NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that neocons and right-wing radio commentators who are supposedly well-educated habitually refer to the "Democratic Party" as the "Democrat Party"?

They've got to be doing that on purpose- I can't believe that someone whose job it is to write columns for papers or talk on the radio (Ann Colter, David Horowitz, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) doesn't know that it's called the Democratic Party. It makes these people sound like they don't know English.

Maybe because it is the party of democrats?

So why don't they refer to the Republican party as the Republic party?

So why don't they refer to the Republican party as the Republic party?

Because it is the party of republicans.

Because it is the party of republicans.
But you don't call the place you live in American, you call it America. As an inhabitant, you are an American. So if you are a Republican, that means you inhabit the political world of the Republic. Hence it should be called the Republic party.

Henry Kimsey-House (Dillon Beach, California):
"I am voting for Kerry because I am terrified of the police state that is being created by George and his cronies. I am also voting for Kerry because he is complex and sees the paradox of things, that we are living in a complex and paradoxical world. George prefers to see everything in black or white, good or evil and this old paradigm world view will ventually doom us and perhaps the entire human species to extinction. Finally I think that empire building around a national or capitalist center is extremely dangerous and will naturally foment many wars and revolutions. I am not sure Kerry's view is Global enough but it certainly is much more Global than George's is. Living in the world we now live in where everything happens and moves so fast, it is naive and dangerous to cling to just one point of view or one national interest, as it invites others to do the same and thus many wars will happen. There must be a more inclusive and Global view that is held by our leadership and George and crew has no clue how to do that because they are stuck in their old paradigm, empire building, dinosaur age and doomed to extinction. Kerry is at least pointed in the right direction. Thats my 2 cents worth."




Chris House (Olympia, WA): I'm a father of two, and a teacher in Washington state. Being a son of George Herbert Walker Bush's first cousin, I've been witness to a family that bred itself for leadership. Bushes have made their political mark on a local, national and global level, with mixed success.

The thing that troubles me most with this current president is a heightened sense of entitlement. Throughout the 2000 election process, George W. Bush seemed to view his ascendancy as something of a given, something he didn't feel he had to work for along the way, like many others before him. The reigning symptom of this attitude is this: there is a stubborn refusal to look at a given situation in other, possibly more constructive ways. 'I was made for this position - so I've got to be right.' The mantra of 'You're either with us or against us' was certainly, as our president might say, decisive. However, what I sensed during these four years, for the first time in my life as an American, was the idea was that it wasn't O.K. for this country's citizens to debate the big issues facing us today. To be in doubt about something can feel troublesome. I know this firsthand as a teacher; and doubt can lead to unnecessary deliberations in some cases of politics. But it is a natural instinct, just as much as clarity and decisiveness are. These feelings made me see the concept of democracy up close; it was no longer buried in a history lecture.

I'm voting for Kerry because I feel that he will protect the nation by protecting the idea of democracy. I think he can do this job better than our current president.




Jeanny House (Wisconsin): I'm voting for John Kerry because I'm a Christian. I know that my second cousin, George Bush, claims that he is the anointed leader of the American people and that God told him to run for office. I believe he may even believe that. I don't.

My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the poor and the marginalized, yet Bush's actions in office have repeatedly cut funding for health care, aid to failing schools, jobs programs, after school programs, Head Start, and many more services that provide real help and hope to those living in poverty. Under the Bush administration, over a million additional people have dropped below the poverty line. 1.2 million more have gone into "deep poverty," which is one-half the $18,810 for a family of four that defines "poverty."

My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the health and welfare of all of God's people, yet 45 million people in this country have no health insurance. The Bush administration, working hard to protect the interests of large, rich insurance companies, has done nothing to address the real health care crisis.

My Christian faith tells me the peacemakers are the blessed ones, yet George Bush wants to resurrect the Crusades, one of the most shameful experiences in Christian history. I fail to understand how lying to the people of the United States about any of the many justifications they have used for going to war in Iraq can be considered in any way, shape, or form a remotely Christian activity. Yes, Jesus once said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." He was talking about liberating his OWN people from within, not invading an oil-rich country out of purely selfish motives, then claiming it was for the liberation of others. The only true liberation comes when the oppressed claim it for themselves. This is something George Bush and his Imperialist cabal will never understand.

My Christian faith moves toward greater inclusiveness and acceptance, George Bush moves toward punishment, division, and exclusion. My Christian faith seeks to bring people into the circle of decision-making, George Bush seeks to keep them out. My Christian faith seeks to afford equal rights and responsibilities to all, George Bush seeks to reserve more rights for the privileged few.

My Christian faith is not looking for a new Messiah named George Bush.

I am, however, looking for a leader. I believe that leader's name is John Kerry.




Sheila House (Harwich, MA): I am voting for John Kerry because I believe that 4 more years of the Bush administration would be incredibly detrimental to this great country of ours. Mr. Bush and his cronies have stressed the danger and chaos in a world gripped by terror and have ignored the logical step of building an international coalition to fight terrorism as a united front. I believe Mr. Kerry to be a thoughtful man, one who has experienced danger, lived with fear, and can respond in a rational, non-hysterical manner. Most important of all, he and his wife are dedicated to environmental issues. It only makes sense that there will be no place for war or peace, if we continue to spoil the air and earth of our planet. We must remember who we’re leaving the place to.

Where did you find these quotes? I'm not saying they are bad, they're good, but just where you got them.

They're from a website called 'Bush's relatives for Kerry'. It's in another thread here.

They're from a website called 'Bush's relatives for Kerry'. It's in another thread here.
Yes, but how does it even relate to the topic of the thread? I mean, this was not even close.

Republican = noun and adjective

Democrat = noun
Democratic = adjective

I really was just throwing out the simplest answer I could think of. There was very little basis for my two other posts.

Republican = noun and adjective

Democrat = noun
Democratic = adjective

Exactly. So why do they use Democrat as an adjective? To show derision?

Probably for the same reason you call them "neocons" instead of neo-conservatives.

Yes, but how does it even relate to the topic of the thread? I mean, this was not even close.
This is what we do around here, we spam the boards with anti-Bush hate speech, then the moderators delete those who disagree with it.

It's because they have to dumb down their language to propagate their brand of ugly, hate filled anti-intellectualism.

You must remember that their demographics are not intelligent or educated people.

Most arent even capable of expressing themselves correctly in standard modern english.

This is what we do around here, we spam the boards with anti-Bush hate speech, then the moderators delete those who disagree with it.Yes, that's exactly what happens. *deletes 7eventeen*

Bwa ha ha! Long live corrup-... ahem.


Aneeeway... I have nothing constructive to add to the topic. Bad grammar sucks, no matter which side of the spectrum it's coming from.

Never hear talk radio say the "Democrat Party" I always here them talking about Democrats or the DNC or the Democratic Party.... And since when do talk radio hosts only get listened to by stupid uneducated bafoons who have poor grammar? Just proves that you think that just because you don't listen to their show that only conservatives do.... moron.

Just proves that you think that just because you don't listen to their show that only conservatives do.... moron.
I'm going to live up to these worst expectations of me and ask you not to address other posters in defamatory terms.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

It's because they have to dumb down their language to propagate their brand of ugly, hate filled anti-intellectualism.

You must remember that their demographics are not intelligent or educated people.

Most arent even capable of expressing themselves correctly in standard modern english.


Hey moderator, that's the equivalent of calling us who disagree with him morons because some cannot express themselves in standard modern English. Yet you choose to warn me because I was more direct? Geesh...

But you don't call the place you live in American, you call it America. As an inhabitant, you are an American. So if you are a Republican, that means you inhabit the political world of the Republic. Hence it should be called the Republic party.

I think he's talking about it this way: I don't say I live in a America city, I live in an American city. Republic Party? No, it's the Republican Party.

Hey moderator, that's the equivalent of calling us who disagree with him morons because some cannot express themselves in standard modern English. Yet you choose to warn me because I was more direct? Geesh...


Have you ever actually *listened* to one of these shows and heard the callers???

I was simply making an objective statement of clear fact.

Its a psychological thing; the Democrat Party sounds more sinister because it refers directly to the people who make up the party as opposed to the Republican Party which refers to both the people and the policy. Its easier to hate a group of people rather than an ideology because people are easier to picture, and you see them everywhere. The Nazi's hated Jews more explicitly than Judaism itself.

Basically, calling it the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party is a cheap and extremely subtle way of rallying a little tinge of hate out of the people. Its a subliminal propaganda trick given to us by our country's fine army of behind-the-scenes, corporate-employed thought police.

Its a psychological thing; the Democrat Party sounds more sinister because it refers directly to the people who make up the party as opposed to the Republican Party which refers to both the people and the policy. Its easier to hate a group of people rather than an ideology because people are easier to picture, and you see them everywhere. The Nazi's hated Jews more explicitly than Judaism itself.

Basically, calling it the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party is a cheap and extremely subtle way of rallying a little tinge of hate out of the people. Its a subliminal propaganda trick given to us by our country's fine army of behind-the-scenes, corporate-employed thought police.

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever. I have never heard them called that.

And whoever said that conservative talk show hosts are dumb, I say to you now, go suck an egg.

Lets review what was just said:

Deny.

Insult.

OH NOES!! THE EGG SUCK THREAT(tm) IS DEFINITELY THE HIGHEST POWER IN A DEBATE!

Lets review what was just said:

Deny.

Insult.

OH NOES!! THE EGG SUCK THREAT(tm) IS DEFINITELY THE HIGHEST POWER IN A DEBATE!

I wasn't denying anything. I was simply saying I have never heard them called that, and that my opinion is this thread is ridiculous.

Insult? Where?

Yes, the egg suck threat... I was simply responding to a ridiculous accusation with an equally ridiculous threat.

I don't even call this a debate. It is someone saying, "Oh, one time I heard a neo-con nutcase call the democratic party the democrat party, I don't remember which one, though, and, oh, they must all say that, so I wonder why they do, I bet it's another one of my stupid conspiracy theories that don't make any sense. Oh Noes, we are being hijacked by teh religious right wing NUTZ0RZ!!!!!1!!!1111!!11!!1

And then I simply called it out for its stupidity.

Its a psychological thing; the Democrat Party sounds more sinister because it refers directly to the people who make up the party as opposed to the Republican Party which refers to both the people and the policy. Its easier to hate a group of people rather than an ideology because people are easier to picture, and you see them everywhere. The Nazi's hated Jews more explicitly than Judaism itself.

Basically, calling it the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party is a cheap and extremely subtle way of rallying a little tinge of hate out of the people. Its a subliminal propaganda trick given to us by our country's fine army of behind-the-scenes, corporate-employed thought police.You're right, and it's deliberate. Back in 1993, Newt Gingrich, recognizing the power of language (he's no dummy), put together a list of words intended to smear the Democratic party. One tactic included in that list was to call the Democratic party, the Democrat party. The idea was that the name "Democratic Party" has a positive connotation--we're a democracy, and so the Democratic party stands for democracy. By shortening the word, you can then smear the party without seeming to be anti-democracy. And it worked. It's a shitty thing to do, but it worked.

democrat = noun = republic
democratic = adjective = republican

democrat party = noun, noun (aka bad english)
democratic party = adjective, noun (aka good english)

I think it's just newspeak... perhaps unconsciously or unintentionaly.

Basically, calling it the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party is a cheap and extremely subtle way of rallying a little tinge of hate out of the people.
Quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever said.

I believe both Democrat party and Democratic party are correct. The actual party is the Democratic party. That having been said, an individual of that party is a Democrat. Therefore its equally valid to refer to that party as the Democrat Party, ie: the party full of Democrats. Search the web and you will find it referred to as both.

That having been said, the argument about the Republicans doesn't work. The official title is the Republican party. Members are known as Republicans. Therefore, the Republican party is the party full of Republicans.

Its simply a case of ignorance by the original poster of this thread; I doubt there's any political gain to be had by any conservative comentator by calling it the Democrat party rather than the Democratic party, and if you think otherwise please point out how. And frankly the amount of hate and angst in response to this thread against Republicans is telling as to the nature of liberalism and the Democratic party.

I believe both Democrat party and Democratic party are correct. The actual party is the Democratic party. That having been said, an individual of that party is a Democrat. Therefore its equally valid to refer to that party as the Democrat Party, ie: the party full of Democrats. Search the web and you will find it referred to as both.

That having been said, the argument about the Republicans doesn't work. The official title is the Republican party. Members are known as Republicans. Therefore, the Republican party is the party full of Republicans.

Its simply a case of ignorance by the original poster of this thread; I doubt there's any political gain to be had by any conservative comentator by calling it the Democrat party rather than the Democratic party, and if you think otherwise please point out how. And frankly the amount of hate and angst in response to this thread against Republicans is telling as to the nature of liberalism and the Democratic party.

There should be a :Bingo: Smiley with a dog that rings a bell for times like this.

In other words, I agree with you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT

Except, I'm not sure "democrat party" is correct. It doesn't matter, though, as this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

democrat = noun = republic
democratic = adjective = republican

democrat party = noun, noun (aka bad english)
democratic party = adjective, noun (aka good english)

I think it's just newspeak... perhaps unconsciously or unintentionaly.

Kind of like "birthday party" which is also noun noun. Nouns may be made into adjectives.

If you've ever read 1984 you'd realize just how powerful changes in language can be, although this instance may or may not be intentional. Its quite possible they do it subconciously out of anger(notice how angry people start to either break down grammatically or sometimes (rarely) overcomplicate their language?), or it may just be they do it out of habitually hearing others do it. But there is a clear yet subtle motivation for doing it, like I said, in that it connotes a group of people republicans hate rather than a system republicans love. Republicans don't want to call democracy a bunch of whining liberals that show them hate and angst, they want to call their political opponents that. Its helping to remind them that they aren't anti-democratic but rather anti-democrat.

Mudslinging smear ads have been out of favor for a while now because both sides have come to a silent agreement that making them will result in a more angry public on both sides. Commercials that simply state facts can catch peoples attention, but they will probably already know them from other media. The biggest craze in political advertising now is psychological influences. A great example would be the recently aired ad featuring pictures of wolves prowling alongside facts; this is intended not to simply drive the viewer away from the side being criticised, but to actually cause an underlying fear of that side.

If you deny that subtle psychological manipulations are used in politics, you are simply ignorant and sheep-like.

(Also, saying the responses of people here is a good measure of the political ideas of their party is sad, considering I was just told to suck an egg. Are the republicans turning into a giant egg producing conglomerate?! When will the madness stop!!!11 Plus I'm seeing that huge trend in republicans to deny something and call it stupid and rediculous wihout giving an opinion as to why they think it. Yep, we gots a political survey going down right here.)

Examples:

Here's part of the top story on www.rnc.org, the Republican National Committee:

Chairman Ed Gillespie Statement on Illegal Coordination Between Democrat Shadow Groups, the Kerry Campaign and the Florida Democrat Party

Most people would be shocked to learn that the Florida Democrat Party has spent almost no dollars on federal election activity in the important battleground state of Florida.
The Florida Democrat Party isn’t spending federal dollars on election activity in Florida because they’ve outsourced their entire get out the vote effort to shadowy Democrat soft money groups that are spending millions of dollars to elect John Kerry.

An article from www.intellectualconservative.com:
Democrat Party Treads Close to Treason

President Bush, according to CNN:
"Does the Democrat Party take African-American voters for granted? It's a fair question."

A quote from Rush Limbaugh, from an article on World Net Daily:
"Leaders are genuine," concluded Limbaugh, "and you don't find much genuineness in today's liberal Democrat Party."

A quote from an article by David Limbaugh:
Does anyone truly think that the ends-justifies-the-means Democrat Party would not exploit the war issue if the war were going poorly?

Michael Savage says "Democrat Party" a lot, as does Rush Limbaugh. David Horowitz uses "Democrat Party" quite a bit in his pamplet "How to Beat Democrats".

I don't even call this a debate. It is someone saying, "Oh, one time I heard a neo-con nutcase call the democratic party the democrat party, I don't remember which one, though, and, oh, they must all say that, so I wonder why they do, I bet it's another one of my stupid conspiracy theories that don't make any sense. Oh Noes, we are being hijacked by teh religious right wing NUTZ0RZ!!!!!1!!!1111!!11!!1


Well, if it had been one time I probably wouldn't have noticed it, but some people seem to call it that rather consistantly. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. Calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party must either be for derision, brevity, an accident, or there must be some psychological advantage in doing it, or people that knew better wouldn't keep saying it. Words mean things.

I think this deserves at least one bump to see if there is a retort......