No labels? No “Republicans” …call them members of The Republic Party


 By ann summers

Are counter-epithets necessary

When someone says “Democrat” as in “Democrat party”, one knows the speaker/writer is a member of the GOP, or the Republic party.

The latter epithet is one way to be “as reactionary” in response to the original insult, but perhaps it’s more accurate since the GOP will in its nihilistic, neo-reactionary way, destroy the republic in the name of the (America) First Order.

Trump Hotels has signed 17 letters of intent with potential owners for its new Scion hotel brand, the Trump Organization’s first line of hotels that don’t bear the president’s name. But unlike the brash, towering properties the Trump brand operates around the globe, these projects will be smaller in scale, the sons told the Post.

The point of this Slate article is to suggest that the GOP be called the “Trump party”, but unfortunately every iteration actually improves the Trumptm brand, unless we try to get ahead of it and call them Scions, which sounds enough like Cylons, those toasters of Battlestar Gallactica. Battlestar-Galactica-Cylon-Toaster_1_.jpg

That orange pumpkin is still the face of the GOP, regardless.

It is however symptomatic of the DNC delegates not to be able to be quite as annoying as the GOP, for example “It’s time for them to go” of an earlier age compared to “Lock her up” by someone who may soon be actually locked up.

So if meaning is use, one can choose not to refer to “Republicans” but “members of the Republic party”.

It does lead to clumsy constructions but it does at least provide some satisfaction when they use “Democrat party” to annoy someone.

What is a Democrat health care? It is, presumably, the handiwork of the Democrat Party, which is both one of the United States’ two major political parties and an insult cast in the furnaces of midcentury partisan discourse.

As Hendrik Hertzberg documented for the New Yorker in 2006, politicians like Joe McCarthy and Bob Dole used the term, which lowers a guillotine blade between democratic principles (good) and Democrats (bad). George W. Bush favored it as well. The epithet has an unlovely sound; it “fairly screams ‘rat,’ ” Hertzberg observed. “At a slightly higher level of sophistication,” he continued, “it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.”…

Most important of all, the name accomplishes the objective of getting under Democrat(ic) skin.

Left-wing politicians look pedantic when they bother to correct the record, and they look weak when they allow their adversaries to dictate what they are called.

Over the years, Democratic National Committee delegates have tried to dream up an equivalent taunt.

One proposal, to call the GOP the “Publican Party,” ironically evoked Roman tax collectors—and also conjured, for me, the delightful prospect of a Pelican Party, which would scoop all Americans into its capacious beak—but the committee rejected it.

The fact that a motion must pass through a committee before Democrats can drop a burn may encapsulate something essential about the Democrats.

But anyhow, the reason the committee balked was because, in one delegate’s words, “Republican is the name by which our opponent’s product is known and mistrusted.” A few years later, progressives unsuccessfully proposed “Republicants” and, riffing on the GOP’s growing reputation as a tent for snake-oil salesmen, “Republicons.” …




This entry was posted in 2016 Election, Conspiracy, Fascists/Corporatists, Government, Media, Organized Crime, Political Science, Politics, Presidential Elections, Propaganda, Society and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to No labels? No “Republicans” …call them members of The Republic Party

  1. And this just in . . .

    The Guardian is reporting that Mike Flynn indicates he would testify in Trump-Russia inquiry in exchange for immunity .

    Have I mentioned that I like the physical characteristics of dominoes?

    • All the mainstream media are confirming, and posting copies of Flynn’s letter requesting immunity. It wasn’t so long ago that Flynn proclaimed that anyone who wanted immunity in order to testify was guilty of a crime.

      “Deep Throat” gave Bob Woodward a lecture about how it needs to work. Start at the low levels around the edges. Never go for the big players until you have many times more evidence than needed.

      Bloomberg is reporting that something big is going on in Saipan.

      Agents from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation visited an office belonging to the operator of a casino on the remote U.S. island of Saipan that has attracted attention for its huge revenues, according to a local legislator and residents. [snip]

      “There definitely was some kind of investigation or raid being done,” said Ed Propst, a member of the territorial legislature. “It appears to be a joint effort between local and federal authorities.”


  2. Here is a photocopy of the letter from Robert Kelner, Esq., counsel for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Negotiations are currently under way. Some have expressed concern that he will lob softballs only, and walk away with immunity. That is not a real concern for me. He probably wants a full blanket immunity, and the US Attorney is not going to go for more than qualified limited immunity. Plus, he will have to give a full allocution, with no reservations. That will be a bitter pill for Flynn to swallow, but otherwise, he better prepare for a long vacation. I have worked with determined US Attorneys before. They play hardball.

Comments are closed.