Tiff Over A Missing "-ic" Continues

[KidRocks]

Did he do it on purpose?

Of course he did and he can always claim (as he does many times) that he is not to brilliant and get away with it, and he did!











Tiff Over A Missing "-ic" Continues, Bush Calls Use Of "Democrat Majority" — Instead Of "Democratic Majority" — An Oversight - CBS News

President Bush said Monday he wasn't trying to disparage the party now running Congress by referring to it as the "Democrat majority" — as opposed to the "Democratic majority" — in his State of the Union speech.

"That was an oversight," Mr. Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "I mean, I'm not trying to needle."

The president's dropping of the "ic" at the end of the word prompted grumbling by Democrats that he purposely got their name wrong.

This is not a new charge. The late President Reagan used to refer to the "Democrat Party." Democratic leaders have long considered it demeaning when their suffix is omitted, and some of them figured it was no accident in a speech as highly choreographed and rehearsed as Mr. Bush's State of the Union...

 

[aps]

Hmmmm, I think it's an honest mistake. I know plenty of people who use the wrong form of that word. If it were someone like Bill Clinton, I would know it was not a mistake, but George Bush is no grammarian by any means.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[KidRocks]

Hmmmm, I think it's an honest mistake. I know plenty of people who use the wrong form of that word. If it were someone like Bill Clinton, I would know it was not a mistake, but George Bush is no grammarian by any means.

You would think, huh?

But I'd bet the farm that George did it on purpose because he has the right to act dumb when conveniant. He's done it so many times that he's become brilliant at it!

 

[aps]

You would think, huh?

But I'd bet the farm that George did it on purpose because he has the right to act dumb when conveniant. He's done it so many times that he's become brilliant at it!

Just listen to the way he talks. He doesn't exude sophistication at all. I think his lack of knowing to use "ic" is genuine. That's not to say he's not intelligent--he just doesn't speak like a sophisticated, intelligent person.

 

[niftydrifty]

If Bush really wanted to change the tone in Washington, he could refer to the opposition party by its name.

Much ado about nothing.

for over 100 years, no one ever referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party until McCarthy did it in the '50's.

Could you imagine a Democrat(ic) president calling the GOP the "Republican't Party?" Neither can I. it would be rather juvenile.

but that's what we have here today with the current POTUS.

 

[SixStringHero]

I think it was more of a Freudian slip rather than a blatant omission.

 

[KidRocks]

Just listen to the way he talks. He doesn't exude sophistication at all. I think his lack of knowing to use "ic" is genuine. That's not to say he's not intelligent--he just doesn't speak like a sophisticated, intelligent person.

Never underestimate President Bush. He is not as dumb as he looks!

 

[Kandahar]

I don't understand why this is a pejorative. Isn't a democrat (small d), by definition, democratic?

 

[disneydude]

Who cares.

If it were an accident it's just another of Bush's long history of grammar miscues.
If it weren't an accident it's just another of Bush's juvenile talking points.

Big deal either way.

 

[jfuh]

Did he do it on purpose?

Of course he did and he can always claim (as he does many times) that he is not to brilliant and get away with it, and he did!











Tiff Over A Missing "-ic" Continues, Bush Calls Use Of "Democrat Majority" — Instead Of "Democratic Majority" — An Oversight - CBS News

President Bush said Monday he wasn't trying to disparage the party now running Congress by referring to it as the "Democrat majority" — as opposed to the "Democratic majority" — in his State of the Union speech.

"That was an oversight," Mr. Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "I mean, I'm not trying to needle."

The president's dropping of the "ic" at the end of the word prompted grumbling by Democrats that he purposely got their name wrong.

This is not a new charge. The late President Reagan used to refer to the "Democrat Party." Democratic leaders have long considered it demeaning when their suffix is omitted, and some of them figured it was no accident in a speech as highly choreographed and rehearsed as Mr. Bush's State of the Union...

Oh for crying out loud. Since when ever was Bush able to be highly choreographed or rehearsed? He's too dumb to have any sort of plan let alone something such snipe as this. In any event this would only be seen as a negative impact if any at all. Let the school boy play in his little sand box and call all the names he wants, Bush is now a lame duck prez, worse than Clinton as he also has no support from the public.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Funny that this is seen as some kind of huge issue that Democrats will complain about and start an uproar, but Kerry botching a "joke" is something we should just get over and let go because it was just a mistake.Right...only piss and moan when it's to your liking.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Kerry calling the troops dumb isn't a problem but this is? When Bush messes up nuclear he's a retard. When he messes up democratic he's a shifty little bastard. I can't decide whether Democrats underestimate or overestimate Bush sometimes.

 

[1069]

Never underestimate President Bush. He is not as dumb as he looks!

I've long suppositioned that because he looks "dumb" (primarily, because his eyes are too close together) and has no doubt looked dumb all his life, "dumbness" is a role he's evolved.
It probably has little to do with who he truly is or with his actual intelligence level.
Many, many people find it useful to "play dumb", especially when their intellect is at odds with their physical appearance.
That said, it could've been a slip; everybody makes them (although not everybody makes them as relentlessly as Spurious George W).

 

[Zyphlin]

If Bush really wanted to change the tone in Washington, he could refer to the opposition party by its name.



for over 100 years, no one ever referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party until McCarthy did it in the '50's.

Could you imagine a Democrat(ic) president calling the GOP the "Republican't Party?" Neither can I. it would be rather juvenile.

but that's what we have here today with the current POTUS.

I'm not seeing where the issue is even on using the "Democrat Party". I don't see it as an insult. It is the party of democrats. That's their label. Its not any more "Democratic" of a party then any other party. If for some reason people called the "republicans" republics instead...then I'd have no problem with people calling it the "Republic party".

If people use it as an insult, I would think worse over them using something so inanely idiotic as an insult as that then anything else. I've never heard "Democrat" party and though "ooooo, burn". I don't see how that can even be compared with "Republican't" which would have no root in any way, shape, or form as to why it would be termed as such.

 

[1069]

I'm not seeing where the issue is even on using the "Democrat Party". I don't see it as an insult.... If for some reason people called the "republicans" republics instead...then I'd have no problem with people calling it the "Republic party".

The word itself ("Democrat") has unpleasant connotations and associations. It sounds like "crap". Also like "rat".
Perhaps they should just change the name altogether.
Calling Republicans "Republics" isn't comparable.
Neither the word Republican nor the word Republic has the same negative resonance to it.

 

[jujuman13]

I am unable to understand what if any is the importance of this.
Who cares.

 

[Cold Dirt]

I am unable to understand what if any is the importance of this.
Who cares.

the pantie waist liberals looking for something else to whine about:monkey

 

[niftydrifty]

That's their label.

actually, it isn't. so, um, you don't have a point. If you believe this, then you've heard it used by anti-Democratic party propagandists. "their label" is "democratic party." in other words, your parroting.

the whole rub, the one being denied by all the Repugs in here, is that when the "Democrat party" perjorative is used, the implication is that the Democrats are not "democratic."

If a Republican't were to say "Democratic majority," it would sound like s/he were talking about a bunch of people that loved democracy or that were upholders of democracy. we can't have that can we? So s/he doesn't, s/he'll say "Democrat majority."

I suppose this in and of itself isn't such a big deal, but it is a big deal when an entity isn't referred to by its name. "The Democratic Party."

If Bush made a mistake in his address, that's ok. but the thing is, he has done it before. and if he continues doing it, even after hearing that his colleagues in government might prefer to be called by their name, well then, the POTUS is disrespectful and arrogant.

so be it. this is just another example of why his approval rating sucks so bad. I heard it explained to him in an interview on NPR yesterday, but like so many other things, he refuses to take the hint. when asked about it, he denies, and changes the subject.

 

[niftydrifty]

Funny that this is seen as some kind of huge issue that Democrats will complain about and start an uproar, but Kerry botching a "joke" is something we should just get over and let go because it was just a mistake.Right...only piss and moan when it's to your liking.

Everyone reasonable that I know has acknowledged that both instances you're speaking about were stupid things to say. so, I believe you're correct to compare both as such. the difference is that Kerry said something that was true, and Bush, again, has made something up.

yep, you should get over it when someone says something that is true, and you should bemoan the fact that the POTUS can't read and/or has no learning curve, and/or is nothing more than a far-right wing propandist mouthpiece.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I think anyone who belongs to the Democrat party and finds this offensive needs to get a life.

 

[BWG]

so be it. this is just another example of why his approval rating sucks so bad. I heard it explained to him in an interview on NPR yesterday, but like so many other things, he refuses to take the hint. when asked about it, he denies, and changes the subject.

Therein is one of the big problems with the cons. They shun responsibility like the plague. They just don't get it. It's not their fault they lost the elections, their fingers point outward.

They broke everything they touched and now that the voters have said, enough, they go sit in the corner, all huffed up, with their arms crossed and demand that the repairs be instantaneous,and to their approval.

Just imagine what it'll be like in a couple of years when they control nothing. They'll be like the drunken sailor, back from a weekend pass, on Monday morning saying 'what the hell happened'?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Therein is one of the big problems with the cons. They shun responsibility like the plague. They just don't get it. It's not their fault they lost the elections, their fingers point outward.

They broke everything they touched and now that the voters have said, enough, they go sit in the corner, all huffed up, with their arms crossed and demand that the repairs be instantaneous,and to their approval.

Just imagine what it'll be like in a couple of years when they control nothing. They'll be like the drunken sailor, back from a weekend pass, on Monday morning saying 'what the hell happened'?

Interesting opinions, but what about the thread topic?

 

[niftydrifty]

NPR : Full Transcript: NPR Interview with President Bush

MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, in the speech, you spoke about the Democrats. You said, you congratulated the Democrat majority. And I notice your prepared text said Democratic majority. I surely think that you know that for the Democrats, they think when you say Democrat, it's like fingernails on the blackboard. They don't like it. They like you to say Democratic.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Well, that was an oversight then. 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.

MR. WILLIAMS: OK.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And that I did, 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? There is a lot of politics in Washington – in my judgment, needless politics. And it's almost like, if George Bush is for it, we're against it, and I – and if he's against it, we're for it. And the American people don't like that.

And I'm going to tell you some big issues we need to work on. One is entitlements. Your grandchildren are going to grow up with a Social Security system that is broke unless we do something about it. Now, I understand how hard that is. I mean, it's—But the solution can be done. But it requires a lot of political, you know, capital to be spent. And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. 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, Juan.

=====

LOL!

so Juan Williams asks, 'why did you refer to the Democrats with language that far right partisans use?'

Bush answers: It was an oversight. I didn't mean to do it. I was sincere in other parts of the speech. I didn't know I did it while I was doing it. I meant to project something positive by saying something negative. There is a lot of needless politics, but not when I'm doing it, so I have no idea why people are against me. There's a lot of issues, and work to be done. I'm surprised by all the distrust in Washington, despite my sincerity when I needle those that I disagree with. I have no idea how anybody got the idea I was trying to needle the Democrat Party. Maybe it was something I said. It's hard work.

 

[Cremaster77]

actually, it isn't. so, um, you don't have a point. If you believe this, then you've heard it used by anti-Democratic party propagandists. "their label" is "democratic party." in other words, your parroting.

the whole rub, the one being denied by all the Repugs in here, is that when the "Democrat party" perjorative is used, the implication is that the Democrats are not "democratic."

If a Republican't were to say "Democratic majority," it would sound like s/he were talking about a bunch of people that loved democracy or that were upholders of democracy. we can't have that can we? So s/he doesn't, s/he'll say "Democrat majority."

I suppose this in and of itself isn't such a big deal, but it is a big deal when an entity isn't referred to by its name. "The Democratic Party."

This is so ridiculous, I can't tell if you are actually being serious or not. Surely not. In any case, I sincerely hope not.