Holy shit! A RW shill gets called on using "Democrat Party"

[Stinky The Clown]

Just now .... Tweety ...... Reverend Al 'debating' that dippy Ron Christi ......

Christi uses the term 'Democrat Party' .... Tweety looks at him with a sort of sneer and says "Why do yu say that? Wahy do you call them the 'Democrat Party'?"

Christi sputters and sez: "excuse me" with a sorta 'ya got me' look.

No biggie, but nice to hear.

[chefgirl]

1. 'Bout time

Jeez, I detest that little game of theirs.

Most people seem to think they do it to utilize the last syllable as a sort of sumbliminal slam, but IMO, the reason they do it is to make it sound as though the loony liberals aren't really democratIC.

Either way, I'm sure glad they're all such grown ups. :eyes:

-chef-

[ashling]

8. Those reasons are not, however, mutually exclusive

They've been doing this as long as I can remember. Its obvious what they are trying to say when they spit it out putting the emphasis on the last syllable that way with their self righteous sneers.

Republicans proove every day the worth and need for the Democratic party. And I am proud to say I came out of the womb as a Democrat!

[KansDem]

39. Yeah, me too!

I came out of the womb as a Democrat! My mom took one look at me and said, "Ick!" From then on I knew the word was Democratic!

I mean, my mom wouldn't lie to me, would she?

[ashling]

42. LOL

[The Gunslinger]

34. thats what I always thought too.

[eleny]

2. Am watching it and missed it!

I guess I was reading a posting and missed it. Thanks for catching and posting about it. It's about time.

Btw, last night someone posted a video of Prescott Bush and he used it back in the 50s! Here's the thread (it's short). Prescott B is so full of himself. He can even swagger while seated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x5870

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Man, what a great video clip .....

... a trip down memory lane. I have vague recollections of him as a Senator cuz Connectuct's where I grew up.

His accent and tone put me in mind of my grandmother's view of 'those people'. During the Depression, my grandmother made a decent living for her family *and* her sister's family (total of 9 kids and four adults) selling sewing notions door-to-door. She would get out in her car every day and sell them in Greenwich and Darien and Cos Cob and even into Westchester County in NY. her customers were the (formerly) rich women trying to keep up appearances by refashioning last year's dresses. She sold the notions and also taught some of the women who were her customers how to use them. She did so well that she decided she needed a bigger, more dependable car. She bought a brand new Packard and sold her old Cadillac to one of her customers! Mind you, this was an uneducated immigrant woman, my grandmother.

Anyway, in later years, she would tell tales of the 'rich women who fell' back then and their snooty ways, even in the face of the equalization of the Depression. That accent that Prescott had in that clip is exactly what she described.

'Sheeza snotty, doze pipple" she said!

Hahahahahahaha. Gotta love a five-foot-nothing Italian lady!

[Hav]

3. .

Who would have thought it's so easy to confront them lol?
"Why do you do that?" and that's it.

[abburdlen]

4. "Excuse me"

Did you know in conversation it's hard to differentiate "Republican" from "Republican't"?
Sometimes when I talk it just comes out that way. My bad.

If they want to play games...

[denverbill]

5. Reagan started that shit.

If they are so stupid they can't even call a party by its own name, they should be ridiculed for being stupid. They deserve it.

And if they still insist on it, they should start corrupting that person's name. Instead of Ron, start calling him Roon, or Run.

We need to stop cutting them slack for their disrespectful, childish antics.

[Polemicist]

31. It's way older than Reagan...

McCarthy used "Democrat" instead of "Democratic", back during his Red Scare days in the 1950s. I have little doubt it was used by the hardcore GOPers during the New Deal as well.

I would be curious as to if it could be established exactly how long the extremist Republicans have attempted to change the name of their opponents in this manner.

[Skittles]

32. Reagan made idiocy fashionable

so he did play a part

[Mabus]

6. Wasn't that amazing?!?

I almost fainted.

I noticed that Christi started saying Democratic when it was appropriate after that. :rofl:

My, my, my, :giant sucking sound: how quickly Tweety has adapted to the Democratic takeover.

[eleny]

10. "Like a ball bearing in a greased groove"

(Homage to Steinbeck)

[4nic8em]

7. Aw...

They're just pissed off because people in the "Republic Party" just got their asses thumped.

[Cass]

11. Will wonders never cease! Good for Matthews for calling him on it.

:thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

12. Nice - and, even better, it was Tweety, not the Rev, who did it!

Thanks for reporting this.

NGU.

[Ninja Jordan]

13. WOW, I saw it too; first time I've seen the GOP called on this!

that black cross eyed guy had no answer!

[AspenRose]

14. About damn time

:nuke: Long overdue.

[Vadem]

15. OMG!!!!! I was clapping and screaming at Tweety--FINALLY!!!

Someone (this time, Tweety, of all people!!!) called him on it!!! G_D Damn! I think this might be historical!!! Don't you, Husb2Sparkly????

Really, this has gone on too, frigging long!!! We have to attack this smear on our Democratic Party every time we hear one of this MFers saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic"!!! Let's do it, for Goodness sakes!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[newsguyatl]

16. NICE!

that irks me like nothing else..

it's a total misuse of grammar -- using the noun Democrat as an adjective..

everyone knows this term was coined by newt gingrich in the early nineties as a way to demean democrats and the democratic party.. it's a term that's become quite used in the republiCON party.

glad to see wingers get called out on it.

[snowbear]

17. It's so GREAT to have someone call them on their "talking points" finally... thank you Tweety!

I've wondered for the longest time why Democrats don't stop the dirtbags that use "Democrat Party" in their tracks and call them on it.. I'm surprised that it had to be Matthews (of all people) who FINALLY did it.. but kudos to him none the less!

[blondeatlast]

18. Tweety can only fly with a tailwind, but oh well.

Good to see someone get calledon that stupid practice.

[snowbear]

19. Two friggin' votes, Come DU ... this deserves at least 5 lousy recommendations!

Just watching that dude later correct himself after saying it again....

...."Excuse me, DemocratIC Party" --- was priceless! -------

I love Reverend Sharpton ~~ and wow.. this was one of Tweety's good days. (Meaning, he'll likely be an idiot again on Monday.. )

[geek tragedy]

22. Proud to be #5. eom

[snowbear]

23. AhhhhHhhh geek!

I love you!

[blondeatlast]

20. Anyone else noticing the MSM is calling the talking points out more?

KO's always done it and TDS has made it almost their raison d'etre, but even the average guys are starting to do it.

Are they reacting to the fact they've been made fools of for being such lapdogs or are they simply following the nationwide trend? :shrug:

[snowbear]

21. I sure hope they are...

I don't do Faux -- EVER -- so I have no clue how they've changed since their party of choice was swept out of control? But I was delighted to see Tweety get fed up with hearing those idiots echo that same "Democrat Party" scripted line one too many times!

p.s.. Still two votes on H2S's great thread.. (mine & one other DU'er). Wow.

[tuvor]

24. Help me here. What's the problem?

The Democratic Party is comprised of...Democrats.

Bad grammar, perhaps, on the part of Christi (and I'm sure he's aware it irritates a lot of--sorry--Democrats), but I confess I don't understand what the problem is.

[snowbear]

25. We are Democrats in the Democratic Party...

The Republican Talking Points ask them to refer to us as the "Democrat Party" which is not only bad grammar, but John Q. American can see right through it!!!

What if Democrats were told by the party to always refer to them as the "Republic Party" ? ... It would be the same thing.

It's just WRONG dammit...

[fuzzyball]

30. You nailed it...both "democrat" and "democratic" are correct depending

on whether it is used as a noun or an adjective.

For example Bill Clinton was elected twice as a democrat (noun).
He is the first president from the democratic (adjective) party to be
elected to two terms since FDR.

Good thing I learned my grammar in India LOL.

[nebenaube]

27. neurolingistics...

Democrat party implies a minority of one....

[blondeatlast]

28. Elementary school grammar, that is.

My ES child knows the difference between a noun and an adjective.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. To me it is so insulting

It is an attempt to demean, to show a lack of respect, and to redefine who you are by taking your power to rename you. Control / belittle / insult.

That is the problem.

[CBHagman]

37. Here's the background on why the GOP uses that form.

Check out the entry in Wikipedia. It cites specific examples and approaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

Democrat Party is a political epithet used by some conservative commentators (as on talk radio) and in speeches and press releases by some Republican Party members to refer to the opposition Democratic Party. The use of "Democrat"as a noun is not controversial: "Senator Kerry is a Democrat from Massachusetts." The use as an adjective is controversial, as in "John Kerry is a Democrat Senator from Massachusetts." Many Democrats strongly dislike the term, and see it as a sign of disrespect. but others use it on their websites.

Further:

The adjective form has been used by Republican leaders since the 1940s and appears in most GOP national platforms since 1948. In 1947 Senator Robert Taft said, "Nor can we expect any other policy from any Democrat Party or any Democrat President under present day conditions. They can not possibly win an election solely through the support of the solid South, and yet their political strategists believe the Southern Democrat Party will not break away no matter how radical the allies imposed upon it." President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his acceptance speech in 1952 and in partisan speeches to Republican groups. Ruth Walker notes how Joseph McCarthy repeatedly used the phrase "the Democrat Party."

Hendrik Hertzberg's take on it in The New Yorker, in a not-to-be-missed article, especially for those of you who are younger DUers and never read/heard some of his examples firsthand.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

The history of “Democrat Party” is hard to pin down with any precision, though etymologists have traced its use to as far back as the Harding Administration. According to William Safire, it got a boost in 1940 from Harold Stassen, the Republican Convention keynoter that year, who used it to signify disapproval of such less than fully democratic Democratic machine bosses as Frank Hague of Jersey City and Tom Pendergast of Kansas City. Senator Joseph McCarthy made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults, which served to dampen its popularity for a while. There was another spike in 1976, when grumpy, growly Bob Dole denounced “Democrat wars” (those were the days!) in his Vice-Presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Growth has been steady for the last couple of decades, and today we find ourselves in a golden age of anti-“ic”-ism.

In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions. William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.

(I'll snip Buckley's treatise out here; you can read it at the website.)

The job of politicians, however, is different, and among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” 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.

After that passage, Hertzberg gets into the use of the term "Democrat Party" by the creature currently occupying the White House, contrasting Bush 43 unfavorably with Bush 41.

And DU has dealt with this before, with the help of the DUer named Shakespeare:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2701710

And last but not least, The Washington Monthly's take on it:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008482.php

And in case anyone here doesn't believe that language has real-life consequences, bear in mind that it's pollster Frank Luntz, whom Hertzberg discusses above, who urged Republican members of Congress to sell the Iraq war by using phrases such as "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" -- as if Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. There is genuine evil in those -- for example, Gingrich, Luntz, G.W. Bush, Cheney -- who employ such language to control and thus do profound damage to our country and indeed the world.

[blondeatlast]

38. Excellent research. This should be a stand-alone post and I'll happily nominate it.

It's a must read even for those of us who are aware of the background of the incorrect use of "Democrat" as a noun.

Just to add: Luntz is a slimeball. I've studied linguistics and just had to get that off my chest.

:applause:

[tuvor]

41. Thank you very much for that.

Much appreciated.

[catzies]

26. Maybe Tweety is the first to be intentionally ahead of the curve.

"Democrat Party" is soo pre-Nov. 7. We're in a post-11/7 world now. ;)

[Virginian]

29. They've been doing that all along and Tweety never did it before.

He always let if slide.

[blondeatlast]

46. Tweety's a "follow where the wind blows" kinda guy.

He's been lightening up a bit on the Left and toughening up on the RRR in the past few months.

[Trajan]

33. I think its a Red Herring fallacy .....

And hardly worth the breath of mentioning it ....

With all the bad that goes on here and abroad, one might think we had better things to talk about, and educate the people of ....

When someone calls us a 'Dem', should we get all hot and bothered about missing the 'ocrat' ?

I mean, like another other decent human being, I MUST have my 'ic' respected, but perhaps war and hunger rank slightly higher ?

[checks-n-balances]

36. It merely shows their penchant for CONTROLLING EVERYTHING

including public discourse. I'm totally convinced that the increasingly freeperish GOP of late is quite TOTALITARIAN in nature, and not happy until they take total control of

- History (by rewriting it)
- All branches of government
- U.S. & world economy (duh)
- All branches of "The Media" (insidiously replaced by PROPAGANDA)
- Cultural attitudes, including use of language
- You name it

One way of accomplishing that is FRAMING THE MESSAGE, and they've been doing a pretty effective job of it for about 25 years or more.

They are MASTER MANIPULATORS, in ways that are both big and small, and they should be called on it every time, because it's insidious.

[blondeatlast]

40. It's a deliberate insult. Read post 37, linked below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2975106&mesg_id=2976202

"Dem" is not insulting in the least, but the deliberate misuse of "Democrat" as an adjective is. It is used to bolster the illusion that Democrats don't believe in the "democratic" process.

If you aren't aware of the malicious influence of Frank Luntz, I suggest you Google him.

[CBHagman]

43. Yes! Luntz is proof the GOP does indeed follow polls.

One of the affectations George W. Bush strikes is that his White House doesn't follow polls. This claim, not surprisingly, is unadulterated horse manure. Focus groups and polling play a tremendous role in how the Republican Party forms its strategy and rhetoric.

When you watch C-SPAN, read transcripts, or check news accounts and op-eds, watch for the focus group-tested language, the outrageous claims. I can promise you that you'll find them.

[Trajan]

44. I am fully aware of Luntz and his focus groups on language ...

But what bothers me more is my fellow liberals all worked up into a slather about this silliness ....

As if there isnt better things to talk about : Just roll OVER the 'slur', and make them talk about something of substance, like Social Security, or wages, or war ....

Instead ; They get to enjoy this mass hysteria that sets off huge throngs of progressives into apoplectic fits ...

I suppose this is working better than they could have imagined .... too bad ...

[NJCher]

45. you just don't get it, do you?

As if there isnt better things to talk about...

People spend their entire careers on the English language. Some devote their careers to mass media and public discourse. This is a discussion on the nuance of a word. It is about how the word is used.

Your value judgment shows you have no sense of an intellectual discussion.

Thanks so much for the admonishment. I'll make haste to a thread on nuclear warheads so I can meet your approval for how I spend my discussion time. :sarcasm:

Oh, and next time you issue a directive on how and what to discuss, would you mind choosing and writing your contractions correctly?

Is it any wonder that someone who pays such little attention to writing would issue their pronouncements in such a slovenly manner?




Cher

[blondeatlast]

47. Well said. I'll just add: We dismiss people like Luntz at our own peril.

Luntz has perverted political debate beyond all reason and the time has never been better to call him out (especially since he has a book coming out shortly).

[bling bling]

51. Well I guess I don't have any sense of an intellectual discussion either.

Because I agree with him. But who made you the judge on all that? People can't hold two opposing opinions without one of them having no sense of an intellectual discussion. Think about that for a minute or two and tell me how intelligent and intellectual an opinion like that is really.

Just because some people choose not to be insulted, offended, and aghast over a word doesn't make them less intellectual than you. If I have a choice between keeping my eyes on what truly impacts my life and getting my panties in a bunch over a word which do you think is the more intellectually thought out and well-reasoned decision?

But it's your choice. But I still don't think it's the democratIC spirit to go insulting others' intelligence because they think differently than you and especially because their mastery of the english language isn't up to par with yours.

[Trajan]

52. No sense of an intellectual discussion ? ...

This is usually where the gloves come off and ad hominems are traded, one for the other ..... but : I will let you have your fun with the useless insults, and try to maintain a decent manner ... perhaps one you might attempt to emulate in the future ....

I IN NO WAY denied you your obvious right to engage yourself with such pitiful subject matter ... Have at it ... Have a blast .... YOU are using your valuable time bantering the fine points of verbal disputes, ad nauseum .... At WHAT time did I try to stop you ? ....

If I believe your argument is a waste of time, and I say so; how does THAT 'stop you' from discussing what you wish to discuss when you wish to discuss it ? ...

It is completely false that I am attempting to control your commentary by arguing against it .... my saying 'you are wasting your time with this line of argument' doesnt preclude you from continuing the argument ..... to say so is simply false ....

As far as those who spend their whole lives studying 'mass media' and 'public discourse' is concerned ... your argument is a prime example of being 'enmeshed' by those who would harangue and hector us with ad hominem appeals .... YOUR focus is on the subject of the ad hominem, and not against the other more pressing issues we face ...

I dont believe we are well served by wallowing in the mud slung by our opponents, allowing ourselves to be purposely misdirected AWAY from substantive arguments of policy, when we could easily brush off the clumsy malaprop and respond with BOTH an admonishment of your opponent's ignorance AND a RE-direction of the message to one of superior import and substance ...

HOW does one consider spending their time dicussing 'name calling' an effective means of public discourse, when we KNOW they will never stop calling us SOME sort of unflattering names ? .... HOW is OUR message getting through to the masses, through 'mass media', when YOU take their bait and sink into their pit ? ..... ALL while the REAL issues we face get swept under the rug : to emerge some other day ? ....

When ? .. When they STOP callling us names ? ....

When is THAT going to happen ? ....

Yeah .. I have no sense of 'intellectual discussion' regarding public discourse or mass media when you are here hurling ad hominems at your fellow Liberals .... Its cause Im SOOOOO stoopid, you see ....

To wit: I am not insulting you by disagreeing with you .... IF you wish to think so, then that is your choice : have at it .... But imagine if I just said to you "You havent an INKLING of knowledge about what you are talking about' ... or "I cant believe you are SO stupid : You know nothing about this" ... Then I would be following the course YOU have laid out ....

Yes .. THAT would elevate our collective civilization ..... :sarcasm:

I wont take your bait, hun ....

I dont need your love .... I already have a momma ....

Maybe it is easier to understand your desire to argue endlessly about such conduct if you are yourself endlessly engaged in it ... Perhaps 'Name Calling' and Ad Hominem attacks are your thing ....

Hmmmm .....

[NJCher]

53. well, I noticed you cleaned up your writing

You're still using ellipsis incorrectly, though.

Sorry, just had to say it, LOL.




Cher

[DuaneBidoux]

48. Trust me, language and how it's used is never a red herring.

So it's no big deal that we use the "n" word instead of African American? Language counts.

This term was invented after much research showing that it left negative feelings and tastes that were quite subconscious in the minds of those who heard these terms. The other reason Republicans feel obligated to do this is that they need to get the word to describe our party as far away from the word "democratic" as possible and here's why: we don't go abroad to defend democrat values, we go abroad to defend DEMOCRATIC values. There is a natural positive association with the word democratic that does not exist in the minds of most people for the term democrat. They are trying to draw the minds of people aways from those positive associations with both the word and our party. Saying "democrat" instead of "democratic" is one way to do so.

[bling bling]

49. I agree with you on that.

I really don't care. I don't see it as insulting. But then I refuse to be insulted over something like Democrat vs. Democratic. They already turned "liberal" into a bad word. The more we get offended by them using the word "Democrat" the more likely it will be that word will be hijacked too.

And the analogy of calling the Republicans "Republics" doesn't really hold water either. In no form do we ever call them "Republics." They are Republicans and their party is the Republican Party. It's consistent. If we want to compare ourselves to them we would be the Democrats in the Democrat party or we would be the Democratics in the Democratic party.

Anyway, I don't care. I wish other people didn't care either. This isn't something that we should allow them to get our goat over, IMO. But whatever.

[Joe Chi Minh]

50. Maybe, the best way to respond would be to ask the shill: "You don't

mind if I substitute "Oligarch" for "Republican", do you?

Clearly, the connotation of the term, "democratic", in relation to the Democratic Party, makes you feel uncomfortable, so I understand your preference for the term, "Democrat", as an adjective, instead of "Democratic". You clearly understand that we are all republicans with a small "r", but we are not all democrats with a small "d"; the Democrats are committed to democratic goverment, while the Republicans are committed to oligarchic government, as the Supreme Court enshrined in the country's legal and electoral history.

Obviously, it's difficult for even the most die-hard supporter of the Democrats not to feel a twinge of compassion for the uneasiness of a Republican speaker who can only bring himself to use the term, "Democrat Party". There's such a thing as false guilt, but real guilt can play the darndest tricks, can't it?

[CBHagman]

54. Is Ruth Marcus reading DU?

Is she hanging around here in a cunning disguise? Look at today's column about the use of "Democrat" as an adjective!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101223.html

If he wanted to, President Bush could change the tone in Washington with a single syllable: He could just say "ic." That is, he could stop referring to the opposition as the "Democrat Party" and call the other side, as it prefers, the Democratic Party.

The derisive use of "Democrat" in this way was a Bush staple during the recent campaign. "There are people in the Democrat Party who think they can spend your money far better than you can," he would say in his stump speech, or, "Raising taxes is a Democrat idea of growing the economy," or, "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

If you'll read further, she references nearly everything that came up in this thread!

[blondeatlast]

55. Considering that we cite nearly everything, I'm willing to bet she has.

Editorials don't require references even as much as DU does. I'd say that's pretty convenient for a savvy journalist.