Fox News falsely claimed Bush referred to "Democratic majority" in State of the Union
During its post-speech coverage of President Bush's State of the Union address on January 23, Fox News displayed an onscreen graphic that falsely claimed that, during the speech, Bush said: "I congratulate the Democratic majority" in Congress. In fact, while the prepared text of Bush's speech reportedly did feature the phrase, "Democratic majority," Bush actually congratulated what he called the "Democrat majority," as the White House's official transcript makes clear.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the use of "Democrat" as an adjective is a slur 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."
According to Hertzberg, in the early 1990s, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became nearly universal among Republicans, apparently due largely to the urging of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7, 2006, 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."
In contrast to Fox News' false graphic, The Wall Street Journal's Yochi J. Dreazen wrote on the Journal's weblog, Washington Wire, on January 23 that "[d]ropping the 'ic' from the word 'Democratic' ... was almost certainly a deliberate move by Bush, who has used the phrase 'the Democrat Party' for months as a way of needling his opponents." Dreazen later added that "it is the missing two letters that may offer the clearest indication of whether partisan tensions are really like[ly] to fade in the waning years of Bush's presidency." According to Dreazen:
In the prepared text of the speech, sent out by the White House some 40 minutes before Bush ascended the House rostrum, the president was to say, "Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate -- and I congratulate the Democratic majority." When Bush delivered the line, however, he paid tribute to the "Democrat majority."
Dropping the "ic" from the word "Democratic" may seem insignificant, but it was almost certainly a deliberate move by Bush, who has used the phrase "the Democrat Party" for months as a way of needling his opponents.
Republicans have periodically referred to their opponents as belonging to the "Democrat Party" for many decades, and the phrase was a particular favorite of former Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy. A recent Washington Post column filled in the backstory: according to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, McCarthy "sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic."
The phrase lay largely dormant for years, however, until President Bush resuscitated it during last fall's midterm election season and made it a mainstay of his public remarks about the opposition party. It has since been widely adopted by many Republican lawmakers, conservative political activists, and conservative commentators and pundits at media outlets like Fox News.
For all of Bush's talk tonight about crossing party lines to work with the new Democratic Congress, it is the missing two letters that may offer the clearest indication of whether partisan tensions are really like to fade in the waning years of Bush's presidency.
Similarly, during MSNBC's post-speech analysis on January 23, which also featured NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, MSNBC host Chris Matthews and NBC's Nightly News anchor Brian Williams noted Bush's use of "Democrat majority":
MATTHEWS: You know, there was a little point there -- I know you watch these things, as we all do, but at least a lot of us do -- but did you notice that even though in the text in the second -- the third paragraph of the speech, it referred to the majority controlling Congress as the Democratic Party --
WILLIAMS: Yep, I pointed that out.
MATTHEWS: -- and he couldn't resist saying "Democrat" as an adjective, which is the thing that always bugs the Democrats. Brian --
WILLIAMS: I pointed that -- we were sitting here, Chris, listening to the speech and I circled my intended for delivery portion where it says "Democratic" and tapped my pen to show Tim that, as delivered, was "Democrat." This goes back to just after the "Contract for America", it was decided -- I've seen it printed in talking points -- it was decided it gives it a harsher, pejorative edge and does no assistance to the other party. And I noted that too. It's kind of tragic, in a way, that we both did.
From Bush's January 23 State of the Union address:
BUSH: Some in this chamber are new to the House and Senate, and I congratulate the Democrat majority.
I'll bet Bush could use a stiff drink right now. The Right Wing Party majority in Congress has vanished along with his ability to act without oversight and with impunity. Right Wing Party toadies and heavyweights alike are bailing out on him like rats off a sinking Bush.. His presidency is virtually history. Cut the guy some slack... he probably took too much Valium before his speech and got Democrat and Democratic mixed up. We all know Bush isn't the most articulate, or the smartest, president we've had. Poor guy... bet he could use another Valium... with a beer chaser.
Their problem with Bush isn't with his policies...they love them. They're just unhappy that he's not selling them to the masses effectively. Bush is the logical extension of American politics..he's a greedy psychopathic lying hypocritical racist tyrannical imperialist. He's the embodiment of Federal foreign and domestic policy. The fascists are just freaking out that he can't sell that kind of evil to the American public enough. They want someone who can do it better.
This country is self-destructing. The successors to Bush will be just as bad. They might be a bit more subtle about it, but things will continue to get worse.
greedy psychopathic lying hypocritical racist tyrannical imperialistI want that on my business card. That would rock.
OK! I’ve had enough of this DEMOCRAT PARTY Business! All’s Fair in Love, War and Politics RIGHT? RIGHT!
SO: - I Do Hereby Establish and Coin the New Pay-Back-Name for the GOP, They Say Democrat, And I Say :
REPUBLICAN’T - [ Ree-Pub-Lick-Kant ]
Can’t, as in Can-Not! First the President used “Democrat” in his State of the Union Speech. Then on CNN I heard it again by the “Republican’t” Spokesperson after the speech was over.
Hi RedKing .....
Self-destruction is what the Republican’ts are doing. Our country will be just fine. Yes, a lot of damage has been done. I’m so confident that I’ll guarantee you right here and now that we will have a Democratic Executive Branch in 2008. How can they possibly be as bad as GWB?
REPUBLICAN’T PARTY
Samscomputer, you are brilliant. I love it... Republican't Party perfectly captures it. They can't tell the truth. They can't run a campaign without resorting to sleaziness. And they certainly can't run the country. I nominate Republican't Party as the unofficial moniker of Bush's party on this site.
Thanks for your help! I just want to give the REPUBLICAN’TS a little dose of their own good Medicine. They dished it out, so now let’s see if the can take their own treatment.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
Man law!
I love it. Why not? Republicant Party is as correct a form of Republican Party as Democrat Party is a correct form of Democratic Party.
Let's make sure Nancy Pelosi starts using Republicant officially. :D
horse's...mouth
here is a quote from a column in the 8 07 06 new yorker newyorker.com: " 'those two letters actually do matter', [republican pollster] luntz said the other day. he added that he recently finished writing a book---it's entitled 'words that work'---and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of 'ic's that his copy editor, one of those partisan dems, had stuck in."
Such "word play" reveals the perpetrators to be petty and small.
Are the Republicans petty and small? Without any doubt.
So, what should we EXPECT?
A Democrat (can't call them democratic, they chase minor party candidates off ballots to preserve their political fiefdoms) Executive will have the SAME policies as Bush...Clinton did. The Democrats have also killed Iraqis, screwed over the US worker, sold us out to the corporations and Israel. There is no difference in policy at all. The Dems are just willing to throw a few meagre crumbs to the working class now and then to keep them complacent, but the economic situation keeps deteriorating. Anyone who thinks the Demmies are gonna save us is a fool, pure and simple. We're on our own, those in power are NOT our friends. Wake up and smell the class war.
"there is no difference in policy at all".....why you have no credibility.
Blind, uncritical loyalty is not a virtue.
Neither is aimless flailing around without any sense of what you're talking about.
I used to play the "they're all the same, so why bother?" game.
Until I grew up.
How's this for proof?
In 2006, as Israel responded to a very minor border incident by killing over 600 Lebanese civilians, firing precision guided munitions into homes and fleeing cars, destroying non-military targets in contravention of international law, Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution SUPPORTING these war crimes by 410-8. That's 98% of the Congress, Democrat and Republican, voting FOR the racist war crimes of Israel and the deaths of Lebanese women and children.
Also, when George Bush nominated known death squad facilitator, author of the "El Salvador option", John Negroponte, to the post of Director of National Intelligence, the Senate, in a vote of 98-2, confirmed him in this position. Soon afterwards, stories of Iraqi police death squads assisted by US Special Forces began to appear from Iraq. That's 98% of the Senate, Democrat and Republican, that voted for a man known to have assisted in war crimes in Honduras and now probably has helped institute even more war crimes in Iraq.
You tell me how a 2% difference in policy makes the Dems and Repubs ideological opposites. I vote Green because they ARE an opposition to the powers that be, they do oppose war crimes and the murder of innocent civilians in the name of racist imperialism and zionist bigotry. The Dems and Repubs have shown that 98% of them support those crimes.
I refuse to support any party that supports war crimes and war criminals. They will not get my vote...ever.
Why do they get yours?
King are you addressing Me? I agree with you about Israel. I told you that already. When your Greens Vote is able to defeat the Neocons I'll be with you. Right now though, even though you heart is in the correct place, a Green vote helps the Republicants win elections.
When that time comes, if ever, I’ll vote Green. Thanks for your reply.
But a vote for Greens is against neocon policy. A vote for Dems is a vote to continue those policies. So your logic is illogical, you vote for those who continue the policies you detest. That's not logical at all.
RedKing....
You named some possible similarities in PubliCants & Demies but you left out the big differences on purpose Red ....
You Said... “There is no difference in policy at all?”.....That’s just not true Red King:
The Republicants are About:
Starting Wars * Tax Cuts for Big Business * Surges * Harming Social Security * Cutting VA Budgets * Fox News Lies * Hannity & Oh! Really? * LimpBrain & Coulter * Wartime Tax Cuts * Chicken Hawks * Making Middle Class Fight Wars * Cutting Stem Cell Studies * Failing War on Terror * Good Job Brownie * Mission Accomplished * Cutting Programs For Poor * “Bring it On” * Corruption * Abramoff * Scandal * Cunningham * Delay * Ney * Foley * Trent * Young Pages * Running Dirty Campaigns * Telling Lies * “Democrat” * Name Calling * Unbalancing Budgets * Hiring Yes People * Halfrican * Sombreros & Burros * Building Walls * Not Negotiating * Etc *
Ignoring the Senate, the Congress, Experts, Voters, Generals, Colin Powell and Reality in general. I can go on forever but Hey Red...this should be enough to convince anybody that Republicants are not identical to Democrats.
Red ... Your view of our country is way too negative. Our country has been damaged, I agree with you on that. We must not have your Give-Up attitude though. The fact that you are here is evidence that you haven’t given up. This country is better than you think it is. Jimmy Carter, Myself and You seem to agree on the Israel situation. I agree with Carter’s plan for peace there. Neocons are mad at Carter on his new book.
The fact that Carter has been cowed into apologizing for his book is proof that this country is worse off than you think it is. It's very sad.
The good things this country stands for can be reclaimed, certainly, but I think it's going to be far harder than most activists think it is. RedKing is certainly approaching the truth. Dems and Reps aren't equivalent, but they're both corrupted parties that crave power and have demonstrated themselves to be more interested in personal gain than in long-term strategies that help the public good.
BLR?
CARTER COWED AN APOLOGY?
You said it, so you now have the burden of truth. If you can’t prove he apologized then I will think of you as a :
B.L.R. = Bad Lying Republicant
If you do prove it then you have my apology, but I still think Carter knows best how to achieve peace. Carter is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 2002. I hope you don’t have anything against Peace?
republican't is BRILLIANT!! I will start using it from this moment on. The next step is to get bloggers and talking heads to mention it. Congradulations, good thinking.
Hi CHIN MUSIC...
Thanks for your help! I just want to give the REPUBLICAN’TS a little dose of their own good Medicine. They dished it out, so now let’s see if the can take their own treatment.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
Wow, RedKing, one can just feel the love!!! Great Job!!!
Why does Brian Williams think it's tragic that he and Chris Matthews noticed Bush's petty use of wording? I think it's very important, especially for people do news reporting and analysis, to hear what and how things are said.
The President has the gall to use words like bipartisan and cooperation, yet just can't bring himself to read "Democratic" off the teleprompter. I think it's just another reminder that he's a smirking, arrogant man who has lost any credibility he ever had. Our country is diminished by his incompetent leadership and his delusion of infallability.
"...just can't bring himself to read "Democratic" off the teleprompter."
Can you imagine how much Bush much hate the Democratic Party right now? Of course, he would never blame himself for his predicament. He's resolute; he's firm; God is on his side. Considering the seriousness of his dishonest, stupid and stubborn blundering, further compounded by the unveiled nastiness of his Right Wing Party which has divided the country so much, Bush may very well go down as the worst president in the history of the United States. And believe it or not, Right Wing Party, that gives me no great pleasure. It's sad, really, what Bush has done to our country.
It's true, that this subtle distinction and preference between the words "democratic" and "Democrat", which must have at first seemed brilliant and even inspired to it's authors, is now more an indication of hatred, and small-mindedness.
Just how hateful and small-minded is a person, that it stings them terribly, to say "Democratic" when referring to that political party?
Truly, this turbulence over that single word is now more a laughable matter than a serious one... laughable at such hatred and small-mindedness, as seems way out of proportion to what's necessary or fitting or healthy even.
But as to words overall, and the use of them in serious matters, such as the matters of government and law are: They should usually be weighed and measured as carefully as they are in a Court of Law, during testimony... weighed and measured for deception and evasiveness and misinformation...
...which is serious stuff enough, and deserving of the time and the effort to weigh and measure the words carefully... but seems more laughable in this case, of "democratic" v. "Democrat", which is more a case of hatred and small-mindedness, than a more serious one of deception and evasion and misinformation...
...which are the other purposes of this same bunch of characters, when they take the same time and effort to carefully craft their words... the purposes of deception and evasion and misinformation...
...and the serious weighing and measuring we should do to those words, as though they were words of testimony, in a Court of Law.
Bush has always used "bipartisan cooperation" to mean "you people need to do what I say." That hasn't changed since day one.
I'm just one o' them east coast libruls, so I doubt my opinion is ever going to mean much to those on the right (but in the wrong), but I always thought talking about "the Democrat party" just made Republicans sound plum ignorant, like recognizing the difference between a noun and an adjective was just too difficult for 'em.Doesn't surprise me at all that Bush would betray his ignorance/true feelings in front of the whole country like that... Not one little bit...Those in the "Republic party" are a venomous bunch, & Mr Bush will always be one of 'em, & bipartisanship be damned...
**AN MMFA SMEAR**
Everyone knows, especially BROCK, that all NEWS corps get a copy of the speech ahead of time. They then create their onscreen graphics ahead of time from this script. It isn't their fault that Bush didn't follow it to the letter, they are still going to base it off of what they received and they don't have time to change it. Even MMFA admits it was in the speech. Delete this entire item and apologize.
The point isn't when the graphic was created so much as the fact that Faux news chose to continue using it after it failed to remain accurate. Accuracy is turning out to be optional over at Faux, particularly lately, though judging by the previous comment at least, their viewers don't seem to mind one bit. No need to let facts get in the way of a satisfying political point o' view...
You seem a bit confused. It's obviously conservative misinformation, therefore appropriate posting. Whether FOX has a convenient excuse for it or not is beside the point.
That was a command from a colonel! You must obey!
I am a civilian. That means I outrank Colonels
"Delete this entire item and apologize."
-----
Colonel, heal thyself. The article is completely germane, since Fox Noise Channel chose deliberately to lie about that W actually said during the speech.
Perhaps you should delete your comment and apologize to whomever taught you how to read for comprehension.
"Fox Noise Channel chose deliberately to lie about that W actually said during the speech."...by Easy to refute wingnuts
OR
It could be EXACTLY as the Colonel pointed out:
"Everyone knows, especially BROCK, that all NEWS corps get a copy of the speech ahead of time. They then create their onscreen graphics ahead of time from this script."
Unless either of you can produce EVIDENCE that verifies your assertion I'd say neither of you can claim to be correct. It's nothing but conjecture on both of your parts.
Even if that's true, Fox's laziness in updating their graphics to reflect reality is shoddy journalism. The MMFA item, while arguably nit-picky, is accurate. The Colonel is wrong.
I agree Rusty, it could have been laziness on the part of Fox. Of course it ALSO could be that no one over there *caught* it.
I hope you & others have come to realize that I am not a Fox News apologist, I've no problem with MMFA pointing out Fox's error, HOWEVER it may have been perfectly innocent in this case. Since many here often rail against SPECULATION without hard evidence, I would think they'd withhold accusing Fox or anyone or organization before knowing ALL the facts.
Just my opinion...
I know you're not an apologist, J2, but Fox's intent isn't relevant to the accuracy of this item. The Colonel seems to think it was.
"Unless either of you can produce EVIDENCE that verifies your assertion I'd say neither of you can claim to be correct. It's nothing but conjecture on both of your parts"
Entirely possible...except NPR got it right, and did a report this AM that POINTED OUT that "Da pres" deliberately said it wrong. It was CORRECT in the speech copy sent out to the press. And if "the press" - in this case FOX news - is so cumbersome that they can't make changes on the fly, what are they there for? News doesn't conveniently happen only when they are able to respond...they have to respond WHEN THE NEWS HAPPENS.
Hey doggone,
As I wrote to Rusty [scroll up] it could be that no one at Fox *caught* Bush's gaffe [deliberate or otherwise]. OR it could be they did and chose NOT to highlight it and instead stick to the transcript version.
Hard to figure why they didn't change the graphics in this case.
One theory I'd throw out is that had they put up what Bush actually said, they would then have to point out his mistake to their viewers. And as you know [I'm sure], Fox doesn't enjoy mentioning Bush's many many errors ;-)
Come one... you think the graphics people don't get a kick out of doing anything they possibly can just to piss Democrats off? That's part of the channel's appeal... the whole reason they held onto the "Fair and Balanced" logo for so long.
Exactly Sagra...sooooooo using your theory wouldn't Fox have gotten a kick out of putting up Democrat Party rather than Democratic Party?
But they didn't.
So I'll stick to my 2 possible theories.
Here's another thought to ruminate over. Even IF they'd put Democrat Party in their graphics, wanna bet 80%-90% of their viewers wouldn't have even noticed the error? ;-)
Mmmmm don't know what I did wrong to make the print sooooo tiny
Let's TRY this again
My TWO possible theories.
1. They didn't catch it.
2. They did catch it, but decided they didn't want to explain Bush's error [or deliberate slight if you'd rather] to their audience.
I get a bigger kick out of reading the comments people make on this website. Hee hee. MMFA brings out the FINEST Americans and takes on the REALLY important issues :P
"One theory I'd throw out is that had they put up what Bush actually said, they would then have to point out his mistake to their viewers. And as you know [I'm sure], Fox doesn't enjoy mentioning Bush's many many errors ;-)"
Or, given their mindset...maybe they thought the WRITTEN copy was the one that was wrong! <G>
"It could be EXACTLY as the Colonel pointed out:"
-----
Limbaugh rule, once more. If it could have been like that, it was, whether it really was or not.
Fox lied about what W said. They said it after the speech. Get that? AFTER the speech. Who cares what the on-screen chyron said, their commentators said out loud something that clearly was not true. This is usually called a lie by most people, and "misleading" by MMFA.
Please read my posts to doggone-ga & Sagra [scroll up]
Thanks
I did. They didn't change anything.
Ok Easy,
YOU tell me WHY you think Fox's graphic said DEMOCRATIC rather than DEMOCRAT. Why do you think Fox allegedly "lied"?
I gave you TWO very feasible theories. You didn't even TRY to "refute" them
I wait anxiously for your reply.
Actually, how about YOU explain why Fox got it WRONG?
MMFA followed its mission in highlighting the error (and what the President said.) It's not up to them to also provide a motive.
Marv,
I've already explained my theories umpteenth times. All you need to do is scroll UP to find them. But, no matter, I'll gladly REPEAT it ONE more time.
MMFA is saying Fox FALSELY claimed Bush said: "I congratulate the Democratic majority" MMFA did NOT describe this as an error on Fox's part.
Bush as we all know [now] said DEMOCRAT PARTY.
Chances are they took the wording DIRECTLY from the transcript of the speech that they [and every news outlet] receives BEFORE the speech.
So IMO, one of two things could have happen. No make that three things.
1. nobody noticed or *caught* Bush's gaffe or if you'd prefer, deliberate slight
2. it was noticed or *caught* but Fox decided that IF they inserted Bush's gaffe/slight they'd have to EXPLAIN it to their audience and made the decision to leave the correct wording.
3. Even though Bush didn't use the correct term, Fox [perhaps simply being professional] did. Again, what do they gain by doing this?
Before you suggest that them not catching Bush's gaffe is far-fetched...I didn't catch it either...UNLESS one is waiting with ears perked, it can slip by unnoticed.
So you tell me WHY Fox would stoop to this allegedly nefarious act? What do they gain by using the correct terminology rather than their fearless leaders wrong wording?
I took the time to reply to you. Let's see if you'll be as gracious.
With all due respect Colonel (I'll assume you are) it doesn't get anymore clearer than what MM has shown. It's used in a demeaning manner and for all this "lets get along" crap the Republicans spew it just shows hypocrisy rules the day for Bush.
So... if Bush deviated from his prepared speech and either changed a line or left it out completely then FOX would be forgiven for running the deleted or unaltered line in its graphics? Do you mean to say that FOX is so incompetent that they didn't notice the error or that they couldn't change a screen graphic in a matter of seconds? I think it's funny that FOX is so nit-picky about alleged inaccuracies committed by other news agencies while they are too sloppy or too lazy to correct an incorrect screen graphic which I am sure can be easily and quickly done. While FOX is so critical of other news outlets FOX actually comes across like a bunch of amateurs.
"Delete this entire item and apologize."
Is that a direct order, sir?
"Delete this entire item and apologize."
And if we don't?
Then off with our heads, after we eat the cake.
Wow, what an unbelievably inane comment. They don't have time to change it? How much time do you think it takes to make those graphics? He made the comment at the beginning of the speech so they had the entire rest of the hour to change two letters. They don't seem to have any problem coming up with new graphics when there is breaking news -- or does Fox put off reporting breaking news for an hour until they can make a simple graphic?
Fox quoted Bush (notice the use of the word "I") as saying something he did not actually say. This would seem to be a textbook example of what a media watchdog should report on, no matter what the reason for the error was. And as MMFA (and MSNBC) pointed out, this isn't just a matter of missing two letters; it completely undercuts the meaning of Bush's words by insulting those he claims he is reaching out to.
I suspect Fox did this because the use of "Democrat" as an adjective does more to make the speaker sound like an inarticulate boob (you wouldn't say "America is a democrat nation", would you?) and a crass partisan than to actually affect anyone's opinion of the party he is trying to denigrate. By saying this Bush only showed himself to be small and petty, and the great majority of people who don't already hate the "Democrat" party will see it that way.
I think it's part of a larger strategy, actually.
Conservatives have attached a negative meaning to "liberal" and got it into the American mindset so effectively that Liberals won't use the word. They can't tar the word "democratic" however, given its meaning. BUT, if they can change what the Democratic Party is actually called, they can then also attach a new connotation to the word THEY have chosen to call their opposition.
It's what you do when you can't beat your opponents on the issues.
So then you are saying the reporter who reported on the State of the Union address didnt actually watch the State of the Union address? No appology necessary for Fox not doing their job correctly and accuratly
And you're mistaken, to boot. I used to work in live tv production. The text in those graphics is very easy to change on the fly. They had plenty of time to make the correction if they had so desired.
Wrong. You need to actually READ the article. Regardless of the prepared text, this wasn't the closed capitoning where Fox got it wrong. They got it wrong in reporting on the event after the fact. At the very least they should have put [ic] in square brackets (common, I think, for editing) or written "Democrat (sic)" to indicate the error on the part of the speaker.
Well, those are some choices for a responsible news organization, anyway.
I agree with repsac3.
I understand where MMFA is coming from, but I don't think the average joe even notices this stuff. It's what they call "inside baseball": a little bit of needling between politicians on Capitol Hill that the general public isn't aware of. Even though MMFA brought the erroneous use of "Democrat" as an adjective to my attention weeks ago, it still went over my head during Bush's speech. I probably just figured he was being his usual, ignorant self.Bush is sly to play stupid. He subtly slights the DemocratIC party while congratulating them, kind of like apologizing that "mistakes were made", classic passive/agressive manuveuring. His transcript gives him the alibi that he didn't mean it, but look how rhetoric shapes his whole outlook on governing. The roots of the intentional slur are documented and Bush didn't make it all up on the spot. Yes, the Democratic party can expect this type of "bipartisanship" from Bush, the AUTOCRAT.
that's probably all true. but the republicans did go out of the way in the past to promote the usage of democrat vs. democratic. they must have had a reason for doing so. but actually the white house has a much bigger problem now. all anyone had to do was read the opening statement by scooter libby's lawyer. could lead to a new saying. hell hath no fury like a neocon true believer who thinks he's the fall guy.
The pall cast by the Libby case definitely undermines the entire Bush administration's credibility, such as it is. I don't know how the Congress could stomach applauding such a bunch of liars.
just read on think progress
prosecuters are saying that cheney wrote out what libby was to say to time reporter matt cooper about plame and that libby destroyed a written note from cheney. if this stuff does not prove that they knew exactly what they were doing, vs. some inadvertant slip....
Well, the word is out now. NPR mentioned this slight this morning.
Regardless, Fox wants to pass itself off as a legitimate news organization. They should act like one.
Imagine if a Democratic polititian got away with a similar thing? Think Republicans would let it slide? You know, like they did that bungled Kerry joke?
Bush to Democrats: "F___ all of you. Now let's be bipartisan."
Right on the money, Rusty... as usual. It's all about what Aretha Franklin sang... RESPECT. Bush doesn't respect Democrats. Throwing out petty digs (Democrat Party) at the Democrats is Bush's way of showing the 35% of the people who still support him that he's still "feisty". But he's like a bully who just got his butt whiipped still hurling harmless epithets at his opponent. Bush will NEVER accept any bi-partisan effort to clean up the mess he's made... and he'll continue to be the petty, small-minded man he's always been.
You're right about him still playing to that 35% who think that he's "still feisty".
He reminds me of one of my dogs. She's a 20 lb. wire fox terrier. I also have a 75 lb. boxer/pit bull. Whenever they fight and she loses (which isn't very often because she can be very mean to the big guy). She climbs up on a chair or the sofa to appear to be bigger and barks at the other dog like she won the fight.
That's how GW seems these days. like a terrier who won't admit that he's been beaten. The only difference is that most of the time my two dogs get along great. Not so for GW and the Democratic Congress
LOL...The guy has political capital and he intends to spend it, remember? Seriously, that "Democrat" snide remark was the best part of the speech for me. At least I got a chuckle out of it. The rest of it was depressing.
So the Colonel claims that poor Fox News didn't have a chance to change their graphics because Bush deviated from the text. Fine. But how do you explain the fact that during Jim Webb's response, Fox News and the Fox broadcast network both ran the heading "The Democrats' Response," while every other network (I checked) ran "The Democratic Response." Eveybody has always called it the Democratic Response, yet Fox makes the change to avoid giving Democrats their proper adjectival appellation. Yeah, I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that Fox happened to use this Republican technique. I'm surprised they didn't call it "The DemocRAT Response."
Good catch. I've never heard anyone refer to it as anything other than "The Democratic Response" before.
Faux News - When you've had enough of the truth.
Actually, there is such a thing as a Democrat. It's a noun. It's a member of the Democratic Party. There's no such thing as a Democrat Party, though. Democrat isn't an adjective.
So saying "Democrats' Response" is fine. It's the response from the Democrats.
i think this using Democrat as an adjective is using the philosophy repeat something enough and it will be used particularly when there are powerful people, some of the media, who would love to use it. If this happened, there would just be one step more for using demorat as an adjective. I think this also has to do with the Right Wing feeling the Republican Party has been persecuted by media and so forth. I think they aren't too happy with the label GOP, Grand Old Party, for instance. The way Democrat and Democratic are used stem from how the word Democrat is used. That gives the Republicans a problem because they use a derivation of republic and that word really doesn't have an adjective use. Republican therefore gets used as an adjective and a noun. the Republicans just can't be happy when their symbol of an elephant is definitely better connotatively than a donkey. It is also not easy to take FOX off the hook because they merely looked at a script of the speech supposedly. That line from President Bu was not hard to forget for those who saw the address and those FOX people saw or heard the address. I
The systematic use of the incorrect term "Democrat Party" is just another (small) page from the Republican('t) play book that was fine-tuned by Newt Gingrich in 1994... Define the opposition on your terms. Gingrich's way of operating was always to first define the opponenet in negative terms. For years the Republican('t)s were winning the war of ideas because they would always get a jump on defining the issues first. Now it aeems less and less about defining opponenets or issues and more about gratuitous insult.
As I posted elsewhere, I think it's step one of the larger strategy.
1) Label the opposition
2) Change the connotation of that label to something bad.
They can't effectively change the connotation of "democratic" because it's a philosophy that Republicans theoretically subscribe to. So first they had to relabel the opposition.
I find Brian Williams to be an ass and a glory hound. Instead of getting to the affornt Bush made, he has to "one up" Chris Matthews about who noted the slight first.
I remember seeing him on The Daily Show and he had the same unmodulated, over-serious voice he used for his telecasts. It reminded me of Will Ferrell's character on SNL.
"A LITTLE BIT SOFTER NOW! A LITTLE BIT SOFTER NOW! A LITTLE BIT SOFTER NOW!"
Instead of getting to the affornt Bush made, he has to "one up" Chris Matthews about who noted the slight first.
I don't see that at all. Chris asked him if he noticed the deviation. Brian was noting, with great emphasis, that he did notice it; i.e., it jumped out at him. (By the way, the reaction of a number of other journalists would seem to make a simple Fox oversight less plausible.)
he had the same unmodulated, over-serious voice he used for his telecasts.
I suppose you can't please all of the people all of the time. However, that voice is one reason he has the job he does.
Someone on DKos called this "Democrat Party" thing <i>Ignorant Chic</i>. I think it's the perfect description of most everything the wingnuts do.
Bush is like a little brat trying to tease his sister with pathetically stupid taunts and then thinking he's funny or cute. Perhaps the term for Republican should just be Publican as in always having a public face but a private agenda. "Look there. Here come those Publicans from the Public party making sure their faces get on TV. Let us welcome the Public minority." Thank God the democrats are not so petty.
Was the graphic created in advance?
Are there any green leaves in the background that might indicate when the graphic was crafted? If the leaves are brown it might indicate that Bush's speech finished sucking the life out of anything remotely associated with the Republican't Party. This is all speculation, of course...
Sad , Americans and Iraqis are dying and all we can do is bicker about this stupid topic. Frankly who cares. Its FOX what were we expecting?
Soldiers are dying because the media didn't do its part in unveiling the lies and errors put forth as facts by this administration. MMFA is simply doing a small part in keeping journalists honest.
I just heard the CNN newscaster say "... Democrat plan" on the 1:00 CNN radio broadcast. That is very bush-league of them. The so called professional media should not be using partisan rhetoric. Also, this is not a dictatorship. When the President is wrong, he should not be supported, period. That is true even in the case of language.
It absolutely amazes me that in the first 203 words of the President's address, he took the high ground. He spoke of privilege and honor. He asks for prayers of recovery and the speedy return to Congress for Senator Johnson and Congressman Norwood. He mentions the "rite of custom that brings us together at a defining hour". Then at word #204, he slaps the DemocraTIC party, squarely across the face. So much for bi-partisanship!!! It took him 204 words to get back to a talking point. I didn't watch the rest of the speech. If he's not capable of offering the respect that the majority party is entitled to, he is not entitled to that same respect. I have nothing but respect for the office of the President, but I no longer have any respect for this President.
"I have nothing but respect for the office of the President, but I no longer have any respect for this President."
You're doing better than me. I've NEVER had any respect for him. My own, personal, little bit of defiance is that I never listen to him. Voice on, radio off. My goal is to hit the off button before he finishes the third word.
As I'm fond of saying: "if he gets on the air to announce the Second Coming of Christ" has just been spotted...someone else will have to tell me, because by the third word I'll have turned him off"
So call them the "Republic" Party. He belongs to the Republic Party; he's a Republic. Easily remedied, if the people who take offense at being called "Democrats" want to berlly up to the bar together.
...and to the Republic, for which it stands...
I have a better idea. How about if Republicans act like adults instead of children?
If we have to play that game to survive the gauntlet of the Corporate Media Oligopoly, let's play hardball - as in, "we're in it to win it": a much better appellation might be "Repugnant Party", and "Repugnants".
There would be no question of whom we spoke, even though the words themselves are only similar to the official titles.
How about we call them ReNAMBLAcans? If we both want to play schoolyard games. They dont object to being called Democrats, they object to the name of their party being snidely belittled by petty weasels.
What does NAMBLA have to do with the REPUBLICan Party? Other than the fact that they would jail these pedophiles if it weren't for Left wing groups like the ACLU?
Really? That's funny, considering when Hastert had the opportunity to cleanse that filth from his own party, he chose to ignore it instead.
The Republican Party: We love family values, as long as they don't inconvenience our climb to power.
Wait a minute, BLR. Are you saying Foley's behavior was "filthy"?
The real modern reintroduction of the term " Democrat Party" came in I believe1976 when noted turncoat and bankrupt John Connally used this term throughout his keynote address to the the Republican convention. It was so strange sounding and unfamiliar that some of TV commentators speculated that it was a local Texas slur that Connally had picked up while campaigning as a Democrat. The much vaunted speech and Connally's use of Democrat party, just sounded strange at the time, and Connally never became successful in GOP presedential politics as he hoped.
Is “Democrat Party” a Deliberate Slur?
In his SoTU address Bush actually twice pronounced "nuclear" properly instead of his usual "nookular." So it appears he is able, even at his age, to improve his grammar. Coming as it did as a congratulation, he actually forced Democrats to applaud his deliberate slur.
This tactic is nothing new. While doing research for a novel in which the pivotal character is Richard Nixon, I was stunned to read a passage in a 1959 book by Earl Mazo, a columnist for the New York Herald Tribune, titled: Richard Nixon, A Personal and Political Portrait (Harper & Co.). Mazo quotes Nixon as saying:“Technically speaking, it should be referred to as the Democrat, rather than the Democratic party.* But I don’t think any election is going to be determined by semantics, and I think it is rather silly to spend so much time and effort over whether we are going to say ‘Democrat’ or ‘Democratic.’ I consistently use the term ‘Democratic’ and after every speech I get letters from around the country from good Republican friends telling me what a terrible mistake I made. I doubt if I lost any votes for the Republicans by referring to the Democrats as Democratic. And I doubt if those who refer to the Democratic party as Democrat party have gained anything for the Republicans.”The book is a paean to the then Vice President, but the author feels compelled to use a footnote to correct the reader as to Nixon’s misconception about proper usage. Mazo writes:* The Greek adjective is “democratikos,” which becomes in English “democratic.” There is no Greek source for the adjective “democrat.” So the subject of language-control was a hot topic at the very highest levels of the GOP establishment during the McCarthy era, taking up, in Nixon’s words, “much time and effort” in Republican circles. This presented the novelist in me with many intriguing questions, including: Why would Nixon, who incorrectly believed that his use of “Democratic Party” was wrong, continue to use it despite pressure from his own party to toe the line? Who and/or what was behind the Republican effort to change the usage? How far back did the effort go? On a broader philosophical level, it raised the question of whether the refusal to use a person’s or an organization’s proper name constitutes a deliberate slur. Are Democrats justified in considering such usage a slur? I’ve addressed a few of these in a short scene from my forthcoming novel, The Energy Caper, which I tried to post but which is over the 750 word limit on this site. Anyone interested please drop me an email.
Scott Morrison
Hello Scott..
You Said - “Is “Democrat Party” a Deliberate Slur?”
In my book all I need is but One Word ... YES!
So in response I have Coined & Established a brand new answer to this Slur! I just want to give them a little dose of their own good Medicine. They dished it out, so now let’s see if the can take their own medical treatment. It’s only fair. They Say “Democrat” and I Say:
REPUBLICANT [Ree-Pub-Lick-Cant]
Can’t As in they Can Not lead our country. Etc. Etc. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander! My new word is catching on fast. I hope someday it makes the Dictionary.
How do I get your e-mail address Scott? Because I’d like to hear more on this subject.
Undoubtedly Bush's intention was to bedevil the Democrats, however I do not concur with Media Matter's interpretation of the grammatical structure of Bush's statement. I believe that the word preceding 'majority' necessitates a noun, as the concept of a majority isn't democratic or republican in nature, but instead a majority signifies a that members of a party, i.e. nouns, are the most numerous. Nevertheless, I agree that Bush meant ill-will. But Media Matters shouldn't nitpick these kinds of issues without getting unbiased English professors to comment on grammatical sentence structure and the like. It's kind of overboard to go there, so let us stop this nitpicking before we find ourselves watching our 6th grade English teachers on television underlining subjects and circling verbs.