McCarthyism: Useage of ‘Democrat Party’ Was Popularized by Joe McCarthy

Exhuming McCarthy: Pres. Bush’s deliberate use of the term “Democrat Party” in his State of the Union speech this month has put this too-cleverly couched linguistic smear back in the spotlight.

Misusing the noun Democrat as an adjective is just one of dozens of deceptive verbal tricks the Republicans used to gain power over the past few decades.

Republican politicans use this mangled syntax to express solidarity with their toothless, knuckledragging base. They don’t appear to care that, to independent voters and Democrats listening in, it makes them sound like the flaming assholes they are.

The origin of the Democrat smear is both surprising and not the least shocking. The man who first popularized it was Sen. Joe McCarthy — whose witch hunt against commies in the 1950s was nearly as destructive to the Republican Party then as George Bush’s needless war in Iraq is now:

[The] term became controversial as far back as the 1950s. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) famously used it to deride Democrats during his hearings investigating whether Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government. During the 1956 Republican convention, the usage was so common that it prompted the New York Times to report that dropping the “-ic” had become official party policy.

“‘Democratic’ as an adjective is not descriptive of the party as it exists today,” GOP spokesman L. Richard Guylay explained in that report, referring to allegations of vote-fixing by the Democratic Party’s political machine in large cities. “I can’t consider the party of the Pendergasts or Tammany Hall as a democratic party.”

In 1957, writing about the phenomenon in American Speech, the quarterly journal of the American Dialect Society, scholar Ignace Feuerlicht wrote: “It will be interesting to see whether ‘Democrat Party’ will stay with us or go out of existence again or be revived and revitalized at intervals just before successive national elections.”

Republican presidents ramp up their misuse of “Democcrat” in election years — even St. Ronnie did it:

President Reagan used it more in 1984, the year of his reelection campaign, than at any other time in his presidency. In the case of President Bush, the term shows up in his remarks more in 2004 and 2006 — both election years — than during the rest of his time in office.

In fact, Bush’s usage of the term increased dramatically last year; according to the American Presidency Project, based at UC Santa Barbara, the president was recorded using the term 22 times in 2006 — more than in the previous five years of his presidency combined.

Misusing the noun Democrat as an adjective is just one of dozens of deceptive verbal tricks Republicans used to gain power. In 1994, they finally exorcised the 40-year-old specter of McCarthyism and gained control of Congress. In 2000, they took the White House and, from there, the Supreme Court.

In grabbing power, however, the Republicans revealed their true nature. With the government under their control, rather than create the conservative utopia they had promised voters, they lied, cheated, took bribes, were fiscally and morally irresponsible and abusive of democratic principles as well as sacred Constitutional principles.

Now, with the hollowness of the so-called conservative ideology revealed for all to see, it’s hard to imagine how even the cleverest linguisitc trickery can ever fool the public again.

All we know for certain is that they will try.

UN: Iraq Occupation Has Created 3.7 Mil Refugees

The Iraq war has spawned a refugee crisis that will likely become increasingly dire over the next year. According to the United Nations, 3.7 million Iraqi citizens are currently displaced as a result of the civil war the U.S. invasion has unleashed. They include 1.7 million who are homeless inside Iraq and 2 million who are living in other countries.

The United States will accept fewer than 500 refugees out of the 3.7 million Bush’s war has created.

“The current exodus is the largest long-term population movement in the Middle East since the displacement of Palestinians following the creation of Israel in 1948,” said a U.N. report in early January. The U.N.’s refugee commission is seeking $6o million to apply to the crisis.

Astoundingly, the United States — whose president started the war — will accept fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees this year. (Not a typo: 500.)

By comparison, between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria, 700,000 are in Jordan, 20,000 to 80,000 are in Egypt and up to 40,000 are living in Lebanon.

Obviously, our government is not allowing the people its war displaced to come here because it fears that terrorists would enter the country with them. But one day — thanks to George W. Bush — we’ll pay for this displacement, one way or another.

Jeff Miller Certainly has the Makings of a Fine Lobbyist

Appalling pol: It’s a field crowded with celebrity creeps and stellar liars, brazen braggarts and darlings of deceit, but when former Tennessee state Sen. Jeff Miller, R-Cleveland, enters the lobbying biz next year, he should slip right to the top of the heap on an impressively slick slime trail. Miller certainly has what it takes to boldly go from the legislative branch to the furtive world of lobbying where one is rewarded not so much by what one accomplishes as by what one gets away with.

Let’s look at some of the qualities that will make Miller the kind of rookie lobbyist that Jack Abramoff would be proud to mentor:

The definition of lobbying in the statute says communicating with a state legislative or executive official for the purpose of influencing.

CHUTZPAH WITHOUT IRONY:Miller, who sponsored Tennessee’s successful constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, recently suggested that the state’s largest gay rights advocacy organization should consider hiring him as a lobbyist.

“I suppose he thinks helping pass discriminatory bills would make him an effective advocate for the gay, lesbian and transgender community,” said Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project. He said Tennessee Equality Project members view Mr. Miller with a “mixture of derision and hostility” and noted his proposal “is certainly not one that we’re going to follow up on.”

Voters overwhelmingly approved the constitutional amendment, directed at “solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman,” in November despite the opposition of the Tennessee Equality Project and other groups.

SHOTGUN MARKETING:Apparently last week Miller blanketed Tennessee with letters soliciting lobbying business. In it he noted that his his mandatory one-year waiting period ends in November, and included that he had served 12 years in the General Assembly and had been Senate Republican Caucus chairman.

“I have worked closely with and become dear friends with many holding office and those who keep the wheels turning behind the scenes,” wrote Miller.

GOOD DANCER: Miller has so far managed to remain at large while an ethics investigation prosaically called Operation Tennessee Waltz brought about the arrests of several current and former state lawmakers. Because of that investigation, Miler resigned his caucus post last year during a special session on ethics prompted by the probe.

Miller has acknowledged accepting $1,000 from Chattanooga lobbyist Charles Love during the Tennessee Waltz probe but has said the money was a campaign contribution. Last year, at least two former Miller aides were called before a federal grand jury to provide testimony.

SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY: Miller sponsored the effort to put the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment on the November 2006 ballot. Only three days after lawmakers sent the marriage ban to voters, then-Sen. Miller’s wife filed for divorceon Feb. 25, 2005. No irreconcilable diffs here, though, Miller’s wife charged her husband had engaged in “inappropriate marital conduct” with a legislative employee later identified in account as a Miller aide. The Millers divorced last year.

“The hypocrisy was troubling,” Sanders said of Miller.

KNOWS THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE RULES:In his lobbying solicitation letter, Miller was careful to note that while state ethical guidelines prevent him from lobbying until November, “I am more than happy to offer you any advice you may need regarding the legislative process, potentially applicable rules of law and procedure, steps utilized in making policy decisions, or simply to be a go-to person on a particular issue.”

Tennessee Ethics Commission attorney Ann Turner said that so long as Miller does not communicate with former colleagues or state officials, he can act as a “consultant.”

“The definition of lobbying in the statute says communicating with a state legislative or executive official for the purpose of influencing,” Turner said.

Jeff Miller is going to make a heckuva lobb, er, consultant.

Simon Sez, I’m Sorry — Really

Pop apology: In an entertaining send-up of celebrity apologies, Media Guy Simon Dumenco takes a first step toward healing:

I realize now that I used a phrase in describing Mr. Cowell that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance — even if, say, your shrink just changed your meds, which, by the way, he had.

Editor’s note: In lieu of a Media Guy column this week, we’re publishing the full text of Simon Dumenco’s statement from his press conference where he apologized for his recent unfortunate use of hateful language.

First off, I want to apologize to Simon Cowell, the fans of “American Idol” and not only all big-chested, squared-haired British men everywhere, but all ridiculous British people period, including Rowan Atkinson, Queen Elizabeth, that soccer player with the spiky hair and his Spice Girl wife, the other Spice Girls, Tony Blair, Madonna, J.K. Rowling and Benny Hill, if he’s still alive.

I realize now that I used a phrase in describing Mr. Cowell that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance — even if, say, your shrink just changed your meds, which, by the way, he had. And even if you were being heckled at the time by someone who clearly got off on pushing your buttons, which happened to be the case. And even if you were drunk, which, for the record, I was then, but I’m not now. Also for the record, this water bottle I’ve got right here, it just has water in it. You can taste it if you want to.

Anyway, I realize that in not only saying what I said but repeating it five times — and then also arranging for the production of a limited-edition T-shirt with the phrase that’s available at selected boutiques including Kitson on North Robertson Boulevard in Beverly Hills — I ruined the moods of ridiculous, differently chested, alternatively coiffed British men everywhere. I can neither defend nor explain my outburst or my licensing agreement.

I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine deep, deep within my own soul, and I’ve not only asked for help from the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson but for forgiveness from Donald Trump.
[…]

Will the 2008 Prez Election See More ‘Purple States?’

Electoral speculation: Charlie Cook of the National Journal offers up a trenchant analysis of some of the demographic and population trends that could influence the apparent GOP lock-down on the Electoral College in the next election. Of course, we know that the Electoral College isn’t essential to winning the presidency — all you really need is a crooked state attorney general, a Bubba for a governor and a compliant judiciary.

Top strategists in both parties have identified 11 states as moving away from whichever party long dominated them.

Only three states switched their allegiance between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. When George W. Bush first ran for the White House, he won New Hampshire but lost New Mexico and Iowa. Four years later, he lost New Hampshire but won New Mexico and Iowa.

Even though the margins in those states, plus a dozen others, were razor-thin, the fact that 48 states ended up in the same party’s column in back-to-back presidential elections suggests a certain amount of stability in Electoral College voting patterns. But, if they’re stable, will they remain so in a country whose recent presidential balloting has been so evenly divided?

Three weeks before Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Horace Busby, a longtime adviser to President Johnson who later became a first-rate political analyst and the author of a terrific political newsletter, The Busby Papers, declared that there was a “Republican lock on the Electoral College.” Indeed, the GOP won five of the six presidential elections from 1968 to 1988, losing only in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter as a direct result of the Watergate scandals and the pardon of President Nixon.

Busby’s theory dovetailed nicely with that of another enormously talented political-operative-turned-analyst, Kevin Phillips, who had been a key strategist in Nixon’s successful 1968 presidential campaign.

Phillips noted that not only population had shifted from Democratic strongholds in the Frost Belt of the Northeast and Midwest to the more Republican Sun Belt of the South and Southwest but also political power had shifted toward the Sun Belt in both Congress and in the Electoral College. Today, this is conventional thinking; then, it was new grist for the mill.
[…]

Bush: Saying ‘Democrat Majority’ in SOTU Was Unintentional

As if more proof were needed that George W. Bush is a congenital liar, he’s now claiming that his use of the phrase “Democrat majority” in the State of the Union speech this month was a slip of the tongue:

“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?”

“That was an oversight,” Bush said in an interview Monday with National Public Radio. “I’m not trying to needle … I didn’t even know I did it…

“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?”

That excuse might be marginally believable if he hadn’t been reading from a script that said “Democratic majority.”

Here’s what we know for certain: Anyone who uses “Democrat” as an adjective is an asshole. Here’s proof:

the term became controversial as far back as the 1950s. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) famously used it to deride Democrats during his hearings investigating whether Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government.

It isn’t like we Democrats are disappointed when jerks like the president and others in his party use the term to needle us.It is what we have come to expect.

What is disappointing is that this president feels no compunction about using the State of the Union speech to extend one hand in bipartisanship while ussing the other slap us in the face — and then saying it was a slip up.

Go peddle it somewhere else, GOoper.

Most U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq Come from Rural Areas

IED fodder: Due to local economic conditions, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and other pretty obvious reasons, most of the U.S. volunteer army comes from the hinterlands, not the cities. It’s not an uncommon story — young men and women from small towns getting their asses shot off while rich Republicans get richer off the spoils of war.

This might be considered part of a long-term White House strategy of fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home.

Demographer William O’Hare and journalist Bill Bishop, working with the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute, which specializes in the overlooked rural areas of our country, have actually crunched the numbers in an important study that has gotten too little attention. Matching a data set from the Department of Defense listing the dead and their hometowns against information from the White House Office of Management and Budget on which counties in this country are metropolitan, they found that the American dead of the Iraq and Afghan Wars do indeed come disproportionately from rural America. Quite startlingly so.

According to their study, the death rate “for rural soldiers (24 per million adults aged 18 to 59) is 60 percent higher than the death rate for those soldiers from cities and suburbs (15 deaths per million).” Of rural areas, Vermont has the highest rate of casualties, followed by Delaware, South Dakota, and Arizona. Only eight of our states have higher urban than rural death rates.

Demographer O’Hare, who himself grew up in the small Michigan town of Flushing, tells Tomdispatch:

“We know that soldiers from rural America are dying at higher rates than those from urban America, strikingly higher, 60 percent higher. We know, from other research, that the rural young join the military at higher rates than those from metropolitan areas. The dearth of opportunity in rural areas simply leaves more young people there with fewer alternatives to the military.

“Dozens of case studies show that opportunities are moving away, part of a long-term shift. The opportunity differential between rural and urban America is probably higher now than at any time in the past. Our study highlights the price some young folks and their families are paying for lack of opportunity in rural America.”

What does this mean? Just over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq. If the U.S. population is 300 million, then that’s just 0.001 percent of it. Add into this the fact that the American dead come disproportionately from the most forgotten, least attended to parts of our country, from places that often have lost their job bases; consider that many of them were under or unemployed as well as undereducated, that they generally come from struggling, low-income, low-skills areas. Given that we have an all-volunteer military (so that not even the threat of a draft touches other young Americans), you could certainly say that the President’s war in Iraq — and its harm — has been disproportionately felt. If you live in a rural area, you are simply far more likely to know a casualty of the war than in most major metropolitan areas of the country.

No wonder it’s been easy for so many Americans to ignore such a catastrophic war until relatively recently. This might, in a sense, be considered part of a long-term White House strategy, finally faltering, of essentially fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home. When, for instance, soon after the 9/11 attacks the President urged Americans to go to Disney World or, in December 2006, to go “shopping more” to help the economy, he meant it. We were to go on with our normal lives, untouched by his war.