General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCanadian born Ted Cruz responds to Donald Trump's birther attack with a detailed response (VIDEO)
Ted Cruz is now taking the Donald Trump birther attack seriously. He responded with a detailed defense.
randys1
(16,286 posts)have seemed like , at first.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I've been saying that for years, and people tend to dismiss him, which is a huge mistake.
There are many, many smart Conservatives in this world. Ted Cruz is among the best lawyers I've ever seen and a very sharp debater. He'd poise a challenge to anyone, especially Hillary, who candidly has been sheltered by the Democrat party machine from a real frontal assault. (Bernie would hold his own.)
The liberal tendency to dismiss Conservatives as ill-informed or stupid is an arrogant mistake that will bite us in the ass.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But Bernie could get that kind of turnout as well, for different reasons.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Only right wing idiots use that Frank Luntz inspired terminology.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I'm 91. We've been "democrats" until 10 years ago and some focus group said to say it differently. Go look at John Kennedys campaign posters.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)An alternative view is that its called the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun Democratic Party as One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828. (It defines Democrat n as A Democratic Party member and Democratic adj as Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party, but gives no definition forindeed, makes no mention ofDemocrat Party n or Democrat adj.) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points. The broader literate public also comes down on the Democratic side, as indicated by frequency of usage. A Google search for Democratic Party yields around forty million hits. Democrat Party fetches fewer than two million.
Theres no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. Democrat Party is a slur, or intended to bea handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but Democrat Party is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams rat. At a slightly higher level of sophistication, its an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like German Democratic Republic, and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, à la terming Israel the Zionist entity. And no doubt there are plenty of others who say Democrat Party just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their ownthe partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.
The history of Democrat Party is hard to pin down with any precision, though etymologists have traced its use to as far back as the Harding Administration. According to William Safire, it got a boost in 1940 from Harold Stassen, the Republican Convention keynoter that year, who used it to signify disapproval of such less than fully democratic Democratic machine bosses as Frank Hague of Jersey City and Tom Pendergast of Kansas City. Senator Joseph McCarthy made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults, which served to dampen its popularity for a while. There was another spike in 1976, when grumpy, growly Bob Dole denounced Democrat wars (those were the days!) in his Vice-Presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Growth has been steady for the last couple of decades, and today we find ourselves in a golden age of anti-ic-ism.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/07/the-ic-factor
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Good enough for Harry. Good enough for me.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I worked for President Kennedy. Were you alive then?
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)It is the use of "Democrat Party" that the Republicans emphasized because it sounded sinister as compared to "Democratic Party."
Did you even read the article I linked to?
Here is another--
If you go even further back, apparently you can find Democrats using the term to describe themselves, but that was over 100 years ago, and the Republicans quickly picked it up as a taunt:
In the 1860-1910 period the term was sometimes used by local Democratic parties.[1] In the 1920s the Republicans started using the term, possible to heckle Democrats. Herbert Hoover used the phrase in a campaign speech in 1932: "Many years ago the Democrat party undertook to remedy that whole question of booms and slumps by the creation of the Federal Reserve System." (New York Times, Nov. 5, 1932).
Apparently, though, claim the Gingrich used it based of focus group results is a myth...
Newt Gingrich revived the term "Democrat party" in the early 1990s. Some critics mistakenly believe it is a recent gimmick based on focus groups.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/3/233098/-
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)You are correct, of course, as to the name of our party.
But, no, I don't think the article is correct from personal experience. I think it is a writer with a deadline who made stuff up.
I've literally been involved for over 60 years in Democratic Party (see!) politics. ~50 of those years were actively working with campaigns, including three guys named "Kennedy."
"Democrat" and "Democratic" were used interchangeably the entire time, with some areas of the country favoring one over the other. In fact, some local parties ARE the "Democrat Party of ANYTOWN, USA"
While, I wouldn't put anything past Newt (because he is an asshole and a vile person), the entire meme that it is some kind of slur is new.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I was a mere lad during the JFK days.
lame54
(35,321 posts)the only reason he stills has a career is his followers are more moranic than he is
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and I have yet to see evidence of this sharp mind. He spouts talking points and red meat and that's all. He couldn't persuade me to believe it was day time. I don't dismiss all of them, just the ones who haven't proved they have a triple digit IQ.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)When he was the Attorney General (I think -- lawyer, anyway) for the State of Texas.
He pretty much ate the US Attorney up and left her on the ground -- in a creepily friendly and very factual manner.
Sorry you watched the Repug debates. I can't do that for more than 20-30 minutes.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)in the discussion. And make popcorn so I'm not tempted to throw something that will break the tv. I've heard he was brilliant - he's keeping that well hidden during the debates where I really expected him to shine (considering who was on the stage with him). I know the right has a problem with educated "elites" so I'm not really surprised he's obviously dumbing it way down for his supporters.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You gotta love watching these idiots destroy themselves
Human101948
(3,457 posts)why did no one ask him about that?
madokie
(51,076 posts)he didn't say anything about the shit he's said about our good man the President. Oh that's right he's black so in their minds he's only 2/3rds of a man so they don't have to play under the same rules when it comes to him. Silly of me. I'll try not to get so carried away again, sorry