Democrats found it demeaning when the president, in his State of the Union address last month, referred to the "Democrat majority," as opposed to the "Democratic majority."

"Now look, my diction isn't all that good," Bush told the 200 lawmakers who wrapped up two days away from Washington with family and aides. "I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."

He got hearty laughs. And he was careful to keep the "ic" firmly tacked on for the rest of his remarks.

Linguistic Abuse. Republicans have a nasty habit of linguistically disparaging Democrats by using "Democrat" as an adjective. I sent the following short emailed objection to the New York Post today.

Why does the Post publish usages like this: "Suozzi, the Nassau County executive, and Spitzer, the state attorney general, are both eyeing the Democrat nomination for governor"? "Democrat" is a noun. The adjective is "Democratic". Any competent copy editor would automatically change "Democrat [nomination]" to "Democratic". Do Democratic-disposed publications have to invent a disrespectful term for the adjectival form of "Republican"? Would Republicans like media to say "Repub nomination", "Publican nomination", or "Scumbaggan nomination" rather than "Republican nomination"? Reputable publications do not use disrespectful slang to disparage a major American political party.

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:24 AM