Republican't

I think that is a dumb suggestion. It is not analogous to what the repubs do. They drop letters off the end of the word, they don't add letters to change the word.

I don't see why just calling them repubs doesn't work. The point is to return their disrespect without it looking like a playground spat.

If you buy into the idea that repubs try and emphasize the 'rat' part of democrat for subliminal effect, then I still think repub works just as well since it is almost a homophone for repug as in repugnant.

But adding letters to make it republican't is just childish in my view.

Republican's can't and democrats don't know what.

It was the apostrophe that turned me off.

I like 'rethuglicans'. Its an apt description of some of the more prominent conservative talking heads.

I agree with BG. Smartassness may feel good, but it's no match for the focus groups and memetic engineers that the Republic Party has at their disposal to come up with these subtle terminological weapons with built-in plausible deniability. Frank Luntz would probably love for you to use such an obviously negative word as "Republican't".

It doesn't roll off the tongue the same way, but wouldn't "Republiwon't" be more apt.

... or "rethuglicans".

Your amateurishness is what lets them get away with so much.

How about "Republidoodooheads", that'll be effective.

I actually like "republicu.." -- well, you fill in the rest. However, if I used that I might be accused of being as childish as they are.

Since November of this year, I haven't seen many "defeatocrat" remarks, actually! Damn, those wins felt so good. I've been waiting for this for 6 years. It's good to see "Dumbya" eating humble pie.

This gets under my skin, so I'll rant some more...

You're trying to come up with witty bon mots that make your like-minded friends chuckle. They're spending millions to develop subtle language that affects the general public on a subconscious level that they scientifically test on focus groups. From the article:

Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party,"

That doesn't mean he tried it out on some Right-leaning blog and they all thought it was just swell except for a few Left-leaning interlopers. That means he had groups of people carefully selected to represent broad demographics come into a room and watch videos with various politicians giving various speeches and interviews while the people used electronic dials to measure how positively or negatively they felt at any moment. They probably tried a dozen different things to sway opinion negatively towards Democrats, and the one they chose was the one that had actual empirical evidence to back its effectiveness.

By comparison, you guys are like the creationists of political science. "Republican't" is as effective as Mike Seaver proving God with a banana.

If only they spent as much time carefully and dispassionately analyzing data with respect to their policies as they do their political strategy, they might be a party I could get behind.

If only they spent as much time carefully and dispassionately analyzing data with respect to their policies as they do their political strategy, they might be a party I could get behind.

Zing! That'll show them!

Meanwhile, the reality is what they do works. The Democrats didn't win; the Republicans lost. And look what it took for them to lose: getting us into an unwinable war based on shaky evidence at best (outright lies at most-likely), thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans (not counting those unimportant foreigners), constant talk about and apologetics for torture and spying on citizens, The War On Toiletries, a fuck up of historical proportions with managing Katrina, and a constant buzz of incompetence, cronyism, and corruption before fifty-some percent of the people got fed up with their party enough to vote for the other guy. We should never have gotten to this point to begin with.

I'd suggest all the "Republican't" and "Republicunt" spouters read Luntz's book and actually learn his methods. They're sleazy and amoral and you'll feel dirty just knowing them, but, well, we've seen the alternative.

It seems everyone is taking this a little too seriously. I don't know about PZ, but I sure wasn't.

I read "Republican't Party" as a conjuction meaning they "can't party" as in they're not hip. Hence my earlier comment, it's not that they "can't party" it's that they "won't party." This is clearly meant just for fun. I would never advocate name-calling as an effective form of combatting Republican nonsense, we can do just fine by pointing this out:

getting us into an unwinable war based on shaky evidence at best (outright lies at most-likely), thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans (not counting those unimportant foreigners), constant talk about and apologetics for torture and spying on citizens, The War On Toiletries, a fuck up of historical proportions with managing Katrina, and a constant buzz of incompetence, cronyism, and corruption

'Course I don't identify with the "Democrat Party" either, so that phrase doesn't strike a nerve with me at all.

2001? My parents don't me about "Democrat Party" in the 1990s. I've found a response to it from Harry Truman. It's *old*.

How about this one? It's a little mean...

http://www.penultimatefire.com/pfire/wiki/gop

Damien is right. Luntz isn't a genius by any stretch, he's recycling things that have been around for a long time.

And anyway, I'm not about to adopt the tactics of some latter day Goebbels to win elections. I'm normally staunchly pragmatic, but we undermine the spirit that our nation was founded on when we give in to that unabashed cynicism that tells us that we should control, that we should win, and that we should manipulate the public in order to do so.

Do you think that a party which engages in those tactics can just bring out the little monster when it's time for the elections and then put it away again when it's time to govern? I don't. Every time someone like Luntz has reared his ugly little head, he stirs up something that consumes the party until they're nothing more than slogan spouting automatons who believe what they're saying themselves, and then act they on it.

You can't sustain something like that.

Being a citizen in a democratic country ought to be taken more seriously than this. You're obsessed with logos.

"The Democrat Party" bit was in circulation before Luntz. In fact, I believe that Joe McCarthy used it.

If it's anything like a Communist Party I'm there!

Yeah, and that illustrates my point. That kind of behavior is intrinsic to almost every revolting political figure in history. You can't separate the manipulation from the corruption.

The Democratic Party needs to shape up, and rather than taking a page from Luntz and Goebbels, they should take one from Paine and Jefferson. Luntz himself mentioned that Americans don't trust politicians, and Republicans in particular. Honesty, sincerity and passion can resonate just as well as adspeak and talking points if you do it correctly. It's morally superior because you're appealing to morality and intelligence rather than base reaction, and it is more effective in the long run since you won't self-destruct when you become over-saturated with Roves and Rumsfelds and the like.

Personally, I call 'em Conservacrackers.

[ducks behind the curtain]

The logo shouldn't be exactly upside down. It should be canted a bit.

I always thought the word was "smartassedness"

I would never advocate name-calling as an effective form of combatting Republican nonsense, we can do just fine by pointing this out: [Litany of shame that I wrote]

See, in order to be able to use all that against the Republicans, those things have to actually happen first. I'd rather that people were taking actions to keep those things from happening in the first place, than waiting for them to happen so they can gloat about how morally superior they are to the ones who caused it all.

Moral superiority about not being a crass and devious manipulator of language seems kind of hollow when weighed against all the lives and liberty that have been lost to the actions of the Republicans. Isn't there anyone willing to sacrifice some of their self-respect to help the cause of sanity?

Damien is right. Luntz isn't a genius by any stretch, he's recycling things that have been around for a long time.

It's not a matter of him being a genius or original, but of him being methodical. He and those like him study what concepts and perceptions are hindering, rightly or wrongly, the reception of their ideas among the public and then they work methodically to find the exact words to get people to feel favorable to their position (or disfavorable to the other). For example, "religion" has a lot of negative associations, but people generally are positive about "faith", so they use "faith" and "faith-based" in place of "religion" and "religious" wherever it suits them. They've tested it, so they know it actually works.

This is manipulation, since it is largely based on emotional appeals or connotative associations that simplify complicated issues (technically, it is a "death tax" but only in the sense that all other taxes are "life taxes"). Since the people Luntz is working for have ideas that skew to the vile, the resulting manipulation is vile, but would it be so vile if one were to apply the same methodology in support of unvile ideas?

I always thought the word was "smartassedness"

I left the "ed" out because my focus grouping showed "smartassness" to rate more negative among soccer moms.

It should be huffing meth from a lightbulb in a seedy motel with a manwhore. There should be a laptop in the background upon which the elephant has composed a letter to his intern which would make Howard Stern blush, and GW could be in the background too, heaving his cookies into a toilet after a snorting a little too much blow and downing a handle of Jack.

A little crowded, but the only way to accurately convey the spirit of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, the reality is what they do works. The Democrats didn't win; the Republicans lost.

I officially dub that the best oxymoron of this thread.

Choosing between Repulicans and Democrats is like choosing between fudamentalist born again nutjobs or those oh so nice friendly tolerant christians. Neither of them are capable of dealing with reality. We need some completely new alternatives to these political parties.

it probably is all too revealing of my age and taste in movies, but when I hear "Republican't" it sounds an awful lot like "Replicant".

But that does lead to some interesting ideas on how to deal with them.

Why not just call them assholes when the say Democrat party.

Newscasters let them get away with it as well as democrats.

They should just speak up. "Hey numb nuts! It's the Democratic Party. Did you flunk Political Science?"

Being nice in politics doesn't work. We've tried nice for decades, and meanwhile they own the media. It's time to take off the gloves and restore the Fairness Doctrine. That'll sure be a punch in the balls to Faux News.

I suggest eliminating the apostrophe. It still works. It works better. It's subtle. Perhaps too subtle, but hey, IMO it beats the "I know you are but what am I?" vibe of the original.

Republicant.

cant  -noun
1. insincere, esp. conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety.
2. the private language of the underworld.
3. the phraseology peculiar to a particular class, party, profession, etc.: the cant of the fashion industry.
4. whining or singsong speech, esp. of beggars.
-verb (used without object) 5. to talk hypocritically.
6. to speak in the whining or singsong tone of a beggar; beg.

--Synonyms 1. hypocrisy, sham, pretense, humbug.

The Democratic Party needs to shape up, and rather than taking a page from Luntz and Goebbels, they should take one from Paine and Jefferson.

Hear, hear!!!

Repugnican.

I was waiting for this one to enter the vernacular. It just works. It also has that kind of silent slight thing going for it..."did he finish "republican" with a "t"?...did I hear that right?..."

A very challenging story on why there are maniacs out there who are willing to acquire AIDS than to feel holy, and why there are opposites. I believe this should still be verified so we will not blame our parents and forefathers on why we would wish to have lots of first-born sons from different mothers, or why we would still masturbate despite old age

#36: Huh?