Patterico's Pontifications

“Democrat party” is more pejorative than “Democratic party.” Perhaps that’s OK. But dropping the “c” from Democrat is going a bit too far. Only a Republirat would do that.

dchamil (c86538) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:16 am

They are hardly democratic (more socialist/elitist), so why call them the Democratic Party? Democrat Party works for me.

Lornkanaga (f2e82f) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:33 am

Frank Luntz was sent out to test the use of the word years ago.
It came back that that the only people it registered with at all, in this case negatively of course, were activist democrats.

So it’s done as official policy just to piss off the opposition. A worthy enough story I guess

AF (119685) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:45 am

You’d think that people that embracing being Democrats would not mind being in the Democrat party.

Lord Nazh (3465cc) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:47 am

Now we have a “democratic majority”, whereas before we had a “non-democratic majority”.

They debase the language by using an adjective in place of a noun and they insist everyone else must debase the language too.

J Curtis (d21251) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:58 am

They’re all too busy taking offense at everything to actually think about things like… Can there be a democratic party without democrats? What does it really mean to be a democrat in a republic? Is the democrat of today anything resembling the democrat of yesterday? Do democrats have any plans to improve the country, or do they just have plans to take offense every chance they get?

Reading newspapers has become a form of substance abuse.

Dan S (205dac) — 1/30/2007 @ 8:01 am

Supposedly a couple of years ago some national Democrats briefly floated the idea of referring to individual members of the Democratic Party as … “Democratics”! The reasoning apparently was: if the Republican Party is composed of Republicans, then the Democratic Party should be composed of Democratics. I suspect offense at the term “Democrat Party” might have had something to do with this, though that’s a guess on my part – needless to say it never caught on, probably because calling a person a “Democratic” sounds strange to most ears.

John Barrett Jr. (ea8aed) — 1/30/2007 @ 8:10 am

With all the crazy things Bush has said over the years, the LA Times is dumb enough to think that this was *deliberate*?

What is an “arbolist”, anyway?

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/30/2007 @ 8:31 am

man, you stole my fun… Yeah, them silly democratics.

G (722480) — 1/30/2007 @ 8:37 am

Bush was asked about it a couple of times this past week, and said it was inadvertant, a Texasism like “nucular.” Still, it was a fascinating piece, tracking the origination of the term back to the McCarthy Era and with the John Birch Society. When I was working for a Democratic Assemblyman years ago, whenever we did pushpolling during a campaign of Republicans, we would always refer to our candidate as the “Democrat” nominee to ingratiate ourselves with the other side, before slipping in the shiv to the opponent.

Steve Smith (8fadae) — 1/30/2007 @ 8:44 am

Talk about beating a dead horse!

It’s not as if the SOTU was nearly as important as Jamail Hussein, the Iraqi policeman that wingnut bloggers everywhere stated emphatically didn’t exist, but actually did!

The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 1/30/2007 @ 9:04 am

“Asking if he exists” = “Stating emphatically that he doesn’t exist”

Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/30/2007 @ 9:27 am

This is all so confusing. For example, I can never decide whether it is more correct to say “Traitor Party” or “Traitorous Party”?

Then there’s the word “Nancy-boys”, as in “Preening Nancy-boys”: is it properly hyphenated, or not?

Sherlock (bbf2af) — 1/30/2007 @ 9:48 am

Since the Democrats hate democracy, perhaps they should be prosecuted and/or sued for false advertising.

Bleepless (a24652) — 1/30/2007 @ 10:15 am

“It’s not as if the SOTU was nearly as important as Jamail Hussein,…

The SOTU is a constitutional function, whereas the existence of Jamail Hussein is at best an assertion of the left leaning media.

So yes, dumbass, the SOTU is more important.

If you are going to go by the tagline liberal avenger then please at least try to appear intelligent.

Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 1/30/2007 @ 10:54 am

“I suspect offense at the term “Democrat Party” might have had something to do with this though that’s a guess on my part – needless to say it never caught on, probably because calling a person a “Democratic” sounds strange to most ears.”

Actually, I always use this language, and when I do, it’s to intentionally stress that there’s nothing democratic about democrats.

Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 1/30/2007 @ 11:00 am

President Bush took the proper course of action on this issue. The Democrats and the MSM have made a concerted effort over the past several years to inject the term Democratic to refer to the Democrats. They ARE NOT the Democratic Party; they are the Democrat Party. When you refer to Republicans, you don’t say they are from the Republicanism Party. Likewise, when referring to individuals in the opposition, you don’t call them Democratics as you would if they were from the Democratic Party; you call them Democrats- from the Democrat party.

Jeff (4d1921) — 1/30/2007 @ 11:24 am

It’s not as if the SOTU was nearly as important as Jamail Hussein, the Iraqi policeman that wingnut bloggers everywhere stated emphatically didn’t exist, but actually did!

Shorter Liberal Avenger: I might actually win this argument this time!

OHNOES (d573a4) — 1/30/2007 @ 11:42 am

Not that this will change anything since the people here talk and don’t listen but I’ll try again

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.

Thanks for being assholes.

AF (119685) — 1/30/2007 @ 11:48 am

The Washington Post also had an article about the subject, and the issue came up in yesterday’s press briefing, so it wasn’t as if the LA Times was picking nits here. It’s simply a matter of respect and civility towards another, like calling Muhammed Ali, “Muhammed Ali” rather than “Cassius Clay,” or Kirk Douglas, “Issur Danielovich.” It’s just plain classy to call someone by the name they choose to be called.

Steve Smith (1f162a) — 1/30/2007 @ 12:13 pm

Sorry, counselor. I forgot to stop the hyperlink on that last post.

Steve Smith (1f162a) — 1/30/2007 @ 12:14 pm

It’s just plain classy to call someone by the name they choose to be called.

(In Ron Burgundy voice) Stay classy, Republicrats.

I agree that it isn’t classy, but given that Newt knew (and presumably Rove knows) that it only irritated the activist Democrat(ic) base… Wouldn’t this mean that they also polled to determine that a mad Democratic base is good for Republicans? That is brilliant. Given last weekend’s antics, I could see the logic.

carlitos (b38ae1) — 1/30/2007 @ 12:29 pm

I live in West Texas, where GWB comes from. That’s what we call them here.

DRJ (e69ca7) — 1/30/2007 @ 1:22 pm

“I live in West Texas, where GWB comes from.”

George Bush is from Connecticut.

AF (119685) — 1/30/2007 @ 1:37 pm

Say, Patterico, how long have you been using Tim Blair’s headline writing style?

Not that I’m complaining.

Pigilito (737acd) — 1/30/2007 @ 1:40 pm

George Bush is from Connecticut.

Comment by AF

If you were raised from age 2 to adolescence in Texas, would you be “from Texas” or from your birthplace?

carlitos (b38ae1) — 1/30/2007 @ 1:49 pm

It’s just plain classy to call someone by the name they choose to be called.

If the Republicans changed their party name to the “Nonhates” and insisted the party be referred to as the Nonhateful Party, the Democrats would refuse because it implies that they are hateful.

J Curtis (d21251) — 1/30/2007 @ 1:52 pm

So Senator Byrd is in the DemocratiKKK Party?

kaf (63408d) — 1/30/2007 @ 2:31 pm

It’s an episode that hardly rises to the level of a kerfuffle, but if it annoys our Democrat friends, it’s worth it! 🙂

Dana (9f37aa) — 1/30/2007 @ 3:40 pm

Mr Smith suggested:

It’s just plain classy to call someone by the name they choose to be called.

John Kerry wanted us to call him “Mr President,” but I am too déclassé to do so.

Dana (9f37aa) — 1/30/2007 @ 3:44 pm

Save this for the next time some fan of the paper tells you that we need newspapers — for the substance.

It’s true. The substance that comes out of my bird’s cage would be a horrendous mess without newspapers.

w3 (853e72) — 1/30/2007 @ 3:49 pm

AF,

George W. Bush and his family lived in California when he was 3 years old, which is probably about the time he started talking. Maybe his manner of speech comes from California.

DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/30/2007 @ 3:58 pm

This April Fool’s day, I suggest we all go on to liberal sites and throw a fit every time a blogger describes us as “Republicans” rather than “Republicanics.”

Xrlq (3c6050) — 1/30/2007 @ 4:53 pm

Say, Patterico, how long have you been using Tim Blair’s headline writing style?

You know, it’s funny. I couldn’t think of a good headline this morning in my usual style, so I wrote that one, realizing as I wrote it that I was stealing Tim’s schtick. I didn’t think anyone would notice.

Patterico (a8fa4a) — 1/30/2007 @ 5:52 pm

[I’m going to go ahead and publish this comment. But honestly, AF, get your language under control. “You boys are such [expletive deleted]ing dimwits,” or your little quote with the phrase “you and your fellow right wing [same expletive deleted]tards” — this is not impressing anyone. I know how to find the f, the u, the c, and yes, the k on my keyboard. And I won’t pretend to be an angel or that I never say or type that word. But I’m not going to let it be a commonly used word around here, especially when used with so little imagination. — P]

Malkin disgusts me

Today she’s bitching about Lara Logan using video that may or may not have come from insurgent sources to illustrate her amazing story about a battle on Haifa street. The truth is, neither Malkin nor the blogger she links to can prove the video came from the insurgent sources, that the insurgents (or al Qaeda) released it first or that the insurgents didn’t receive it from the same source from which Logan got the video

I worked with Lara Logan personally in Afghanistan and, to a person, every military member she came into contact with said the stories she aired about her time with them was dead-on honest–not to mention that, unlike Malkin who spent four days “embedded” with a unit showing her the fluffiest of fluff stories, Logan was nearly killed running the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with SpecOps types. Logan is the real deal. She’s ten times smarter and ballsier than Malkin could ever hope to be and she doesn’t have a political axe to grind. She doesn’t deserve to be picked at by the likes of Fox News’s Senior Racist Correspondent.

Malkin even suggests that the “masked ‘Haifa Street resident'” in Logan’s story is untrustworthy when he says that the Iraq War has brought “death and destruction” to Baghdad, though that is an inarguable fact.

As long as Malkin wants to question Iraqi video sources, she should ask herself this simple question: Where did the video of Saddam’s hanging come from? Malkin proudly linked to the “uncut version” on her website (and included a graphic) and, in the same post, suggested the “American Left is, yes, unhinged.” Who captured that video, Michelle? What was his purpose in doing so? To foment more violence in Iraq? To gloat about the new Shiite power structure being built under Moqtada al Sadr, for whom many at the trial chanted? You have repeatedly poo-pooed the bloodshed in Iraq as “sectarian violence” and you display video that seems designed to make it worse. You wrote, upon returning from your four-day stay in the country:
Modern war in the Middle East is no longer as cut-and-dried as shooting all the bad guys and going home. We are fighting a “war of the fleas” — not just Sunni terrorists and Shiite death squads, but multiple home-grown and foreign operators, street gangs, organized crime and freelance jihadis conducting ambushes, extrajudicial killings, sectarian attacks, vehicle bombings and sabotage against American, coalition and Iraqi forces. Cell phones, satellites and the Internet have allowed the fleas to magnify their importance, disseminate insurgent propaganda instantly and weaken political will.
But, because it fit the fairytale version of an Iraq that is gettinbetterallthetimebygod, you and your fellow right wing [expletive deleted by Patterico]tards decided to disseminate footage made with God knows what intent.

Logan is telling the story you didn’t seem to notice during your trip to the country and she’s been putting her ass on the line for the past four-plus years to do it. It’s time you learned that all of us have our “betters”–as they used to say back in the small Kansas town I came from. Logan is definitely yours.

And George [expletive deleted by Patterico]ing Bush is from West [same expletive deleted by Patterico]ing Texas.
You boys are such [still the same expletive, again deleted by Patterico]ing dimwits.

AF (119685) — 1/30/2007 @ 7:40 pm

AF,

Your language makes you a perfect fit to work in our West Texas oilfields. Get yourself a pickup truck and some good boots and come on down.

DRJ (e69ca7) — 1/30/2007 @ 9:27 pm

I was told years ago that the official filing from the DNC with the federal government (perhaps the 501 C3 application) lists the entity as the “Democrat National Party.”

Perhaps you can check this out? If true, it is rich for that organization to object to being known by its incorporated name.

Ed (bc2d77) — 1/30/2007 @ 11:07 pm

This is why I have described the Kos Kids as a group which knows only one adjective; now you know (as if you hadn’t already guessed) to which adjective I referred.

Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2007 @ 3:50 am

AF apparently got his sole rhetorical training from Tony Soprano.

Learn how to use your own language, man.

Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 1/31/2007 @ 3:51 am

Our esteemed host wrote:

But I’m not going to let it be a commonly used word around here, especially when used with so little imagination.

There are cases when only the f-word will do, such as hitting your head on a steel line on the underside of a cement tanker. (Trust me on this one.) But in purportedly reasonable debate, such instances would be few and far between.

The f-word was once used for shock value, a real point of emphasis. When it is used in every other sentence, it sort of defeats the purpose.

Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2007 @ 4:37 am

And George [expletive deleted by Patterico]ing Bush is from West [same expletive deleted by Patterico]ing Texas.

You boys are such [still the same expletive, again deleted by Patterico]ing dimwits.

Ah. So, George Bush is from Connecticut. By this logic, Ann Margaret is from Sweden (where she was born), not the suburbs of Chicago (where she grew up). Whatever.

Why is it so important to your narrative that the family of our president be not just uber-rich and super-connected, but that they didn’t even live in Texas, where they, uh, lived. Why? It’s not good enough that Bush was filthy rich, well-connected, went to eastern schools, but you have to actually dispute the location of his upbringing? Why?

carlitos (2d2b08) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:08 am

This is the only blog I spend any time on where if someone presents evidence of the sort that should be enough to end the argument, the shouting just rolls over it.
If I said the world is round, someone would respond that
opinions are like assoles, “everybody has one.”
It gets frustrating, but i should just ignore it you’re right.
opinions are fun. data are boring.
And loving the country is more important than protecting it.

AF (ec5f86) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:14 am

AF wrote:

This is the only blog I spend any time on where if someone presents evidence of the sort that should be enough to end the argument, the shouting just rolls over it.

Obviously you have this place confused with somewhere else. Patterico is one of the least shouting down sites I’ve seen. Maybe you ought to visit Pandagon if you want to shouting down.

Dana (3e4784) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:21 am

Assoles?

carlitos (2d2b08) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:22 am

I keep thinking princess and the pea

I was a Democrat for 30 years (1972 to 2002). Not only has the party left me, it changed its name

The feelings of hurt come from people who call him Bushitler at the drop of a hat.

Childish. The media accomodating this rape-of-the-lock offense is disgusting

Don Surber (1e4911) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:25 am

“When you refer to Republicans, you don’t say they are from the Republicanism Party.”

-Jeff

“This April Fool’s day, I suggest we all go on to liberal sites and throw a fit every time a blogger describes us as “Republicans” rather than “Republicanics.””

-Xrlq

“Democratic” is an adjective modifying the noun “party”; “Republican” is an adjective modifying the word “party”. Gramatically, both are perfectly solid, and any attempt to change either one makes you sound like a hack.

Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/31/2007 @ 8:22 am

Check out the links.

“Republican” acts as both adjective (when describing the collective party) and noun (when describing a member of said party). “Democratic” functions solely as an adjective. To describe a member of that party, you must use the noun “Democrat”.

Frank Luntz is just desperate for attention. His parents didn’t hug him enough.

Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/31/2007 @ 8:26 am

Levi,

You should send your links to Sen. Harry Reid. He apparently thinks Democratic is a noun since he uses Democratic.gov to identify the Democrats’ Congressional website. (Follow the link and scroll halfway down the page to the yellow highlighting.)

Alternatively, perhaps we could agree it’s easy to confuse the words “Democrat” and “Democratic” in everyday speech.

DRJ (e69ca7) — 1/31/2007 @ 10:42 am

We most definitely could agree to that.

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 1/31/2007 @ 11:20 am

Leviticus, you wrote:

“Frank Luntz is just desperate for attention. His parents didn’t hug him enough.”
_____________________

Leviticus, I’m just trying to understand your jab at Luntz—are you saying that because he spent too much time diagramming a sentence, he’s ‘desperate for attention’ ?

Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 1/31/2007 @ 12:44 pm

“Leviticus, I’m just trying to understand your jab at Luntz—are you saying that because he spent too much time diagramming a sentence, he’s ‘desperate for attention’ ?”

-Desert Rat

I’m not sure I understand your comment.

Frank Luntz is saying the that the Democratic Party should be called the “Democrat Party”. Gramatically, that’s wrong: “Democrat” is a noun, not an adjective.

He either understands this and is just being a hack (which is probable) or doesn’t and should’ve spent a little MORE time diagramming as a kid, so as not to sound like an idiot on the national stage.

So, like I said, I’m not exactly sure where you’re coming from on this one.

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/31/2007 @ 12:58 pm

I have nothing personal against Luntz, by the way.

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/31/2007 @ 12:58 pm

This is the only blog I spend any time on where if someone presents evidence of the sort that should be enough to end the argument, the shouting just rolls over it.

Please learn how to use the words “should” and “shouting” properly.

Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/31/2007 @ 2:04 pm

Leviticus, if you’ve never heard of noun-noun compounds, then I submit that you need to spend a bit more time diagramming stuff. Either that, or go explain to representatives of the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party and the Peace and Freedom Party why they really ought to be calling themselves the Reformative Party, the Naturally Lawful Party and the Peaceful and Free Party, respectively.

Even if there were some kooky law in the Book of Leviticus requiring all parties to be named after adjectives rather than nouns – and there isn’t – this would make Luntz guilty of a minor grammatical infraction, at worst. The bigger idiot by far is the Democrat who gets his panties in a wad over being called a Democrat rather than Democrat-ick, as if the latter sounded any better.

Xrlq (3c6050) — 1/31/2007 @ 2:04 pm

I’ve heard of noun-noun compounds, Xrlq, and you’ve missed the point.

The word “Republican” has the versatility of acting as both an adjective and a noun. The word “Democratic” does not. “Democrat” is merely the proper way to identify an individual of the Democratic Party.

“The bigger idiot by far is the Democrat who gets his panties in a wad over being called a Democrat rather than Democrat-ick, as if the latter sounded any better.”

-Xrlq

No Democrat is insisting on being called a “Democratic”. As a whole, Democrats are insisting on having the same luxury as Republicans, that of identifying their party with an adjective-noun combination.

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/31/2007 @ 2:48 pm

Leviticus,

My apologies, I didn’t recognize you were just being snarky with your remark about Dr. Luntz “needing attention,” and not receiving enough hugs from his parents.

I admit you’re a better grammarian and semanticist than I am, but Xrlq does bring up some excellent points about “Reform Party” vs. “Reformist Party,” etc.

So, Leviticus, when referring to the first baseman of the Los Angeles Dodgers, do you believe the LA Times ought to avoid characterizing him as “the Dodger first baseman,” due to the use of the noun “Dodger” being used as an adjective ?

Thanks, bro.

Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 1/31/2007 @ 2:57 pm

Leviticus, you’ve got to be kidding me. Who in their right mind loses any sleep over the possibility that their party is identified by a noun rather than a adjective? The only reason Democrat-icks seem to care is that calling the party the “Democratic Party” falsely implies that there is something democratic about the party, as opposed to it merely being the party composed of Democrats. Either that, or just a lame need to be outraged over something.

Xrlq (3c6050) — 1/31/2007 @ 3:44 pm

“There’s a certain conservative columnist named James X. who shall remain unnamed. At some point a few years back I had cause to exchange an email with him. And I called him ‘Jim’. I don’t think I gave it a second thought. I’m Josh or Joshua — doesn’t matter to me. But a short time later I got a half questioning, half barely repressed anger email from the guy asking whether I was intentionally disrespecting him by addressing him as ‘Jim’, the dimunitive form of the name. Now, as I say, it was accidental. I apologized and explained that it was totally unintentional. And if he preferred to be called James I would certainly do so. As it happens, in the intervening years, my lack of respect for him has grown apace. But I’d still always call him James and not Jim. And this is the point. You address people the way they choose to be addressed. You address them by what they consider to be their name. In the ordinary course of life, when people do otherwise, we rightly recognize that they’re trying to pick a fight or demean the person in question.”

There, does that help?
oy.

AF (ec5f86) — 1/31/2007 @ 4:05 pm

More than you ever wanted to know about names: Names have meanings instead of definitions.

DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/31/2007 @ 4:25 pm

My thanks to AF, who has pointed out the apparently formalized bitch-slap theory of politics. Now I can see why our friends in the Democrat Party are so worked up about the whole thing — and the value obtained by continuing to irritate them withthis. 🙂

Would my references to Senatrix Clinton fall into the same category?

Dana (556f76) — 1/31/2007 @ 4:41 pm

I have some ideas about what “AF” stands for, but listing them would violate Josh Marshall’s guidelines.

Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/31/2007 @ 5:37 pm

This is such a dumb argument. Who cares what they call themselves?

Why don’t we start debating the success of the Beatles vs. the Monkees, based on the subtle psychological meanings attached to their names?

The Beatles’ music was good. The Monkees’ music sucked.

Did you hear the Monkees trying to force the Beatles to change their name?

Leviticus (ac4602) — 1/31/2007 @ 5:41 pm

Josh Marshall and I don’t get along. I’ve called him an asshole more than once. And the person I quoted and linked to who wrote “Malkin Disgusts me” “…was formerly a Staff Sgt. and media affairs officer for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan.” Just found that out, thanks to your friend and mine G. Greenwald.

[Did he say “fucktard” a lot as a media affairs officer in the Army? — P]

Next up….
Gimme some data. Gimme some facts. c’mon!

AF (ec5f86) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:10 pm

Leviticus,

You made a pretty big deal about being the grammar police, so people are just having fun with you.

But despite the contention over “noun-adjectives,” I’m pretty certain the LA Times will continue to write “Dodger first baseman” when referring to Nomar—though, if you want, I can inform T.J. Simers that you disapprove.

By the way, I think the Monkees had some pretty good songs. I know that Neil Diamond and Tommy Boyce were among the songwriters who wrote for them.

Desert Rat (a90377) — 1/31/2007 @ 6:32 pm

“Did he say “fucktard” a lot as a media affairs officer in the Army?”
I wouldn’t know Pat, I’m not very interested in military types. But you and your fans seem to be, so I thought i’d toss that in.
Here’s another report of wasted millions… [billions?] in Iraq.

“loving the country is more important than protecting it.”
I’m gonna start using that one like a mantra.
words you live by.

AF (ec5f86) — 1/31/2007 @ 7:29 pm

You’re right, Desert Rat. I did make a big deal out of the whole grammar deal. Sorry…sorta.

It’s totally stupid of the LA Times to print an entire article on Bush’s (unintentional) non-usage of a suffix. It’s also totally stupid for people like Xrlq to say that since there is “nothing” democratic about the Democratic Party (which is bullshit), they should be called the…Democrat Party?

“Democratic” means “advocating or upholding democracy”. “Democrat” means “an advocate of democracy”. Saying that one has a truly different meaning from the other is disingenuous (i.e. saying that “Democratic Party” should be changed to “Democrat Party” is disingenuous).

Now, if Xrlq were to suggest that “Democratic Party” be changed to “Cut-and-Run, Whiny Weiner Party”…well, I might disagree with him, but at least I could take his position seriously.

As it stands, all this talk of changing the name of the Democratic Party by one syllable reeks of political cynicism.

Leviticus (0d2ef9) — 1/31/2007 @ 8:08 pm

““loving the country is more important than protecting it.”
I’m gonna start using that one like a mantra.”

-AF

Please don’t start posting some smarmy catchphrase at the end of every post like those chumps at Kos…

Leviticus (0d2ef9) — 1/31/2007 @ 8:11 pm

Oh, and about the LA Times sports page:

(/snotty voice) I would contend that the paper SHOULD refer to the player in question not as “the Dodger first baseman” but as “the Dodgers’ first baseman”; in this case, “Dodgers'” acts as an adjective modifying the word baseman, and makes for a more fluid read.

(I’m gonna leave that tag open, since I’m pretty sure most of you guys picture me with that voice, anyway)

Leviticus (0d2ef9) — 1/31/2007 @ 8:19 pm

1/30/2007

Important Story Reported

68 Responses to “Important Story Reported”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out