‘Republican’ts’

May 31, 2006

Back in March, I had an item about Republican use of the phrase “[tag]Democrat Party[/tag],” which is the GOP way of using grammar for childish purposes. I asked readers for ideas about what name Dems could use to tease Republicans — and you guys came up with a lot of suggestions.

As it happens, my friend [tag]Tom Schaller[/tag] noticed that many of you liked “[tag]Republican’ts[/tag]” — and he suggests that we all start using it, at least as often as the GOP throws around “Democrat Party.”

I’d love to see [tag]Howard Dean[/tag], next time he’s on Meet the Press, send a shot across the partisan bow by telling Tim Russert or other media types that if they refuse to correct Republicans (Ken Mehlman seems to be a common culprit) when they say “The Democrat Party,” then Dean is fully entitled to begin publicly referring to Republicans as the “[tag]Republican’t Party[/tag].” As in: Can’t balance the budget; can’t stop raising the national debt ceiling; can’t manage federal emergencies; can’t find Osama bin Laden; can’t control our borders; can’t stop smearing and leaking; can’t answer tough questions from the media; can’t find weapons of mass destruction… (I can’t spend all day doing this, but you get the point.)

Dean would only have to allude to the fact that he’s going to refrain for now from calling Republicans “Republican’ts” — a phenomenon (for you wordsmiths) known as apophasis, the cheeky act of mentioning something by saying it won’t be mentioned — unless the GOP knocks it off.

Tom has me just about convinced. Particularly now, in light of the significance of competence in government (Iraq, Katrina, the budget, etc.), emphasizing which “can’t” govern effectively is important. If “Republican’t” helps in this endeavor, I’m for it.

And, for those budding online entrepreneurs out there, I should probably mention that [tag]Republicant[/tag] and [tag]Republicants[/tag] .com are taken. Tom got in touch with the guy who owns Republicants.org, who happens to be a Dem. Someone in Howard Dean’s office might want to send him an email or something.

I’ve been using the Republican’t tag since CB put up that post back in March. While I still like Repugs and Rethugs depending on their over-reaching, self-serving actions, Republican’ts seems to capture the true capabilities of this ruling (non-governing) party.

By the way, I think the origination of Republican’t can be traced to the Antonio Banderas movie “Once Upon a Time in Mexico”, where Johnny Depp’s character, CIA agent Sands asks a local…”Are you a Mexican or a Mexican’t?”

  • I’m thinking that using the term Fundamentalist Xtian might be a good one too. They’ve certainly taken the Christ out of Christianity.

  • While I personally tend to use Rethug, I think for broader rhetorical purposes (that is, not just on CBR) Republicant is exceptional. As CB’s post demonstrates, it is easy to use as a springboard. As an added bonus, they often accuse us of having no agenda other than to say no or oppose them. This turns that around – they become the part of “no,” the party that says we can’t, and the party that can’t deliver. At the same time, it is not so “dark” (i.e. Rethugs) that the public will recoil. It strikes a good balance for use on MTP and other talking head shows.

  • This term will do nicely for public usage. In private, though, I think I’ll stick to the terms I’ve been using: “assholes,” “scumbags,” “exceptionally vile pieces of shit,” and so on.

  • I like it.

    I still like calling ’em Republicrooks, but Republican’ts is arguably better.

    But seriously, who cares what the Republicans call Democrats? They have no credibility, and their little semantic games only make them look petty, just like the witch hunting they obsessed over during the Clinton years.

    We do need to constantly point out the fact that even though thay’ve have had control of the entire government they still haven’t done anything other than make the rich richer and the American people poorer and less safe. Amazingly, a significant number of Americans don’t realize that the Republicans have control of the entire government.

    I also think it’s a mistake to point out that binladen is still on the loose, because that may well be their fallback plan. I can easily imagine them making some grand announcement that they have killed binladen. Who would know for sure if they did or not?

  • Far be it from me to pass up an opportunity to poke the Repubs in the eye, but this play on words falls flat. It has a forced sound to it that reminds me of George Costanza getting on a plane to deliver the comeback line that occurred to him long after the right moment had passed. It conveys weakness at a time when we can draw strength merely by sitting back and watching the Republicans foul their own nest with their dishonesty, incompetence and corruption. And worst of all, by using the phrase, we’d be stooping to the Repubs’ level.

  • It also works without the apostrophe — Republicant – esp. with regard to the religious wing of the party. Perhaps, though, Republicant is a better word for what they prescribe or proclaim.

  • I, at one time, suggested “CON-servatives” but can easily go with “Republican’ts”. .

  • If the Dems want to reach disaffected people, they need to approach them from a positive, non-naming calling way. It is OK to use a term like “Republicant” in a rousing campaign speech. To use it in every day language sounds contrived and negative. Believe me, I want these freaks out of office and charged with crimes, but there are a lot of people who are so sick of the whole process that they couldn’t care less about voting. These people would see this as business as usual in politics.

    Thanks for the venue.

  • People always say they want positive, but campaign after campaign they respond to (and reward) negative.

    I’m not saying we should go out of our way to use “Republican’ts.” But it is clever in that “sound bite”/”bumper sticker” sort of way that tends to carry the say in modern politics, and used judiciously I think it is very powerful. When Russert asks Dean about the Republican agenda in Congress, Dean can lead with a clever quip about the Republican’ts and how they can’t address gas prices, can’t figure out how to acheive stability in Iraq, etc. When the R’s stymie a piece of D legislation, like a minimum wage increase, by refusing to let it come to the floor, we note that we tried, but the Republican’ts just can’t let pro-middle class legislation even get an “up or down vote” (heh. paybacks are hell.)

    I dont think that will turn off the electorate; I do think it is memorable, which is absolutely key in messaging.

  • I just was on MSNBC.com reading about Hillary’s speech to the HY Dem Convention. She took the wordy, but still clever, way to define a Republican’t:

    “Kicking off her re-election bid while continuing to avoid talk of a 2008 presidential run, Clinton said that for the Republican leadership ‘it is more important to say ‘mission accomplished’ than actually accomplishing the mission.”

    Also of note, she stole one of Howard Dean’s signature campaign lines:

    “‘With hard work, we will take our country back,’ Clinton told the more than 400 delegates to the Democratic state convention. . .”

    And finally, they must be hoping the NYT was watching:

    “Former President Clinton was in the audience but didn’t speak. He got a standing ovation when the former first lady singled him out as ‘an inspiration, a mentor, a partner.’ They hugged briefly when he joined her on stage following her speech. . .

  • They intentionally, mercilessly and effectively poisoned the word “Liberals”. From now on, every American should reflexively combine the word Republican with can’t. Through endless repetition, we can poison their given name with Republican’t.

    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t
    Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t Republican’t

  • CB, if Russert is to correct Mehlman, will he also correct Democrats who also have fallen into this language trap? I expect Mehlman to play this game but it really trips my trigger to hear Democrats do it. I cannot site an example, but I know I have heard it happen.

  • First off, instead of inventing some pissy name for Republicans, let’s just accept the “Democrat” tag and start using it ourselves proudly. Maybe using the new language would be a subtle way to rebrand the party.

    Secondly, we need to make “conservative” an epithet just as they did to “liberal.” You know, to emphasize that the problem is not Bush, but conservatism itself. Otherwise they will just set out looking for a new conservative hero who can trick us all one more time and then pull away the football after the election.

    For example:

    “We cannot return to the “borrow-and-spend” mentality of the conservatives…”

    “Big-spending conservatives…”

    “Conservative restrictions on civil liberties…”

    “US military preparedness weakened by conservatives…”

    “Conservative big-business crooks…”

    Get the picture?

    And, in response to “Tax cuts for everybody that pays taxes” we just smile and say, “There you go again.”

  • I just call them what they are… Fascists
    Their deeds are the measure. Screw their words.

  • why even warn the GOP… that’s the Dems being just a little too nice again. Just drop the bomb over and over again!

  • Who cares if we stoop to their level beale. Look where their level is. Control of all three branches of government. I say, stoop away. Fuck the republican’ts.
    I’m beggining to think all of this “We can’t stoop to their level” comes from the RNC.
    Who’s paying you, beale?

  • The radicals that have taken over the Republican party really have pulled a fast one by convincing everyone they are “conservatives”. I like to think I could have a rational argument with the old-fashioned, principled “traditional” conservative, and probably even agree on a few important issues. I’m trying to say there’s another breed entirely that we’re dealing with when we talk about the Bush fanatic types, intellectually impenetrable jerks who aren’t on the same planet as the rest of us at all and with whom rational argument is impossible. It’s the fanaticism that’s the problem, and the fact that the fanatics and radicals are passing themselves off as “conservatives.” They really are more like fascists as #18 says. I don’t think we should tar everyone that calls themself conservative with the same brush.

  • This posting and its comments have been soooo enjoyable to read!

    I agree with Mark in comment 8 that Republicant works. For me, it looks less contrived and less artificial without the apostrophe (Republicant/Republican’t). In this respect, it sounds more natural and acceptable for popular usage. It resembles other English words such as applicant and supplicant, but it still has a negative sound to it that I can’t quite put my finger on – much like “Democrat Party” does. And of course, it’s a great set-up for that rousing riff on Republicant (non)achievements.

    So how do WE get this into regular and popular usage?

  • I dont think Republicant and Dander’s idea (#17) are mutually exclusive. you just mix in the occasional “conservative Republican’ts”.

    I share Dander’s annoyance at what was done to “liberal,” and think paybacks would be great – I’ve long wanted us to demonize conservative, and to Dander’s list I would add

    “Conservative failure to bring bin Laden to justice. . .”
    “Conservative manipulation of pre-war intelligence. . .”
    “Conservative waste of the Clinton budget surplus”
    “Conservative intrusion into your privacy and even your bedroom”
    “Conservative denial of basic health care benefits to millions of Americans”

    and keep going, and going, and going, and. . .

  • As the person who originally suggested this term those many months ago, I’m all aflutter here. My term didn’t have the apostrophe, and I left the pronunciation up to the user. I wanted to emphasize both that they “can’t” govern as well as making the reference to Philip K. Dick and the replicants. The Dick reference is probably lost on the general public, so I have no problem with that aspect going by the wayside.

    Go me. I done contributed to pop culture.

  • I’ve been using Repugnicants, myself. It adds a little to the meme by conflating the Repukes and their repugnance these days.

    Publicans works pretty well, too – especially for the more religiously fervent amongst the current crop. Though about Republics for a while, too – but it might be considered a compliment by some of them.

    Definitely one of those little annoyances that I picked up on quite some time ago and have had some problems with. Until I had something to use as a counterbalance.

  • Zeitgeist, I like the thought but think you’ve got the wrong word. Lots of progressives like the word conservative, used properly. As when we’re talking about conserving. Go after Republicans. After all, that’s the word on the ballot. And Republicants works so damn well.

  • Can’t have an abortion
    Can’t do stem celll research
    Can’t get married if you are gay
    Can’t tell the truth

  • How about the Auto-immune Deficiency Virus of democracy.
    Bringing down over two hundred years of freedom by subverting our rights with our own institutions and using them against us.

  • While the phrase “Republican’t” is nothing new, (consider the line from the Johnny Depp movie, “Are you a Mexican, or a mexi-can’t?”), I too think it merits constant use. It is much easier on the tongue than the older “repugnican”, referring to the Republic(an) party as being infested with moral repugnants, certainly an apt description of their party! I have also heard the term “Repubicans” – with the “l” dropped the “pub” is pronounced like the word “pubic”, however I don’t think this has the same impact. Other extrapolations of the word Republican are as follows…

    reBUMrican
    reTHUGrican
    reTARDrican
    rePUBELICKan (as in lick a pube)
    reTHINKrican
    reTREADrican
    reF#CKrican (letter obviously held)
    reDUNCErican
    rePOOFrican (poof here meaning heterosexually challenged)

    as you can see, the list goes on..

    So, what the public needs to ask their collective Conservitive Republican brother-in-law ia, “Is George W. Bush a Rebublican, or a Republican’t?”

    Peace – Love – Smoke

    GRIZZ

    • Comments are closed.