Archive for the ‘The PubSpeak Dictionary’ Category
ne*go*ti*ate (ne-go’-shee-ayt) n. 1. what Republicans call it when they stake out a position from which they then refuse to budge 2. what Republicans call it when they refuse to speak to anyone with whom they disagree
lie (lye) v. 1. any fact a Republican chooses not to believe 2. everything a Democrat says no matter how much evidence s/he has to back it up (the evidence is all lies, too) 3. anything from the MSM unless it originates on Fox, in the WSJ, the NR, the Weekly Standard, Pajamas Media, or WorldNetDaily, or with Rev Moon (see impartial)
truth (trooth) n. 1. anything Bush says no matter how divorced from reality 2. anything a Republican says no matter how divorced from reality 3. anything Rush Limbaugh says even if he admits he made it up
de*bate (duh-bait’) n. 1. a fair and honest exchange of views between Republicans
de*ba*ting so*ci*e*ty (duh-bait’-in so-sy’-i-tee) n. 1. a useless bunch of talk when action feels better 2. what Democrats turn any discussion into simply by insisting on joining it 3. any Congress in which Democrats have a majority 4. any group using diplomacy instead of military action to solve a foreign crisis, such as the UN
sub*stance (sub’-stuhns) n. 1. the core of any Republican issue 2. the critical importance of every statement by any right-wing crackpot 3. what Democrats never have
em*bol*den (em-bowl’-den) v. 1. what Democrats, merely by existing, do for terrorists 2. what Republicans do for each other when things go bump in the night
hom*i*cide (hom’-i-side) n. Someone who commits suicide, as in FoxNews reports today that a homicide bomber blew himself up
stri*dent (stry’-dent [like the gum, only with an "s"]) adj. 1. loud, aggressive 2. anything said by a Democrat at a decibel level above that of a horse whisperer 3. anything said by a woman at a decibel level above that of a dead cat 4. anything said by a Democratic woman at a decibel level above that of the parasites inside an igneous rock (see also, harsh, grating, hysterical)
hys*ter*i*cal (hiss-tair’-i-kl) adj. description invariably applied to: 1. all women 2. all liberals 3. all Democrats 4. the Iraq Study Group
un*fair (uhn’-fare) adj. 1. anything done once by Democrats to any Republican who previously did it dozens and dozens of times to them 2. any criticism by anybody of any Republican about anything
par*ti*san (par’-tih-zuhn) n. 1. any Democrat who disagrees with any Republican about anything, no matter how trivial 2. any liberal policy, no matter how disconnected from politics (science, for example) 3. the media (except some; see impartial) 4. Ralph Nader 5. Sean Penn (and the rest of that Commie bunch in Hollywood) 6. Michael Moore 7. Norman Mailer (see also, moonbats)
par*ti*san at*tack (par’-tih-zuhn a-tak’) phr. 1. any attempt by any Democrat to expose Republican corruption, especially if true 2. any attempt by Democrats to make Republicans obey the law, act ethically, or respect the Constitution
im*par*tial (im-par’-shul) adj. 1. any statement, act, or characterization of a Democrat by any Republican, no matter how false, bigoted, or mean 2. any purely political act by Republicans done with the intention of bolstering a specious or indefensible argument, especially if that argument is devoid of supporting facts 3. any study done by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or the Hoover Institute, no matter how devoid of actual fact those studies are 4. Bill O’Reilly and/or FoxNews 5. The Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review 6. Rush Limbaugh 7. Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza
bi*-par*ti*san (bye-par’-tih-zuhn) n. 1. Democratic surrender to Republican will 2. Democratic obedience to Republican dictates 3. anything Republicans do that Joe Lieberman will support
con*sult (con-sulk’) v. 1. what Bush does when he tells Democrats what he’s going to do before he does it 2. what Republicans do with each other (see also, closed loop)
A recent post at Paperwight’s Fair Shot reminded me that I’ve been noticing there are a lot of folks in Left Blogtopia who continue to be surprised upon discovering that conservative Republicans seem to define some words quite differently from the way we define them. After quoting Rod Dreher’s recent confession -
I had a heretical thought for a conservative – that I have got to teach my kids that they must never, ever take Presidents and Generals at their word – that their government will send them to kill and die for noble-sounding rot – that they have to question authority.
- Paperwight has some difficulty trying to figure out just which conservative “philosophy” Rod’s brand would have fit into. He finally concludes:
The only form of conservatism that allows one to actually have that belief is authoritarianism, whether it’s royalist, theocratic, fascist, or otherwise dictatorial. Authoritarianism lets you just turn off your brain when your leaders speak, because your leaders can’t do bad things. And that in a nutshell is one of the central features of and problems with American conservatism.
Well…YES. And it has been since Nixon’s resident PR assassin, Roger Ailes, found that he could blunt criticism by simply changing the words Nixon used, particularly about Viet Nam. The invasion and bombing campaign in Cambodia became an incursion, cover-ups became protecting executive privilege, and an illegal domestic black bag operation ordered directly by Tricky Dick became a rogue operation Nixon didn’t know about because of something called plausible deniability.
But the capper was the concept of the imperial presidency – the so-called “unitary executive” – developed by Ailes and John Mitchell, who “interpreted” the Constitution by throwing out the separation of powers clause and assuming for the president the power to do anything. As the late Howard Hunt, boss of the Watergate break-in, put it:
“I had always assumed, working for the CIA for so many years, that anything the White House wanted done was the law of the land,” he told People magazine back in 1974.
Later on, the late, great Lee Atwater expanded Ailes’ original contribution by inventing “spin” and, more significantly, “reverse spin” – the art of convincing the press that a war-like statement was really about peace and a peaceful statement was really advocating war, that racism was merely a response to runaway affirmative action and affirmative action was really racist, and so on. The definitions Atwater came up with for his legendary reverse spin sessions were so attractive to radical conservatives that over the next quarter-century they first absorbed, then processed, then began to actually believe in the invented black-is-white, day-is-night definitions as if they were the real ones.
Of course, that explains only about half of the terms conservatives use. The rest come from deep disconnections inherent in conservative Republican dogma between what they wish were true and what actually is true. In fact, the essence of conservatism is, as Paperwight finally noticed, anti-democratic, authoritarian, demagogic, anti-Constitutional, and anti-American to an alarming degree. Which means that conservative Republicanism attracts demagogues, imperialists, monarchists, and would-be dictators like a dogpile attracts flies.
So I thought it might help if someone compiled a dictionary of Conservative RepublicanSpeak one could refer to if one was unsure how a Republican was defining a particular word or phrase s/he’d just used. Which is all a long-winded way of introducing (apologies to Ambrose Bierce) the first installment of:
The PubSpeak Dictionary: Translating Conservative-RepublicanSpeak into English Read the rest of this entry »