Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - How much bi-partisan spirit can we expect from a POTUS who renames the rival party?

host · 11-09-2006, 06:11 PM

A search for "democrat national convention" yields 11,600 results:
(The sites where the term can be found, speak for themselves)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

For the "rest of the world":

A search for "democratic national convention" yields 1,070,000 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

a search of the vanderbilt.edu tv news archive...including all US network evening news broadcasts, dating back to 1968, yields for the search term, "democrat party", just 7 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...du&btnG=Search

a search of the vanderbilt.edu tv news archive...including all US network evening news broadcasts, dating back to 1968, yields for the search term, "democratic party", 12,400 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...du&btnG=Search

My point is....the point of this thread...is that I expect my POTUS to not speak like a partisan who is "on the fringe"....like someone who has conscioulsy disciplined himself to describe "all things" having to do with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...as DEMOCRAT...leader...votes....party....and national convention. All of the "inputs" that the"rest of us" received, as we grew up in America. conditioned US to refer to "that party", as the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...indeed...it is unnatural for me (an I'll venture...at one time...for Mr. Bush....to refer to it as "DEMOCRAT PARTY"...yet he did it...and does it...nearly always. If it's important enough to him...to make the effort to train himself to do that...I believe that it is important enough for me to notice it, comment on it...object to it...take exception to it. It isn't mainstream...and as Walter Cronkite would tell you....it isn't fucking "natural" to refer to the DEMOCRATic party that way. As long as Bush does that....especially in a concilliatory speach, he offer nothing to me, in the way of sincerity !

...host!!!!... get off of it....you say??? Consider that I'm just a guy taking time on a politics thread to do some searching, start a thread, and post about my observations. Mr. Bush trained himself to talk in a "special way"... who is petty...who is obsessive...who is not to be taken, at his word?...Me, "justaguyonaninternetforum"....or the rabidly partisan New England patrician POTUS, fronting as a "born again", southern, "regular guy" conservative extermist? You thought that Mr. Bush was speaking to YOU in his post election address and press conference? Think again !

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DC484D81
On Language; Banned Words
October 28, 1984, Sunday
By WILLIAM SAFIRE (NYT); Magazine Desk
Late City Final Edition, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3, 1390 words

....Coin Collecting

Why, Republicans asked for years, should we allow the Democrats to get away with the adjective ''democratic''? As a result, partisan Republicans, especially those who had been head of the Republican National Committee, called the opposition ''the Democrat party.''

Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

''In the Willkie campaign of 1940,'' responded Harold Stassen, ''I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . .''

Mr. Stassen, who is only four years older than President Reagan, is remembered as a moderate Republican; his idea is still used by the most partisan members of the G.O.P. Democrats once threatened to retaliate by referring to their opponents as Publicans, but that was jettisoned. Despite the urge to clip, Democratic and Republican the parties remain.......

Quote:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/la...e_democrat.php

.....One of the least substantial but most annoying things about the Republicans' repetition machine is how well they succeeded with their schoolboy prank of changing the adjective "Democratic" to "Democrat." They've been so successful that many nonpartisan radio and TV journalists and even some party activists now say "Democrat party" or "Democrat primary"—and some young people probably can't remember a time when our party got to choose its own name. (Granted, by the time we all forget the former adjective, the prank will have lost its effect—just as the warm and fuzzy effects of renaming the "Department of War" the "Department of Defense" stopped decades ago. But it's still a nasty and bullying tactic, akin to Bush's mandatory nicknames, and I'm astonished that the Dems let it happen without a fight.)

RAYpublican, a presumed attempt at retaliation, seems a clear mistake because it's truly at schoolyard level, too crude to work. ("Democrat party" cleverly tracked the English language's tendency to make nouns into adjectives in ways that confound everyone but Germans, as in "rubber baby buggy bumpers.") One can imagine better alternatives ("the GOP party," pronounced "gopp," with its Cole Porter roots, comes to mind) <h3>but the sad fact is that Democrats aren't either disciplined enough or consistently petty enough to make anything like this stick......</h3>

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9405B838EF1D3
GOV. SMITH PROPOSES RADICAL NEW LAWS TO BRING HOME RULE; He Pleads for City Control of Public Utili... [PDF]

ALBANY, Jan. 3. --
January 4, 1923 - Special to The New York Times. - Front Page

......The people of this State have chosen the Republican Party as the majority party in this House, and the representative of the opposite party, the Democrat Party, for the place of Chief Executive of the State -H. Edmund Machold, the Republican Assembly Speaker of NY State

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9415B828FF1D3
Text of the Speech by President Hoover in the Coliseum at St. Louis Last Night; HOOVER'S ADDRESS IN THE COLISEUM

Nov 5, 1932, Saturday
By The Associated Press.

....Many years ago the Democrat party undertook to remedy that whole question of booms and slumps ........

near the end of Bush's "day after" press conference (Nov. 8, 2006) a member of the press corps asked:

Quote:

[urlhttp://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Ej9_Xr579JYJ:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html
+%22democratic+party%22+site:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1[/url]

....Q Mr. President, you mentioned entitlements, and one of the big hot-button issues for the Democratic Party is Social Security and the idea of partial privatization, which you have talked about. And I wonder if there's anything in your agenda in that way that you're willing to adjust in the spirit of bipartisanship or back off from, given how important that is to the core of the Democratic Party?......

Bush "performed" flawlessly, (or the white house has sanistized the dialogue...):

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

......1:00 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I say, why all the glum faces?

Yesterday, the people went to the polls and they cast their vote for a new direction in the House of Representatives. And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories.

This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate........

......Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you're interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we're going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country. And secondly, the Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they're going to conduct their affairs. And I haven't had a chance to talk with the leadership yet about these issues, but we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday.......

.....THE PRESIDENT: I'm losing. I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE: Oooooh!

THE PRESIDENT: He's a faster reader. You know, Michael, I must confess I cannot catalogue for you in detail the different criticisms. In this line of work you get criticized from all sides. And that's okay, it's just part of the job. And so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I can tell you that I believe the faith-based and community-based -- the faith- and community-based initiative is a vital part of helping solve intractable problems here in America. And I would hope that I could work with Congress to make sure this program, which has been invigorated, remains invigorated.

And the reason why I believe in it so much is that there are just some problems that require something other than government help, and it requires people who have heard a call to help somebody in need. And I believe we ought to open up grants to competitive bidding for these types of organizations, and we have done that. And it's very important that that program stay strong.

But, you know, Michael, you're probably following all these -- the different lists of concerns people have with my presidency, and I respect that. I just -- frankly, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about in this question. I'm sure there are some people who aren't perfectly content, but there are some people that aren't perfectly content from different parties and different philosophies. All I know to do is to make decisions based upon principles that I believe are important, and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills. And I'm going to do that for the good of the country........

....Q Americans have heard it before, there's going to be cooperation, we're going to get along. What can you do to show Americans that there -- that you'll stop and avoid any gridlock? Because they've seen it come anyway.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had some pretty good success early on in this administration. We got the No Child Left Behind Act passed, which was an important part of bipartisan legislation. We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes......

Since 2003, Mr. Bush has been very reliable in using the adjective "democrat", in place of "democratic", in front of leader, or party, or votes...Mr. Cheney, and white house reporters, have been less, "on message":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html...24&submit.y=16

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html...h=10&lk=1&rf=1

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010402-8.html

....This is an issue that is going to require close cooperation between members of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. But that's achievable because trade is an American issue. And it's an important American issue......

...in october, Bush slipped once....here:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061019-9.html

....The same cannot be said for his Democratic Senate colleagues. More than 70 percent of the United States senators from the Democrat Party voted to take away this vital tool in the war on terror. We just have a different point of view, a different look at the world.......

Mr. Bush held his talking points "on message"....not slipping for two years:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0041030-3.html

....AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: You might remember what he said when they asked him about why he made the vote. Senator Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I haven't spent nearly as much time in this part of the world as you have, but I can assure you, you're not going to find many people in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who talks that way. (Applause.).....

........During the last 20 years, in key moments of challenge and decision, Senator Kerry has chosen the path of weakness and inaction. With that record, he stands in opposition not just to me, but to the great tradition of the Democratic Party. The party of Franklin Roosevelt, the party of Harry Truman, the party of John Kennedy is rightly remembered for confidence and resolve in times of war and in hours of crisis. Senator Kerry has turned his back on "pay any price," and "bear any burden," and he has replaced those commitments with "wait and see" and "cut and run." (Applause.).....

back in 2001, Mr. Bush was not always "om message":

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010529-4.html

We listened to the voices of those in my party and in the Democratic Party who wanted additional help for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. We listened, and as a result, this plan has even more help for lower-income Americans. The earned income credit is expanded for low-income married couples, and the child credit is refundable for parents, providing the most help for those who earn between $10,000 and $25,000 a year.

We acted on principle. We worked together to build consensus and to get results. This is significant -- and this is only the beginning. The Peterson family, and families like them all across America, need more than just a tax cut. The Petersons want us to work together to improve public education, strengthen their retirement security, modernize Medicare, and strengthen and modernize our national defenses.

Again, thanks to the members of Congress. I hope you enjoy your Memorial Day recess. And then, let's work together to complete the great progress we are making on legislation to improve America's public schools.

Again, I want to thank you all for coming. This is an historic day. It explains the art of the possible; it shows what can happen when good people come together with the intention of doing what's right for the American people. And we have done right by the American people today. God bless you. (Applause.)

END 3:20 P.M. EDT

I guess he's been "training"...for a long time:

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
October 11, 2000

The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

....BUSH: If he's trying to allege that I'm a hard-hearted person and I don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong. We've spent $4.7 billion a year in the State of Texas for uninsured people. And they get health care. Now, it's not the most efficient way to get people health care. But I want to remind you, the number of uninsured in America during their watch has increased. He can make any excuse he wants, but the facts are that we're reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our population. And as the percentage of the population is increasing nationally, somehow the allegation that we don't care and we're going to give money for this interest or that interest and not for children in the State of Texas is totally absurd. Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me. And I was able to do so with a lot of Democrat votes, nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote, about 27% of the African-American vote, because people know I'm a conservative person and a compassionate person. So he can throw all the kinds of numbers around. I'm just telling you our state comes together to do what is right. We come together both Republicans and Democrats.

MODERATOR: Let me put that directly to you, Vice President Gore. The reason you brought this up, is it -- are you suggesting that those numbers and that record will reflect the way Governor Bush will operate in this area of health insurance as president?