The Democrat Underground Poll

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

[jpgray]

1. As I said earlier, it's like the difference between "Jewish lawyer" and "Jew lawyer"

In my opinion, anyway.

[Balbus]

3. True enough - well, except for the whole holocaust thing...

:eyes:

[jpgray]

6. ???

Both are incidences of calling a group of people by a pejorative shortened name. How does the Holocaust enter into that comparison?

[BlooInBloo]

9. Way to deliberately apply the most jackass distorted interpretation possible!

:rofl:

[davidlynch]

54. That's an awesome comparison--and that's the retort we should use n/t

[bleever]

2. I'm sorry to have to say this, but

I would have said, "It's pronounced 'COLLin', not 'CO-lin'."

You have my answer.

[Patsy Stone]

7. No, it's pronounced

[bleever]

26. I, Gore.

See, that's authenticity.

:thumbsup:

[Sapphocrat]

4. A few months ago, I scolded a local news anchor for doing it.

I sent feedback to the station, and within 24 hours, I got an apology from the news guy, and a promise to say "Democratic Party" from now on.

The best part was that he neglected to delete all the cc: forwards on my original email -- which had traveled from the station's general manager all around the place -- and the GM had forwarded it to the anchor with the comment: "This woman has a point."

I still feel vindicated, and not a little smug. :)

[Captain Hilts]

22. Excellent! Now please write The Guardian, because they use it all the time...

and they don't listen to me.

[Sapphocrat]

23. I had no idea they did that.

I'll give it a shot, Mookie. Can't hurt to try. :)

Maybe I'll spell "Labour Party" as "Labor". LOL

[Captain Hilts]

29. I've sent them a bunch of e-mails about it. The Monday WP has a LTTE about the term. nt

[ClassWarrior]

5. It's actually important that Democratic leaders... occasionally...

...with a little wry humor, publicly correct Republicans and media persons who use "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic." The issue isn't important enough to let us get upset or angered by it. And I don't care if our leaders retaliate by referring to Rape-Publicans by some childish slur. Sam Seder and I can handle that part just fine.

:evilgrin:

So I guess I vote "other."

NGU.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. I've never seen such a correction done yet. I hope it's happened.

[ClassWarrior]

11. I don't know. But I hope it has/does, too.

NGU.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. What is NGU?

[Nicole]

20. Never Give Up n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

Repukes do that on PURPOSE, you know...to piss us off.

I voted that they should be corrected in public when they do it, but on the other hand, they need to be treated like 2 year olds......IGNORE THEM. If they get no reaction, what fun will it be to continue to act like ignorant fools?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. The "fun" for them is establishing their will to label you whatever way they want.

It won't stop there.

So I'd agree with the way you voted, and not the second part of your answer. So far I never see any public response to this from Democratic leaders.

[rocktivity]

18. Not only should the offender be corrected, but it should be pointed out

that they're saying it simply because the Repubs told them to, and they aren't in control any more. That should embarass them quite enough!

:headbang:
rocknation

[spoony]

30. That or they simply aren't good with the language n/t

:)

[New Earth]

10. it would be funny if Dems started calling them

Repukes

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

12. The whole "issue" is stupid - if Democrats wanted to have it stopped...

... they could do so in about 10 seconds.

For example: The next time Pelosi is on camera with gw, her saying, as a complete non-sequitor, that from here on out no Democratic member of congress will respond to any republican who denies them the respect of calling them by their proper name - would immediately end the practice.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. I'm not sure I understand from this answer what your vote was.

You're saying it is important, and that it's stupid that leadership hasn't taken the simple steps to fix it?

Or that it's stupid, in that it is unimportant?

I think it is my first interpretation, which I agree with, but I'm not sure.

[BlooInBloo]

16. That's good - seeing as how I didn't vote in the poll.

[Shakespeare]

35. Oh, yeah, that'd put a stop to it.

NOT. :eyes:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. Not important to me, but it does make whoever says it sound dumb.

[upi402]

19. Just state that they are name-callers and continue on everytime

my .02

[Captain Hilts]

21. The usage was started by Rep. pollster Lance Tarrance.

Evidently, 'Democrat' party doesn't the positive responses 'DemocratIC' Party gets.

[Nye Bevan]

24. This is an *incredibly important* issue

Whenever anyone skips that "ic" at the end of "Democratic" my day is absolutely ruined.

In fact it cancels out any of my pleasure in winning Congress, the Senate, and getting rid of Rumsfeld.

We need to get this one nailed before we start on stuff like Iraq and the minimum wage.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

28. (heh)

Wait for the literalists. Or is it the literalistics?

[Beacho]

25. YHes, thank you for this poll

I yell at the TV whenever some republitard uses that term.

They need to be called on it every time, especially Monkey-In-A-Mansuit

[Arkana]

27. Call them the "Repube Party."

[valerief]

31. WAR ON ADJECTIVES

The Republic (sic) Party has a war on adjectives. They can't tell a noun from an adjective and don't want to.

Maybe we should call ourselves the Democracy Party.

[dweller]

32. then they'll just call us the

democracs.

maybe we should just call them the republicanICKS.

include one for every one they 'forget'.

dp

[EdwardM]

33. This is a really really stupid issue.

We got more important things to do than be grammar nazis.

[Shakespeare]

37. It's not about grammar.

But thanks for playing.

[EdwardM]

38. Yes it is.

If you are offended by how someone pronounces a word, you need to snap out of it.

[Shakespeare]

39. You need to educate yourself. It is NOT about grammar.

Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz game up with this insidious idea in the early 1990s when they were engineering the "republican revolution." There was a widely publicized memo circulated that gave all republicans their walking orders for how to refer to democrats in the media. Along with a list of adjectives (oh, nice things like "tax and spend liberals"), they were instructed to say "democrat party" instead of "democratic party," because the emphasis is on the final "rat" syllable (and take a stroll over to FR if you want to see how that one took off), and because it is a diminishing tactic.

What is really appalling is that the mainstream media has picked up this mis-usage, thereby perpetuating their insidious little trick. And I. Am. Sick of it. Yeah, somebody needs to call them on it--nothing as pedantically ridiculous as one poster described upthread, but a point does need to be made.

I don't need to "snap out of" anything. You, however, could use a fucking clue.

[Shakespeare]

40. Link to a great history/summary of the Gingrich/Luntz memo RE "democrat party"

No, it's not just about grammar, folks. The 1990 memo was titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "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.

[EdwardM]

41. Yes and I heard about that.

If Newt Gingrinch wants to use improper grammar and call it the Democrat Party, then I really don't care. There are much much more important issues than what Republicans want to call the Democratic Party. Like the Iraq War, minimum wage, health care, freedom from torture, freedom of speech, etc. If someone is actually influenced by Newt Gingrich's use of the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," they are a goddamn moron who doesn't need to be voting.

[Shakespeare]

42. If you don't understand the importance of language in controlling public discourse...

...then what in holy hell are you doing on a political discussion board?

The "goddamn moran who doesn't need to be voting" isn't the person who misses the subtlety of what they're doing; that person is more likely YOU.

If you don't control the debate, and the language of the debate, you will never successfully wield power. Ever.

Do not underestimate the power and importance of language. It's NOT JUST GRAMMAR.

[EdwardM]

43. I don't feel the need in controlling any discourse.

I feel that anyone is allowed to call anything whatever the hell they want to. Of course they are going to use words to paint Democrats in the worst possible light. That is what politicans do. There is no way you can stop them from doing it, because unfortunately, we got freedom of speech in this country. So lets get back to the real issues.

[Shakespeare]

44. Then you don't have a CLUE about politics.

Ever read Orwell's 1984? Yeah, didn't think so.

This IS a real issue. Knowing how to frame issues through language is absolutely vital to our party's success. It's absolutely important.

[EdwardM]

45. Yes I read 1984

I know what newspeak is. And I have clue about politics. I understand the importance in how you frame the debate. They will call us "tax and spend liberals" and "cut and runners." My question is, what the hell can you do about it? This country has a a 1st amendment, so they can frame the debate how ever they want to. All we can do is put our position in a possible light. I'm sure a Democratic Candidate could say "That's the Democratic party Mr. Gingrich, not the Democrat party." But what good would that do? He will just keep saying Democrat party. I just can't wait for the day that people vote on real issues and not stupid crap. But of course, that day will never come.

[Shakespeare]

47. I strongly recommend Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant."

The book--a slender extended essay, really--is devoted to the issue of framing, and how our party can use it more effectively. The republicans have used framing to kick our political asses for the last 16 years, and we'd better learn how to fight back on our own.

[Captain Hilts]

49. I love Lakoff's books. nt

[cboy4]

34. IMO, the second you let them know it bothers you, the more

they're going to use it just to piss you off.

It's irritating as fuck to here the idiot in the White House and others say it, but I don't lose a wink of sleep.

Seriously.

[upi402]

36. Just use the word REPUBLICAN when talking about the crimes

and I'm happy.

Not "my colleague" or "the opposition" or "the minority"-that sounds good though somehow!

Still, label these criminals clearly for the stupid 'muricans who don't exactly look too deeply at things.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. There something of a grammar school teacher about Speaker Pelosi

I can hear her grating on a wayward Republican speaker by reminding him that Democrat is a noun and Democratic is an adjective.

Then making him write it on the blackboard a hundred times after school.

[ecstatic]

50. I honestly don't think anyone outside of DU and/or FR cares

or even notices the difference. If someone can show me a scientific study where the word Democrat produced brainwave patterns that reflected a negative impression maybe I'll be convinced :shrug:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. I read somewhere that if you call somebody "a Democrat"

it produces no negative brainwave patterns
but if you say "the Democrat Party" it produces
both negative brainwave patterns and subconscious
images of rats. However, the pattern sometimes wear off
temporarily due to oversaturation, diminishing returns, and
extraneous reverse factors, and so then you have elections like 2006.

[JustJoe]

52. Citation?

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

53. I'm looking for it as we speak.

I think it was in Subconscious Review.