder. Have some US soldiers murdered innocent Iraqis--probably, as Haaditha seems to suggest. But not every Iraqi killed as a result of a US bomb or bullet can be said to have been "murdered" by the US. That sort of far-left anti-American propaganda has no place in civilized discussion.
He says as blood drips from his lips.
National security? How does this war of aggression make our nation more secure? I would submit that your policy of dragging our armed forces to the brink of collapse, for no purpose of national security, is far more un-American than my scrutiny of our nation's behavior.
You sir are no American.
so they can't be over here. Who's minding the store?
'over there instead of here,' I guess I am the moron.
Peace out, snoop. Dinner's on.
I like to twist the republican talking points to make a point. It's worth noting that the more forces we have overseas means less forces we have in America. Less subtle statement that, not talked about much...
You treat me more kindly than I deserve.
I must admit that I admire your posts very much. Now, I really have to stop posting and complete some tasks on my honey-do list!
sound familiar?
To what possession of "infidel" did you refer in that sentence?
how the church has preached that line of reasoning ever since the death of christ. If god is on our side in war, we can't obviously be doing anything wrong, right?
Sorry but when WE count the dead in a war we dont only count those killed by military arms but all those killed by the conditions brought on BY the war. There is no good reason to CHANGE that methodology just because it would help YOUR propaganda
"The US is not murdering them you moron"
-----
Then what was "shock and awe?" It was indiscriminate bombing and murdering of civilians. They weren't dropping rose petals on Baghdad.
Since Saddam committed his worst attrocities worst attrocities while he was our good ally. He was killing people at about a rate of 300 a year according to Amnesty international by the time we invaded. So it would have taken a couple thousand years to reach the level of slaugher we have seen in the invasion. Not even a good try. I do love the way you conservatives embrace the argument that we have joined the evil doers club but we arent as bad as the other guy. Personally I expect more from my country than they arent quite as bad as Saddam. Its a pretty elementary moral principle that WE are most responsible for OUR actions. How do you guys keep missing that. Oh yeah,its a MORAL principle
Down goes Interestingobserver's ridiculous argument...
I just cannot get my head around the concept that the entire Repugnant Party including Bungle and Darth, plus 60-70% of the media referring to the Democratic Party, have such difficulty with the correct reference to that party, yet can smell coming any attempt to depict a "surge" as an "escalation". Candy (as she is affectionately known to Bungle, I understand) denied even "surge", preferring "augmentation"?
Please, please, please don't contribute any further to the degradation of the language. It's bad enough that nobody seems to know the difference between lie and lay, your and you're, then and than or the correct pronoun that goes with between you and (fill in the blank) and can't spell cajones, accommodate and any number of words though they employ them frequently, but let's not reinforce these bad habits by enshrining poor grammar and bad spelling in venues that ought to uphold some standards.
As a journalist and writer, Pelley has the obligation to use correct terms as much as possible. I know that's harder for a TV journalist speaking off the cuff than for a print journalist who, presumably, has more time to think before he commits words to the page, but this is just plain lazy and unprofessional. It's one thing for partisan operatives and for those of us ordinary citizens who play on Al's "internets" to toss around words like Christofascist, dumbocrat, Hitlery Klintooon and Rethuglican, but elected officials and professional journalists should have higher standards. And I include the intentionally incorrect use of Democrat for Democratic as being comparable to those childish (though maybe satisfying to our baser selves) epithets listed above. What I shrug off (or even use myself) in the comments section of some blog I wouldn't allow into newspaper copy any more than I would allow a misspelled word or poor grammar (and Democrat in this usage is both insulting and ungrammatical). We're not talking about some very arcane area of grammar that even people who are very knowledgeable will misuse or some minor typo that we're all guilty of from time to time. It's deliberate and stupid.
All of this is somewhat reminiscent of the reaction of Star Trek fans to the word "Trekkie," with many preferring to be called "Trekkers" because of the negative connotation of Trekkies as the stereotypes in William Shatner's infamous SNL skit. Actually, that dispute has sort of come full circle, in that many fans are now taking up Trekkie in the same way that black people use the N word. But for awhile, it was really grating to serious and sane Star Trek fans to be labeled as costumed weirdos who had trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy and needed to "get a life." Obviously, one can get so overly sensitive that words start to lose their richness and meaning, but I think this particular misuse of the language (Democrat as an adjective) is deliberate and petty and not some sort of innovative adaptation.
I noticed Pelley's short changing the Democratic Party with Bush suck up wording. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the Democrats dropped the "can" from Republican or add 't to the end. Republi "can" do nothing right in Iraq. They Republican't get out of their own way.
for Republicants and consternatives (aka consternos)
From Solon: "Framing works, marketing works. "
That's right, Solon. And who would know better than those on the Left who have been calling the United States a "democracy" for so many years that your average dolt on the street doesn't even know our founders created this nation as a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Democracy is used by MOST of the worlds republics IF the use the mechanism of democratically electing their leaders. While it isnt the exact accurate word its ludicrous to pretend this is some agenda of the left. The right in ALL of the countries that use this shorthand description also describe their countries as democracies. Can you perhaps cough up some evidence that the LEFT exclusively uses this term? Of course you cant. England has no Democratic party but they call themselves a democracy.
Of course the Left doesn't exclusively use this term.
"England has no Democratic party but they call themselves a democracy." We're not England.
I don't know exactly when America started being referred to as a democracy. I just know each state is guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of our Constitution a republican form of government.
Our man in the oval office is so dead-set on spreading Democracy across the middle east like butter on toast, but perhaps he can change his meaningless, ineffective rhetoric to help bolster his failing party by saying they're changing the strategery to make Iraq a flourishing republic!
I couldn't agree more. But first America needs to start acting like a republic that's based on our Constitution as it was written. I wonder if there's a copy of the Constitution somewhere in the White House.... Never mind. How silly of me. That nonsene was purged a long time ago.
Ron Christie was on Hardball the other day and I about fell off my chair when he said "democrat" and then apologized and said "Democratic". That wasn't anything I ever expected to hear from a hardcore Republican, especially a "talking point right-winger" such as Christie.
I'ts OK you can call me a member of the Democrat Party, I know you're all republicunts.