Juan Williams, NY Times reported Bush's purported explanation for "Democrat majority" in SOTU, but not his track record

During his January 29 interview with President Bush, National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams asked Bush why, during his State of the Union address on January 23, he used "Democrat" as an adjective -- an oft-used Republican slur. Bush answered that he "didn't even know [he] did it." Williams then changed the subject. Williams failed to address the recurring pattern by Bush and other Republicans of employing the proper noun "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat Party" itself, even though that is not the party's name. New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg identified the practice as an attempt to insult the opposing party and deny its claim to being "democratic." Similarly, in a January 30 article, The New York Times noted Williams' question and Bush's response but failed to address Bush's pattern of using the slur.

In its article, the Times also failed to note that, in congratulating the "Democrat majority," Bush deviated from the prepared text of the speech. In a January 30 article, The Washington Post noted that Bush "frequently uses the formulation" but, like the Times, did not mention Bush's deviation from the prepared text. Indeed, Williams himself noted that Bush's "prepared text said Democratic majority." Following the speech, the White House posted a transcript of Bush's address that differed from the prepared text, substituting the word "Democrat" for "Democratic" to read "Democrat majority."

By contrast, the Los Angeles Times printed an article about Williams' exchange with Bush and noted that "experts on political locution say it's a deliberate, if ungrammatical, linguistic strategy." Further, the Los Angeles Times noted Bush's history of using the slur: "Bush's usage of the term increased dramatically last year; according to the American Presidency Project, based at UC Santa Barbara, the president was recorded using the term 22 times in 2006 -- more than in the previous five years of his presidency combined." Blogger and media critic Greg Sargent chronicled six instances in which Bush used "Democrat" as an adjective, four of which took place as he stumped for Republicans before the 2006 midterm elections.

The Los Angeles Times also addressed Bush's dubious claim that his use of the phrase is "just -- gosh, it's probably Texas." The article featured Roderick P. Hart, dean of the College of Communication at the University of Texas-Austin, who, in the words of the Los Angeles Times, said that the phrase is "not common usage in Texas," adding that "the only people he had heard use it were 'sitting Republican legislators.' "

From the January 30 New York Times article:

President Bush says he had no intention of offending members of the other party when he said in his State of the Union address, "I congratulate the Democrat majority." In an interview yesterday, Juan Williams of NPR asked Mr. Bush about dropping the "ic," something the president does regularly, to the intense annoyance of many Democrats.

"The idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it's just -- gosh -- it's probably Texas," he said. "Who knows what it is. But I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway."

Last weekend, Mr. Bush put his bipartisan spirit on display, right there on the schedule distributed by the White House: "The president makes remarks to the House Democrat Conference."

But late yesterday a new version of the schedule was released. "Democratic conference," it said.

From the January 30 Washington Post article:

President Bush says the missing "-ic" in the State of the Union address was nothing more than an oversight.

Near the beginning of the speech last week, Bush congratulated "the Democrat majority" for its electoral victory, using a long-standing Republican formulation seen by many Democrats as a calculated insult. Some liberal bloggers and party strategists saw the president's omission of the last two letters of the party's proper name, Democratic, as a sign of insincerity in preaching bipartisanship.

Nothing of the sort, Bush said in an interview yesterday with National Public Radio's Juan Williams.

"That was an oversight," said Bush, who frequently uses the formulation. "I mean, I'm not trying to needle. Look, I went into the hall saying we can work together, and I was very sincere about it. I didn't even know I did it."

Bush also said he "didn't mean to be putting fingernails on the board," while noting that the parties need to work together on addressing problems with the Social Security system. "I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town," the president said. "And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it. So the idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it's just -- gosh, it's probably Texas. Who knows what it is? But I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway."

White House press secretary Tony Snow seemed peeved with reporters asking about the Bush mispronunciation at his morning press "gaggle" yesterday, accusing the reporters of making "three mountains out of a molehill" and suggesting that the press was not much interested when Democrats bashed Bush with language calling him a "loser" or a "liar."

"This looks like an exercise of looking for a fence rather than looking for a way to work together," Snow said. "There was no intentional slight of anyone."

For now, Democrats are standing down.

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said, "We certainly take the president at his word." The normally garrulous Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said he had no comment.

From the January 30 Los Angeles Times article:

The issue of whether it is a slur to refer to the Democratic Party without the "-ic" has become an irritant. It comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out whether they can work together, after years of fierce partisanship in the nation's capital.

Some Democrats said the president's usage in the speech -- even though his prepared text included the "-ic" -- sent the wrong message.

"It's a long-standing intentional partisan political slight," said Daniel Weiss, chief of staff to Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez). "It's kind of like flashing colors in a gang. It's code. It says, 'I'm one of you, I'm a right-wing conservative.' "

And experts on political locution say it's a deliberate, if ungrammatical, linguistic strategy.

"The word 'democratic' has such positive emotional valence ... so they politicize it to use it as a term to describe a group of political rivals," said Roderick P. Hart, a professor of communications and government at the University of Texas in Austin.

"Democrat Party" is not common usage in Texas, Hart said, noting that the only people he had heard use it were "sitting Republican legislators."

For the president's part, when told the term grates on Democrats, he pleaded ignorance. "I didn't mean to be putting fingernails on the board. I meant to be saying, Why don't we show the American people we can actually work together?" Bush told NPR.

For her part, the government's most powerful Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, has brushed off the controversy. "She takes the president at his word that it was an oversight," said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

The use of the term "Democrat Party" goes back decades. One explanation sometimes offered is that Republicans began to use it to hint that corrupt Democrats were not terribly "democratic" and had no right to use that word to describe themselves. Others say it was adopted because it sounds annoying and echoes the word "bureaucrat," with its negative connotations.