I assume you guys think that the recent increase in the use of the term “democrat party” is explainable as a sudden attack of republican absent mindedness. On the contrary, as Dan pointed out three days ago, the decision to start using that term was a deliberate decision on which money was spent. Read George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language and you’ll see how subtle word choices can have major influences on how people think. The term “democratic” represents ideals in which all americans supposedly believe. “Democrat” is a term which, at least in the minds of some, is linked with anal sex, flag burning, baby killing, and lots of other bad things. I assure you these sorts of subtleties are not lost on the Rovians.

As a Republican, I’m very relieved at the Black and Craddock losses. I’m not in either of their districts, but they present too big a target for you folks. We’ll do a lot better without them.

You gotta be kidding me…

I do like Daily Kos,but I don’t like that aspect of it. On the one hand, I know that the site is written for and read by the faithful, so there’s less danger of offending anybody. On the other hand, it establishes a norm of disrespect that I’m not a big fan of. As I’ve said, though, I go back and forth. If I believe that President Bush deliberately started a war based on lies, killing thousands of civilians and Americans, then why waste time being polite?

Foul language isn’t a problem for me, so long as it enhances what’s being said. I find that constant use if it only serves to diminish the impact of those words, though. Which is unfortunate, because then when you really do want to make clear that you’re really serious or excited about something, you’ve used up all of the words that we use to indicate that.

The difference is that in the case of the Republican party, they deliberately use the incorrect terminology pretty much 100% of the time in statements at the most senior level. You hear it from Ken Mehlman, Bill Frist and all the rest of them. I expect that kind of rudeness from the plebes on either side. But not from leadership.

Similarly, for groups, if my fellow citizens of African descent, ask to be referred to as “African Americans”, why shouldn’t I comply with that reasonable desire? If they don’t want to be called “Negroes”, why would I insult them by using that reference?

There are so many legitimate areas of disagreement as to how we ought to be governed, these insults of appellation are juvenile and reflect bad manners on the part of the speaker. Dick Black learned what his constituents thought about loutish behavior.

Now it may not be correct, but I don’t see how the faux pax is somehow demeaning…

It’s demeaning because it’s a deliberate mispronounciation of the party’s name. Your pedestrian example of “Republican Party. Democrat Party.” demands I either start calling people from France “Franciards” or people from Spain “Spench”.

Or, maybe, just because certain syntax works for one group, it doesn’t necessarily mean it works for the other.