The Republic Party
Why aren’t we using that term? The Republics and their President eroneously refer to my party as the “Democrat Party.” So why aren’t some of us returning the volley. “The Republic Party” arguably sounds even more awkward. Are members of the Democratic Party simply too nice to stoop to the petty [...]
Why aren’t we using that term? The Republics and their President eroneously refer to my party as the “Democrat Party.” So why aren’t some of us returning the volley. “The Republic Party” arguably sounds even more awkward. Are members of the Democratic Party simply too nice to stoop to the petty and childish level that members of the Republic Party do?
There’s evidently evidence that Anthony Weiner is using the “Republic Party” term, even in speeches on the House floor (look to the bottom of Digby’s article). No word on the blowhards of the right and the depth of their righteous indignation.
Republic party is okay, but I was already pushing for Publican party, and then I noticed Garrison Keillor (I think) using it, too.
I think the Reamer party is more apropo — sums up all their activities, both on the public and in their private lives.
How about the Publican party?
If you’re just going to drop a couple of letters of Republican then may I suggest dropping the following letters R - e - l - a - n, settles on their fixations rather well. Yeah, the Pubic party fits.
Replicant Party?
Sorry, but this whole debate is futile. People make the language not the other way around. The people can not be ordered to say “Freedom Fries” for “French Fries” or even be ordered to believe “Democrat” is pejorative. It’s futile to try to assign connotations to words and a bit arrogant. Look, for years the Academie Francais has legally prohibited the French from using terms like “le hamburgaire” with absolutely no effect. If “Democrat” becomes a bad word, it will be because the people decide democrats are bad. If “Republic” becomes a bad word, same deal.
Unlike “DICK” Cheney or Sister Annette, Camus developed the idea of the “absurd man”, the man who is periodically conscious of the ultimate futility of life living with nuns or spoiled rich frat brats, who, true to their chosen path (except the ones with big knockers), never got none. The lingering stench and memory of this realization forms a basis for perceptions without the unjustified infusion of meaning. This notion directly opposes the idea of faith which is characteristic of most scams and religions (and even of existentialism, which Camus therefore did not fully accept). The search for truth is seen as futile, as modes of perception are constantly changing due to fluctuation of their axioms, which may be discernible as a consistent set of beliefs directly conflicting with those once thought irrefutable, so why not be greedy and souless. Drawing on numerous philosophical and literary sources, and particularly Dostoevsky (known locally as a ponce), Camus describes the historical development of absurd awareness and concludes that Sisyphus, and in turn, DICK, is the ultimate absurd hero/villian.
Bravo, Carl Gordon, bravo! I think it may well be said that the Republican DICK is indeed the Camus “absurd awareness” in the (unknown location) flesh. Indeed, it is not difficult to understand the Republican philosophy of late as being such, as seen from an existential angle. They are those who gave up in the existential attempt to strive towards ethical authenticity.
I’m with Karen and dd. Publicans they are.
Let the Republicans call themselves whatever they want.
I think Democrats should refer to themselves as the “Democratically Elected” party.
I vote we use the term “Republic Party” when discussing issues of little substance such as the Pelosi plane flap, and the more polite “Republican Party” when discussing issue of real substance such as differences in tax policy. It is unlikely we can train the Republicans to be more serious but perhaps the independent listeners will respect the difference.
The best rejoinder to Rebublicans that insist on using the noun “Democrat” as an adjective (it’s just a sleazy rhetorical tactic) is to refer to members of the GOP as “Republicanists.”
It’s grammatically correct and that “ist” carries a lot of negative rhetorical baggage.
Good thing Jack! Does “Republicanist” mean “Evil GOP Bastards?”
Publicans — and sinners to boot.
Let’s be consistent. Pick one and get on with life:
1. The Republican party is full of Republicans; the Democratic party is full of Democratics.
2. The Republican party is full of Republicans; the Democrat party is full of Democrats.
3. The Republic party is full of Republics; the Democratic party is full of Democratics.
4. The Republic party is full of Republics; the Democrat party is full of Democrats.
Each of those is internally consistent. Any other combination is political whining.