Bush: (I'm) not that good at pronouncing words . . .

[Taxman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/od_nm/bush_democrats1_dc;_ylt=AgTj8xl6XNUnBZlkGLZRb1btiB IF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

Bush says he didn't intend to insult Democrats

Tue Jan 30, 9:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 - President George W. Bush said on Monday he did not intend to insult Democrats by failing to pronounce their party's full name in his State of the Union address.

"I didn't know I did it," Bush told NPR in an interview.

In his speech last Tuesday, Bush declared to a joint session of the U.S. Congress that "I congratulate the Democrat majority." Some Democrats were incensed he did not say "Democratic." The party's proper name is the Democratic Party.

Republicans for years have dropped the last two letters of the name as a slight to the party. Bush's prepared text of his speech had the proper name but he misstated it in his address.

Bush called it an oversight and said he was "not that good at pronouncing words anyway." He said he was surprised at the level of distrust in Washington.

"There is a lot of politics in Washington -- in my judgment, needless politics. And it's almost like, 'If George Bush is for it, we're against it,' and 'If he's against it, we're for it.' And the American people don't like that," Bush said.

In his speech, Bush went out of his way to praise California Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House of Representatives, and declared his intent to work with Democrats in the majority of the House and Senate.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

They smell the blood in the water in DC and are all moving in for their piece. Bush is going to be nostalgic soon for the days only the democrats were gunning for him. There's a TV on in the coffee shop where I work and I was stationed close enough to here CNN today. Not good days to be a Bush...

[Brian Reed]

In his speech last Tuesday, Bush declared to a joint session of the U.S. Congress that "I congratulate the Democrat majority." Some Democrats were incensed he did not say "Democratic."

Until just this instant, genocide never really made sense to me.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

Am I the only one old enough to miss the days when there was a respectful, if no less antagonistic, dialogue between the two parties? Everything now is about demonizing and denigrating the other side, which I find sad because I think the only true American values are found in the middle ground between the polarized positions between the parties.

[Brian Reed]

Am I the only one old enough to miss the days when there was a respectful, if no less antagonistic, dialogue between the two parties? Everything now is about demonizing and denigrating the other side, which I find sad because I think the only true American values are found in the middle ground between the polarized positions between the parties.

I don't believe that time ever existed. However, I do believe our elected officials used to present their "he's an asshole and will rape your children while you sleep" accusations more intelligently and politely.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

Exactly. Theyw ere still cut throat and nasty but it was couched better because being too negative went over badly. Now a political debate is like watching the banter on WWE only with more ugly opponents.

And sometimes I think the female commentators are the worst, like Ingraham and that Coulter person. We had a customer demand one of Coulter's books be taken off display because she lost a relative during 9-11 and Coulter had offended her so bad.

[ramtower]

It's interesting that noun descriptors of people or ethnicities (or inclinations or proclivities) are seen as insults where adjectives might not be. Calling someone Jewish isn't as problematic as calling someone a Jew is. Especially if you're using it adjectivally, like "that Jew doctor" instead of "that Jewish doctor" or something.

It's as though the noun dominates all their other qualities, so that you're saying they can't be anything BUT a Jew or BUT a Democrat. Calling someone a Democratic senator acknowledges his party affiliation, but calling someone a Democrat senator implies that his affiliation to that party dominates his role as a politician, leaving no room for anything else.

And, if that thinking bears out, it tells you a lot about the way Bush perceives politics in America. Democratic politicians aren't politicians who are Democrats. They are Democrats first, politicians second, and they will serve their party before they will serve their people -- that's what the thinking implies. Or so the argument goes.

[Taxman]

And, if that thinking bears out, it tells you a lot about the way Bush perceives politics in America. Democratic politicians aren't politicians who are Democrats. They are Democrats first, politicians second, and they will serve their party before they will serve their people -- that's what the thinking implies. Or so the argument goes.I think that perhaps Romanadvoratrelundar is remembering a time when the President wore a non-partisan face most of the time. I certainly believe that used to be the case.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

Even Clinton was less overtly partisan than Bush, even if Clinton's end results were pretty much the same when it came to favoring his own people.

[ramtower]

I think that perhaps Romanadvoratrelundar is remembering a time when the President wore a non-partisan face most of the time. I certainly believe that used to be the case.

Oh, I'm not debating that at all. I was just ruminating on the underlying argument about whether "Democrat" could be intended insultingly. I recall politics seeming more dignified, even in times of debate, than they are now. Everything's gone to baseline insults and lowbrow shitslinging.

[Noodle]

I think we need to have the british style parliment system where they all debate and respond to each other. That way at least they have to be assholes in pubic and the people they insult have a chance to respond right back at them.

I would really love to hear some of these people have to publicly defend their positions.

[ramtower]

And shouting directly at one another instead of passively backstabbing one another with a smile on the TV.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

but if we improve our system by copying the british millar will lose half of his material by the uk no longer being smugly superior to our way of life

[ramtower]

Maybe he'll write faster if he has only half as much material to draw from.

[Busman]

Bush is an imbecile and a doof, but I pin this stupidity on the Dems. What a petty bullshit thing to make into something. Is this the party I'm supposed to run to if I don't like Bush? Good show of it, there. How about ACTUALLY taking the high road and coming off smelling like roses for just 10 seconds.

[Taxman]

How about ACTUALLY taking the high road and coming off smelling like roses for just 10 seconds.That wouldn't be very political at all.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

Bush is an imbecile and a doof, but I pin this stupidity on the Dems. What a petty bullshit thing to make into something. Is this the party I'm supposed to run to if I don't like Bush? Good show of it, there. How about ACTUALLY taking the high road and coming off smelling like roses for just 10 seconds.

Neither side has a chance of seeing the high road even with binoculars. Yes, the Dems are boobs for taking umbrage but years of swipes by every party official from both sides has them all conditioned to see an insult and attack back before thinking things through.

[mewelke]

Even Clinton was less overtly partisan than Bush, even if Clinton's end results were pretty much the same when it came to favoring his own people.

Richard Nixon, Joseph Stalin, Attila the Hun, and Darth Vader weren't as partisan as Bush.

[Busman]

Richard Nixon, Joseph Stalin, Attila the Hun, and Darth Vader weren't as partisan as Bush.

Though you're being sensational, I completely agree with the sentiment. The Bush presidency is embarassing, IMO. Not because he can't do public speaking well or whatever, but because of the just rampant disregard for law, cooperation, etc. Good leaders certainly lead and need to ignore public opinion on a good many points, but the list of freedoms and thumbing of noses at society, law, etc from this White House is bordering on (if not actually) criminal.

And this is coming for a socially liberal, economically conservative person. I never thought Reagan was evil, but the Bush family has me really wondering.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

I don't think Bush The Elder was evil or really that Shrub is either. You have to consider daddy's history. He ran the CIA and the man saw a lot of things we never will. His world view can't even be hinted at so I've alwys assumed most of the choices of his that I just don't get come from there. With Shrub, I honestly think I'd have a great time at dinner with him and that he's a better person than Clinton, who it seems like I'd strangle if I had to spend time with in person. The disconnect between who he is and what he does is great and I prefer policies that have more of a social concern. Frankly, I'm voting Hilary Clinton when it comes time. I thought her husband's tenure was great for this country and have every hope she can duplicate that because of her active hand in what went on.

[mewelke]

And this is coming for a socially liberal, economically conservative person. I never thought Reagan was evil, but the Bush family has me really wondering.

I have a strong suscpicion that I will be back to voting Libertarian in the next election. Bush actually had me voting democrat, even though I usually think the dems are well meaning idiots. I usually think the republicans are ill meaning, but Bush... to paraphrase the Simpsons "his normal villainy has enterred the realm of cartoonish supervillainry."

[GelfXIII]

It's interesting that noun descriptors of people or ethnicities (or inclinations or proclivities) are seen as insults where adjectives might not be. Calling someone Jewish isn't as problematic as calling someone a Jew is. Especially if you're using it adjectivally, like "that Jew doctor" instead of "that Jewish doctor" or something.\

Actually, both those statements are pretty offensive. What's a doctor's religeon or ethnicity have anything to do with anything? Would you say "That Italian Doctor" or "that protestant Doctor"? Probably not, I'm thinking, unless you actually had a line up of doctors in the police room and were picking them out of a group. ;)

[mewelke]

. Frankly, I'm voting Hilary Clinton when it comes time. I thought her husband's tenure was great for this country and have every hope she can duplicate that because of her active hand in what went on.

My problem with Hillary is she has no opinions. Whatever way the wind is blowing at the moment, whatever she can say to get a soundbite...she gives the word "oppurtunist" a bad name. I can't call her an oppurtunist... maybe OPPURTUNIST. That's still short of the mark.

[GelfXIII]

Even Clinton was less overtly partisan than Bush, even if Clinton's end results were pretty much the same when it came to favoring his own people.

Clinton was a centrist and a leader who made VAST concessions to the other party, and was crucified regardless. There were many of us on the left who felt that Clinton went way too far out of his way not to be partisan.

[mewelke]

Would you say "That Italian Doctor" or "that protestant Doctor"? )

Not precisely. I'd go out of my way to be more offensive than that.

[GelfXIII]

I think we need to have the british style parliment system where they all debate and respond to each other. That way at least they have to be assholes in pubic and the people they insult have a chance to respond right back at them.

I would really love to hear some of these people have to publicly defend their positions.

That's what C-Span is for. :D

[GelfXIII]

My problem with Hillary is she has no opinions. Whatever way the wind is blowing at the moment, whatever she can say to get a soundbite...she gives the word "oppurtunist" a bad name. I can't call her an oppurtunist... maybe OPPURTUNIST. That's still short of the mark.

I agree. Hilary comes from that Chigaco school of politics, and learned the worst lessons from Bill about following polls rather than ideas.

The one thing I will willingly grant her is that she is an amazingly smart person, who surrounds herself with smart, competent people. If Hilary was elected, you can bet she'd put together a great team, and would probably actually listen to them.

At the moment my favorite candidate would be Gore, with Obama as a running mate. I dont think it'll happen, because I'm betting Gore drops out (or more precisely, never actually enters) but that's a ticket I could really get behind.

[ramtower]

Actually, both those statements are pretty offensive. What's a doctor's religeon or ethnicity have anything to do with anything? Would you say "That Italian Doctor" or "that protestant Doctor"? Probably not, I'm thinking, unless you actually had a line up of doctors in the police room and were picking them out of a group. ;)

We'll choose a less loaded term, then, although admittedly, ethnicities are the easiest to make the point with, because they are so very loaded. I was speaking to one of our translators about this earlier, too. He was saying that, although it's uncommon, he does hear people describing someone as "a Japanese" instead of just "Japanese." He had the same feeling, that it conveyed -some kind- of vaguely insulting tone, but we couldn't put our finger on it.

So, ignore the example, because it was hastily constructed, and consider the argument itself...

[GelfXIII]

And this is coming for a socially liberal, economically conservative person. I never thought Reagan was evil, but the Bush family has me really wondering.

Reagan was personally responsible for me being teargassed. EEEE-vil, I tells ya, EE-vil!!

[Brian Reed]

And this is coming for a socially liberal, economically conservative person. I never thought Reagan was evil, but the Bush family has me really wondering.

Reagan had the decency to fight a war against idealists with ideals instead of guns.

I used to think Bush and the gang were evil, then I realized they're not talented enough for that. Evil people would have suspended elections, shut down the free press and instituted a proper police state when the opportunity was handed to them on a silver platter in the fall of 2001.

They're really just petty and selfish and not that interested in doing their jobs, so much as they are interested in what their jobs can get them and their friends.

Truth be told, I'd rather they were just evil. It would be easier to get the rest of the world to realize it wasn't Americans that just shat in their yard so much as it was the guys who seized control.

[mewelke]

Reagan had the decency to fight a war against idealists with ideals instead of guns.


As well as with guns. Illegally mining harbors. Signing an order to sell Iran weapons and then lying under oath before congress that he couldn't remember. Bringing cocaine into the country and ruining the careers of people that investigated it. Beginning the erosion of the seperation of church and state and the marriage of the Republican party to the Christian right.

Reagen was plenty evil and plenty corrupt. But nowhere near as evil or corrupt as Bush the younger.

[GelfXIII]

I used to think Bush and the gang were evil, then I realized they're not talented enough for that. Evil people would have suspended elections, shut down the free press and instituted a proper police state when the opportunity was handed to them on a silver platter in the fall of 2001.


The argument could be made that they actually tried (and in some cases succeeded) to do all those thing, in a somewhat covert manner.

Suspended Elections: Ohio? Diebold?
Free Press: Jeff Gannon? Govt VNRs? Re-writing independent agency's reports on global warming?
Police state: Warrentless wiretapping? Holding American citizens as "Enemy Combatants" with out trial or charges for an indefinate period of time?

Doesn't sound very American to me.

[Taxman]

The argument could be made that they actually tried (and in some cases succeeded) to do all those thing, in a somewhat covert manner.

Suspended Elections: Ohio? Diebold?
Free Press: Jeff Gannon? Govt VNRs? Re-writing independent agency's reports on global warming?
Police state: Warrentless wiretapping? Holding American citizens as "Enemy Combatants" with out trial or charges for an indefinate period of time?Well, if that is the case it just shows them to be a much bigger bunch of screw ups than many already believe them to be. They had the greatest opportunity to sieze power in the history of the nation. If their intention was to do so, their efforts are completely laughable.

[GelfXIII]

Well, if that is the case it just shows them to be a much bigger bunch of screw ups than many already believe them to be. They had the greatest opportunity to sieze power in the history of the nation. If their intention was to do so, their efforts are completely laughable.

Yes, they're not only evil, but, thank god, also morons.

[mewelke]

Well, if that is the case it just shows them to be a much bigger bunch of screw ups than many already believe them to be. They had the greatest opportunity to sieze power in the history of the nation. If their intention was to do so, their efforts are completely laughable.

I think you might be attributing too much competency to the word evil. That said I don't think it was their intention to seize power altogether, more to see how much they could get away with.

[Busman]

Yes, they're not only evil, but, thank god, also morons.

I know it's in fashion to characterize the Bush whitehouse as morons, but it's also a huge mistake. Think of Bush's stupidty as a ruse for people to laugh and point at while Dick and his crew are busy ripping up and throwing away the Bill of Rights and the Constitution all the while laughing their way to the bank.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

And how much of Bush's perceived 'incompetence' was simple inexperience. The man had less political experience than Jimmy Carter and look at how bad a president Carter was. One of the finest men to ever swear the oath of office but also one of the worst presidents ever.

[mewelke]

And how much of Bush's perceived 'incompetence' was simple inexperience. The man had less political experience than Jimmy Carter and look at how bad a president Carter was. One of the finest men to ever swear the oath of office but also one of the worst presidents ever.

Carter? Certainly not a good President, but one of the worst?

Lessee worst presidents. Well Nixon would have to be high on the list, had to resign afterall. Bush jr is my choice for worst overall since he seems to have the corruption of the gilded age presidents, the incompetence of...he takes that cake altogether, and the erosion of civil liberties on par only with the civil war. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...terrible, even good Presidents couldn't have stopped the Depression but they sure made it worse. Grant, great general, but terrible ultra corrupt president but then this corruption was true of most of the latter 19th century.Van Buren, Andrew Johnson...Andrew Jackson as well, any Andrews in fact.

[tymothil]

Carter? Certainly not a good President, but one of the worst?

Lessee worst presidents. Well Nixon would have to be high on the list, had to resign afterall. Bush jr is my choice for worst overall since he seems to have the corruption of the gilded age presidents, the incompetence of...he takes that cake altogether, and the erosion of civil liberties on par only with the civil war. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...terrible, even good Presidents couldn't have stopped the Depression but they sure made it worse. Grant, great general, but terrible ultra corrupt president but then this corruption was true of most of the latter 19th century.Van Buren, Andrew Johnson...Andrew Jackson as well, any Andrews in fact.

Heh..my friend Matt and I have been known to use Andrew Jackson's name as a curse, as in "you Andrew Jacksony mothrafucker!"

[mewelke]

Heh..my friend Matt and I have been known to use Andrew Jackson's name as a curse, as in "you Andrew Jacksony mothrafucker!"

After I posted that I did a search for scholarly type surveys. Andrew Jackson apparently does well with the academics. I don't know why given his abhorence of things like education, reading, any time spent not fighting.

Also I somehow managed to forget about Buchanan. Working in the Games industry this long has sapped my ability to think.

[Brian Reed]

And how much of Bush's perceived 'incompetence' was simple inexperience. The man had less political experience than Jimmy Carter and look at how bad a president Carter was. One of the finest men to ever swear the oath of office but also one of the worst presidents ever.

Carter: Georgia State Senator (1963–1967), Governor of Georgia (1971–1975)

Bush: Govoner of Texas (1995 - 2000)

Carter: Changed the way Washington dealt with the world, making human rights more important than who was willing to point their guns the same direction as we were pointing ours. The Camp David Accords settled down the nastiness between Israel and Egypt. SALT II is part of the reason Reagan was able to deal with the Soviets the way he did and part of the reason we aren't all sitting in a cave glowing right now.

Bush: Made Jon Stewart a household name.

[Brian Reed]

Lessee worst presidents. Well Nixon would have to be high on the list, had to resign afterall.

Nixon is a punching bag for history. Yes he did some shitty things and yes he got ran out of town on a rail (deservedly so), but he also calmed shit down with the Ruskies after Kennedy and Johnson nearly nuked the world just to teach those pinko bastards they could not mess with the U.S. of Goddamned A. He began the process of normalizing relations with China. He created the EPA (and as mismanaged as they may be these days, they've probably done less harm than good) and OSHA,. And he pushed the south into proper school integration.

[GelfXIII]

Nixon is a punching bag for history. Yes he did some shitty things and yes he got ran out of town on a rail (deservedly so), but he also calmed shit down with the Ruskies after Kennedy and Johnson nearly nuked the world just to teach those pinko bastards they could not mess with the U.S. of Goddamned A. He began the process of normalizing relations with China. He created the EPA (and as mismanaged as they may be these days, they've probably done less harm than good) and OSHA,. And he pushed the south into proper school integration.

Oh, and, yeah... ended the vietnam war (Ford just finished up what he started)

I know I'm on my own on this one but after "W", the second worse president IMO was Ford. I have a whole rant, but I'll save it for another time.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

Nixon is a punching bag for history. Yes he did some shitty things and yes he got ran out of town on a rail (deservedly so), but he also calmed shit down with the Ruskies after Kennedy and Johnson nearly nuked the world just to teach those pinko bastards they could not mess with the U.S. of Goddamned A. He began the process of normalizing relations with China. He created the EPA (and as mismanaged as they may be these days, they've probably done less harm than good) and OSHA,. And he pushed the south into proper school integration.

Damn. I was gonna say all this but not as well.

And I stand by the Carter thing. To achieve things in DC you have to compromise. Jimmy Carter would not compromise on what he considered the right thing to do because he was such a good person. That's part of what made him such a bad president. I'm a lifelong Democrat and the first opportunity I had to vote in a national election I voted against Carter.

[tymothil]

Nixon is a punching bag for history. Yes he did some shitty things and yes he got ran out of town on a rail (deservedly so), but he also calmed shit down with the Ruskies after Kennedy and Johnson nearly nuked the world just to teach those pinko bastards they could not mess with the U.S. of Goddamned A. He began the process of normalizing relations with China. He created the EPA (and as mismanaged as they may be these days, they've probably done less harm than good) and OSHA,. And he pushed the south into proper school integration.

He also gave us the wonderful present of the DEA.

[mewelke]

Nixon is a punching bag for history. Yes he did some shitty things and yes he got ran out of town on a rail (deservedly so), but he also calmed shit down with the Ruskies after Kennedy and Johnson nearly nuked the world just to teach those pinko bastards they could not mess with the U.S. of Goddamned A. He began the process of normalizing relations with China. He created the EPA (and as mismanaged as they may be these days, they've probably done less harm than good) and OSHA,. And he pushed the south into proper school integration.

I'm not arguing that, but at the end of the day he did have to resign. Also foreign policy wise he had the big successes with China and the USSR, but has a lot of blood on his hands for the bulk of the rest of the world: Cambodia, Chile, the whole of central America, Vietnam (yeah he pulled out, but only because he was being told by J Edgar that the safety of the country couldn't be gaurnteed against the protesters.)

And of course I am self professed grump so take what I say with a grain of salt. I am afterall the one that said that William Henry Harrison set the best example for Presidents.

[Cardinal Braxiatel]

And of course I am self professed grump so take what I say with a grain of salt. I am afterall the one that said that William Henry Harrison set the best example for Presidents.

William Henry Harrison was president for only thirty days for anyone not smiling about this statement.

[tymothil]

I still think Taft getting stuck in the tub repeatedly is one of the best things to ever happen in American politics.

[Taxman]

Carter? Certainly not a good President, but one of the worst?

Lessee worst presidents. Well Nixon would have to be high on the list, had to resign afterall. Bush jr is my choice for worst overall since he seems to have the corruption of the gilded age presidents, the incompetence of...he takes that cake altogether, and the erosion of civil liberties on par only with the civil war. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...terrible, even good Presidents couldn't have stopped the Depression but they sure made it worse. Grant, great general, but terrible ultra corrupt president but then this corruption was true of most of the latter 19th century.Van Buren, Andrew Johnson...Andrew Jackson as well, any Andrews in fact.If you take George HW Bush and Bill Clinton as examples, these are two men who had Presidential ambitions or at least political ambitions pretty early on in life, and work very hard for many years to qualify themselves for the job. This is probably true of most Presidents. With George W. Bush, this is not the case at all. I think he has admitted to having basically no ambitions of any sort most of his life, and the Presidency is something that seemed to almost fall into his lap. I have long been concerned that he was illprepared for the job.

[Taxman]

I really would have thought that Drudge was above this sort of thing. :dunno:Anti-War Protesters Vow More Democrat Office Takeovers... (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/anti-war-protesters-vow-more-office-takeovers-2007-03-21.html)

[Busman]

The Democratic party has members who are properly referred to as Democrat or Democrats.

I think the original hullaballo was bullshit. I find Drudge's wording only mildly incorrect because he is referring individuals and not the party. But it works.