"Move 2: Let the Democrat-controlled Congress throw a fit"....

[LaPera]

Interesting perception & thoughtful writing from "The Smirking Chimp".... This is just a small excerpt of a much larger article.... What do you think?

WHITE HOUSE CHESS

The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the back rooms of the White House Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten were doing what any world-class chess player does when facing defeat -- plot a series of aggressive moves to throw their opponent off balance in the hopes of regaining the initiative.

How do I know this? Well, since God only talks to Rev. Pat Robertson – and, when He can't get through to Pat, George W. Bush – I didn't get it from Him. No it came to me in this news flash late yesterday:

<snip>

It was that last line that gives away the strategy. “Negroponte will serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”

Never! Negroponte quits as head of one of the most important and powerful posts in government, a job that puts him face to face with the President of the United States every morning, of everyday of the week, to accept a position as Rice's assistant?

Fat chance.

So what's up? Here's what I think is up -- and if I were Bush I would be itching to get on with the game.

Move 1: Announce what the administration knows will be a very unpopular decision to send more troops to Iraq.

Move 2: Let the Democrat-controlled Congress throw a fit and hold hearings the administration knows will stir up additional opposition and shake loose new damning information on the administrations march to war and mismanagement of that war.

Move 3: Just when all the above is hitting the fan, Dick Cheney announces he is retiring from office early due to “health concerns," and because he does not want to be "a distraction" when he is called to testify in purjury trial of his former No. 2. Scooter Libby.

Move 4: The next day Bush announces he will nominate Condoleezza Rice to replace Cheney.

Move 5: At the same time Bush announces he is nominating Negroponte to replace Rice as Secretary of State.

The above series of moves makes political sense on so many levels that I consider it inevitable. Think about it:

For Cheney: By all reports, Cheney has been sidelined within the administration. No longer being a major player – actually the major player -- is so NOT Dick Cheney. If he can't run the show, he's not interested. Also, leaving before the end of Bush's final term would put some daylight between Cheney and the shoddy Bush legacy -- not a lot of daylight, but a lot more than if Cheney stays until January 2009.

For Bush: Appointing the first woman and the first African American to the vice presidency, Bush knows, would put him in the history books for something besides the mess his war has made out of the Middle East. By appointing Rice VP he would lock in for all history his place as the first US President to have a female and black as his No. 2 -- an historical “two-fer"

(Much more - Full article)
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4466

[Shakespeare]

1. Someone really should check the writer's grammar. "Democrat-controlled?"

:eyes:

God, I get SO sick of that shit.

[LaPera]

3. I'm with you completely on that!!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. I don't see the problem here.

The Congress is controlled by Democrats, so "Democrat-controlled" is proper in this case. If he had said "Democrat Party-controlled" I would agree with you, but not here.

[Shakespeare]

6. Nope. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Sorry. The Answer Is Yes

The Congress is controlled by Democrats. For the sake of brevity and economy of space in a opinion piece, it is acceptable to use "Democrat Controlled" rather than "Democratically Controlled".

Besides, it's pretty obvious that folks at Smirking Chimp aren't doing to insult dems. It's inefficient to take offense where none is obviously intended.
The Professor

[Shakespeare]

8. Oh, plenty of dems fall into that trap--Randi Rhodes is one of the worst.

It should be "democratically controlled."

From SC, I don't believe offense is intended. It's simply sloppy writing.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Journalism Schools Teach Economy Of Space

Anybody who took even one journo case in college as an elective got the lecture over reducing words for the sake of economy of message and preservation of space.

I know what's gramatically correct and what is "journalistically encouraged" aren't always the same thing.
The Professor

[Shakespeare]

11. I am a former journalist. You never sacrifice grammar for economy of space.

I have the degree, and the actual work experience. You never, EVER opt for incorrect grammar just so save space, and that certainly wasn't an issue at SC.

[sandnsea]

12. Well you're both wrong

It isn't being used as a matter of economy of space. It's simply a punctuation error. It should read, the Democrat controlled Congress. This refers to Democrats as a group of people as opposed to the Democratic Party. American controlled Iraq. Union controlled truckers. If it had been written Democratic-controlled Congress, then one could argue it was an economy of space in not using Democratic Party-controlled, which would sound stupid. "Democratically" is most certainly wrong because it infers little d democracy. Or the writer should have just chosen a different way to say what he meant.

[Shakespeare]

14. The adverbial form of big-D democrat is Democratically.

So no, I'm not wrong.

[sandnsea]

15. No

There's no such word. Just as there's no such word as Republicanally or Greenally. democratically refers to a style of government or decision making, not a political party.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democratically

[Shakespeare]

16. Unfortunately for you, your link proves me correct.

And it's inaccurate (and just plain dumb) to suggest that the various forms of the words democrat and republican are the same. Democrat. Republican. Democratic party. Republican party. Do you see the flaw in your construct yet?

Oh, and note item 4. in the dictionary definition you linked:

4. (initial capital letter) Politics.
a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.

Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

[sandnsea]

17. It refers back to little d democratic

Nowhere does it use a capital D to express Democratically as pertaining to a political party. The various forms of the words democrat and republican are NOT the same, that's the whole point. Democratic is a unique word, referring to both little d democracy and big D Party. That's why Democratically isn't a word, democratically doesn't pertain to the political party AT ALL. It pertains to governance and decision making.

[Shakespeare]

18. What do you think "initial capital letter" means?

That's why I emphasized that in bold letters. It means Democratically. That number 4 in the definnition is referring to the initial cap form of the word democratically. Democratically. Yes, it is a word, and I find it supremely odd that you keep insisting it isn't. Now, we can keep having this argument all night if you wish. I'll put my MA in English and years teaching freshman comp up against whatever you've got to offer. What you are suggesting is that there is no adverbial form of the word "big D" democrat. Think about that.

And YOU are the one who intimated that the same declension could be applied to multiple, yet very different words. I was merely pointing out how absurd that was.

[sandnsea]

19. ly - in the manner

The manner in which governance or decision making takes place - democratically.

Democratic Party, Democrat, is a proper noun - like Sandy. Something can't be done Sandily, no matter how much I might think the entire world should behave in the manner I want them to.

You can put up 10 masters degrees for all I care. You're wrong. You won't be the first freshman comp teacher that I've proven wrong in my lifetime of raising 4 kids either.

[Shakespeare]

20. Okay. One more time. That's why definition #4 SAYS....

initial capital letter, and pertaining specifically to the Democratic Party.

Now. Please tell me how what it says in such very plain language is not what it means. Again, your weird arguments regarding declension don't fly; just because something is a proper noun doesn't mean there isn't an adverbial form, and doesn't mean its usage may be "irregular" as compared with another proper noun. Go back and read definition number 4 a few more times. It's telling you exactly the same thing I'm telling you.

I'm not wrong. But keep trying.

Edited to add: do a web search on "Democratically controlled congress." Note the almost half-million occurrences, many of which are from news and other sources who routinely make correct grammar a part of their practice. And then come back and tell me there's no such word.

[sandnsea]

21. It's a mish-mesh

Some with capital D, some not, which shows the confusion over the use of the word as it pertains to the party. There also isn't half a million and most of what comes up are blogs anyway. Democratically, as pertains to the Democratic Party, is not a word. Anybody who is using it just isn't thinking about proper grammar, that's all.

[Shakespeare]

24. Yes, they are thinking about proper grammar.

I get over 412,000 hits. That's damn close to a half million. And as many of those are "legitimate" sources, which is my whole reason for pointing that out to you.

You are wrong.

[sandnsea]

26. Americanly controlled UN

Teamsterly controlled docks
teacherly controlledy classroom
Republicanly controlled Congress

No. Not in a million.

It's Democrat controlled Congress.

[Shakespeare]

27. You do realize that your example is completely inapplicable?

The English language is filled to the brim with words that don't "act" the same way as other, similar words. Putting aside for just a moment that definition 4 for the word democratically is exactly what I've been saying it is (you have yet to respond to THAT, as it proves me conclusively right), here are some words--right back atcha--that are treated similarly:

Painter - painterly
Health - healthily
Music - musically

It's beyond ridiculous that you keep trying to shoehorn in your incorrect ideas by using completely irrelevant examples. Of course the word "republican" isn't declined in the same way "democrat" is:

Ex. 1: He is a republican in a republican congress.
Ex. 2: He is a democrat in a democratic congress.

Do you GET it yet? You are making a complete and utter fool of yourself.

[sandnsea]

30. It's a Democratic Party Congress

Republican is used in place of Republican Party. In that way, Democratic Congress is used, as a eplacement for Democratic Party. But you still don't go to Democratically controlled. Just like you don't go to Americanly controlled or Republicanly controlled. You don't have a Painterly controlled gallery. If you wanted to indicate a gallery controlled by painters, you would say a painter controlled gallery. Healthily and musically would be used in the same manner as small 'd' democratically. It refers to the way something is done, not who does it.

[Shakespeare]

34. You have no CLUE what you're talking about.

You clearly have no understanding of how declension works, or even what it means. You continue trying to decline words in ways that they simply aren't in the English language. All words are not declined equally. I've demonstrated that already, and you STILL don't understand that. In fact, now you're arguing that small-D democratically isn't a real word (which is hilarious, considering you thought posting the definition of that word a few posts back would support your argument).

You also don't understand the difference between a noun and an adverb. And that's kinda sad.

And yet again, you still don't address that pesky little definition 4.

[sandnsea]

38. Yes I absolutely do

You're the one that keeps mixing up nouns and adjectives and adverbs, not me. You simply cannot pull out one word and create a whole new rule for it, based on its use in a different form.

[Shakespeare]

No, you absolutely don't.

I didn't create a whole new "rule" for the word. The adverbial form of democrat (big OR small D), is democratically. Definition 4 confirms that it can be used specifically in reference to the big-D Democratic Party.

Noun, adjective, adverb. There's nothing new to that, and I'm not mixing up anything.

As a noun (or, more accurately in this case, a direct object, which is a noun): He is a Democrat.
As an adjective, which modifies a noun: We have a Democratic Congress.
As an adverb, which modifies a verb: We have a Democratically controlled Congress.

I can't believe I have to resort to sentence diagramming.

[sandnsea]

45. Then we had a Republicanly controlled Congress

And an Americanly controlled UN. :eyes:

This is truly pathetic. I feel sorry for your students and their parents.

[Shakespeare]

47. Declension, declension, declension.

Seriously, go take an English class. You clearly need it.

Not all words are declined in the same way. The dictionary definition supports my argument--not yours (and you continue to ignore that, after YOU were the one who posted it).

:eyes: Right back atcha.

When I taught, I taught college students, so thank GOD I didn't have to deal with clueless parents. And the remedial freshman comp students I taught didn't have this much trouble understanding declension. Sad.

[sandnsea]

49. You are just wrong

And what's sadder, I know you know you're wrong and you just won't admit it. You know better, no matter how many times you try to throw around your 'superiority'.

[Shakespeare]

51. You have yet to demonstrate how I'm wrong.

You also have yet to explain why definition 4 (of the definition YOU posted) is wrong, because if I'm wrong, so is that.

You don't know shit. You may not like my "superiority," but when it gets right down to it, I do have the education and training to know what the hell I'm talking about. And I've completely supported and explained myself. You just keep throwing out non sequitur words with vastly different rules of declension and going "see!" as if that somehow makes you right. That proves nothing except that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[sandnsea]

53. democratically is an adverb

Democrat, in Democrat controlled Congress, is not an adverb and should not be an adverb. It's referring to WHO is controlling Congress, not HOW it's being controlled.

[Shakespeare]

54. The form of "democrat" modifies the verb "controlled."

That makes it an adverb, as it describes who or what is controlling. It is linked to the verb. If you want to describe who is controlling congress (therefore requiring an adjective, as it is linked to a noun), it would read "Democratic congress."

It's about what word you're modifying. That's what you seem unable to understand.

[sandnsea]

55. Nope, it modifies the noun Congress

Republican controlled - all goes together. Democrat controlled, same thing. Perhaps the OP was entirely correct in adding the dash, to make it clear that it goes together for people like you.

[Shakespeare]

56. No, that's wrong. It modifies the verb.

That's not my rule; that's hard-and-fast grammar rules. You seem to be confused by the fact the word "republican" is declined differently than the word "democrat" is declined.

The word "republican" is the same no matter what form it takes:

Republicans control Congress. (republican as noun)

It was a Republican Congress. (republican as adjective)

It was Republican controlled Congress. (republican as adverb)

The form of that word never changes. The word "democrat" is not the same, however:

Democrats control Congress. (democrat as noun)

It is a Democratic Congress. (democrat as adjective)

It is a Democratically controlled Congress. (democrat as adverb)

Again, the dictionary definition demonstrates this.

[sandnsea]

57. Who, not How

Republican controlled refers to WHO, not a republican ideology wherein it would become an adverb.

This is stupid. You're wrong, you've been proven wrong, and the lengths to which you will twist grammar rules in order to avoid admitting you're wrong is stunning.

[Shakespeare]

58. You're confusing yourself by concentrating on "who" and "how."

That's NOT where you look for your modifiers; you look at what kind of word is being modified (a noun or a verb). And "republican idealogy" has nothing to do with whether it's an adverb; it's what it's modifying in a sentence.

It's not stupid, I am not wrong, I have not been PROVEN wrong, and I'm not twisting anything. And I've given you specific examples (which you continue to ignore--one last time: how about definition 4???).

[sandnsea]

59. lol, that's the whole POINT

Oh my god, that's incredible. If you use the word 'democratically' to describe the Congress, which is an adverb, you change the entire meaning of the sentence. The point is WHO is controlling Congress, not HOW Congress is being controlled. This is just crazy.

Definition 4 makes that very clear, capital D Democrat cannot be turned into an adverb.

[Shakespeare]

61. Wow. You just don't get it.

"Democratically" doesn't describe the Congress (because you don't USE an adverb to describe a noun). It describes who/how the Congress is controlled (the verb, which it modifies). It in NO way changes the general meaning of the sentence; it's merely a difference in structure. You can modify the noun to describe the Congress, or you can modify the verb to emphasize who controls the Congress.

Definition 4--wherein it states "initial capital letter"--is describing precisely that. I'm not sure how to simplify that for you beyond what's already there; "initial capital letter" means the word IN the definition: "Democratically." That is then explained by the further explanation "of or pertaining to the Democratic party." I honestly don't know how to make that any clearer.

I can't decide if you're grammar-blind about adverbs and adjectives, or if you just don't know how to read a dictionary definition.

[sandnsea]

63. Yeah! You don't use an adverb to describe a noun!!!

Hallelujah!! You finally get it! Who is controlling Congress? Democrats!! Consequently you do not turn it into an adverb and say Congress is being controlled democratically. That's not what the sentence means.

Get it now?

[Shakespeare]

66. That's because it's not describing a noun. It's modifying a verb.

You are bizarre. You really are.

Let me just remind you, if I may, that much earlier in the thread, you were arguing that it COULD be used in that way, but only with a lowercase D. Then you posted the dictionary definition, which specifically cites the upper-case version of that word, and explains when it should be used ("of or pertaining to the Democratic party").

I don't think anybody was arguing, at any point in this thread, about who is controlling Congress. Again, it's a difference in structure. Period.

A Democratic Congress. A Democratically controlled Congress. The use of the verb "controlled" is what makes all the difference here.

But please, keep arguing. I'm curious to see what bizarre explanation you'll come up with next.

[sandnsea]

68. The OP is about WHO is controlling Congress

The Democrats or the Democratic Party. There IS NO modifying of the verb. It's a Democrat-controlled Congress. Who. Not little d democracy how.

The Mystic Society has taken over the city council of Shakeadumbo. It is now Mystic-controlled Shakeadumbo, not mystically controlled Shakeadumbo.

[Shakespeare]

70. It has nothing to do with the OP. It's about the internal sentence structure.

Good fucking god.

When you toss in the verb, your modifier is an adverb. And in this case, that's "Democratically." It's in the fucking dictionary definition that YOU CITED.

You really do not understand basic grammar.

[treestar]

60. The question is whether an adverb belongs there

or an adjective or a noun.

Maybe it can be any of them.

"Democratic" is the adjective, "Democrat" is the noun, and "Democratically" is the adverb.

Is there a grammar book or a dictionary around?

If it were like teacher controlled classroom or teamster controlled docks, it would be Democrat controlled Congress.

Though teacher has no adjective. Pedantically controlled classroom? Pedant controlled classroom?

[Shakespeare]

62. All words are not declined the same.

Please, please, please don't make me explain that again...

The words "teacher" and "teamster" (and "republican," for that matter) are not comparable in talking about the declension of the word "democrat."

[treestar]

76. Declension is for nouns, right?

I'm not sure how it works in English. Nouns don't appear to decline, except for I, me, to me, mine, are there some changes in the form of the word in any other words? Otherwise, we have one case only. Which case goes here? Possessive?

Some nouns just don't have different forms for adjectives and adverbs, like teacherish and teacherly, so maybe Democrat falls into that same group of exceptions.

When the freepers are trying to be cute and funny, they say "Democrat Party" using the noun rather than the adjective where it is clear. Here it is unclear, so I don't think the person was trying to be freepy, do things freeperishly, or behaving in a freeperly manner.

[Shakespeare]

77. Declension is for all forms of a word.

That term is used most often when discussing verbs, but it also applies to other forms of a word.

Democrat is not in the same group as teacher, and I've shown some examples of why, and also shown words that are declined in the same way that "democrat" is.

I'm not suggesting that the article posted is freepish at all; it's just sloppy. Hell, as I pointed out earlier, Randi Rhodes is one of the worst about falling into that trap, and she's about as un-freepy as one can get. :-)

But because this stupid battle of rhetoric over the word "democrat" is more insidious than a lot of people realize, it really sticks in my craw (and that's why I'll go into protracted grammar explanations if need be).

[treestar]

81. I only know about it from trying to learn a foreign language

My school wasn't that great on English grammar - most of what I know comes from trying to learn foreign languages - but you're right, for example, in Russian nouns and adjectives decline within the case. You have to use the accusative feminine adjective with the accusative feminine noun, for example.

But in English is it never as clear to me because often the words don't change. This looks like a tough one. Even the freepers could have been trying to get it right when they originally said "Democrat Party."

[Shakespeare]

83. Nah, Gingrich and Luntz started that nasty little habit quite intentionally.

There've been TONS of threads here about it.

At least you're open to discussion and unafraid to actually ASK questions. :hi:

[sandnsea]

65. Exactly, and if you read the OP

That's exactly what it means, who is controlling, not how.

[Shakespeare]

67. The issue here is now about "who" or "how."

And I've already explained that one. To death, even.

Maybe you should sign up for some kind of extension course in basic English grammar. Seriously.

[sandnsea]

69. Yes. It. Is. COMPLETELY n/t

[Shakespeare]

71. No, it isn't.

And you can't even respond to concrete evidence, except to devolve into personal attacks. <shakes head>

[sandnsea]

72. Compound adjective - OP is completely correct

I'm done.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaCompound_Adjectives.htm

[Shakespeare]

74. Sorry, it's not a compound adjective. Again, that pesky little verb.

Hoisted by your own petard, again:

1. A compound adjective is formed when two or more adjectives work together to modify the same noun. These terms should be hyphenated to avoid confusion or ambiguity.

2. However, combining an adverb (usually a word ending in "ly") and an adjective does not create a compound adjective. No hyphen is required because it is already clear that the adverb modifies the adjective rather than the subsequent noun.

Do you even read your links through before you post them? This is the second time you've undone your own argument by posting a link that you mistakenly think helps you.

Edited to clarify (because that's apparently necessary with you): You cannot make a compound adjective out of an adjective and a verb. Or a noun and a verb. It's always, and ONLY, two adjectives.

[sandnsea]

78. Maybe it's a compound noun

Democrat-controlled-Congress. Whatever the hell it is, democratically is an adverb and would change the meaning.

You do not use an adverb to describe WHO is doing something. You keep saying that it doesn't matter, but it's the entire point.

[Shakespeare]

79. Not with the verb there. These rules really aren't that difficult, you know.

Nor are they "mystical."

Using "democratically" OR "Democratically" does not change the meaning, not one iota.

You're all wrapped up in descriptive pronouns, and they have exactly nothing to do with adverbs and adjectives as modifiers. I really wish you could understand that.

[sandnsea]

80. Here

Government, not governmently. Democrat, not Democratically-mandated. You're applying the second rule to the first usage. Democrat-controlled Congress is exactly right.



The other time we must use hyphenation is to join a word to a past participle to create a single adjective preceding the noun it modifies: "a well-intentioned plan," for example, or "a horseshoe-shaped bar." Be aware, however, that we do not hyphenate these same phrases when they FOLLOW the nouns they modify:

--This is a government-mandated program.
--The program is government mandated.

--She is a well-respected student.
--She is well respected as a teacher.

Another basic rule is that we never hyphenate compounds that are created with "-ly" adverbs, even when they PRECEDE the nouns they modify: "a fully developed plan," for example, or "a nationally certified teacher." Here are more examples:

--We sent in heavily fortified troops.
--The troops were heavily fortified.

--All newly employed nurses must be evaluated regularly.
--All the nurses on the eighth floor are newly employed.

--A beautifully designed room can be both relaxing and invigorating.
--The living room is beautifully designed.

http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/042703.htm

[Shakespeare]

82. Again, pulling out random words that are declined differently than "democrat"....

...does nothing to advance your argument. At ALL.

I usually use animal names to help the remedial students understand, because that usually helps to make the lightbulb go off in some of their heads:

One goose, a flock of geese. One deer, a herd of deer. One dog, a pack of dogs.

One word doesn't change at all. One word changes completely. One word just gets an "s" tacked onto the end to designate the plural form.

Ergo, trying to use the word "government" to show me that there is no -ly adverbial form of the word "democrat" is ridiculous and wrong (and again, I refer you back to the dictionary definition).

And you do realize that "governmentally" is a word, right? Just because you forgot that, and used the non-word "governmently," doesn't prove your case.

If you want to get into hyphenation rules, you do realize that you're wandering off into completely different territory, don't you? It really doesn't apply here. And I assure you I'm quite up on my hyphenation rules (and my comma rules, and my semi-colon rules, and pretty much anything else you want to discuss).

I can do this all day. Really.

[Shakespeare]

84. Okay, one more shot here--I think I may know what's confusing you.

Please understand that I'm not being so adamant about this to be obnoxiuos--I really do want you to understand the differences in usage (and it all goes back to the Gingrich/Luntz ploy for WHY it matters).

It occurs to me after that last link you posted that you may be confused by the hyphenation/past participle example. And I understand completely why that throws you off, but let me explain why it doesn't apply in this case.

To say democrat-controlled, and have it be correct, you would have to be referring to just one democrat. That's a very specific, non-plural word. And we're talking about our party's control of the congress, so that is why "Democratically controlled" is correct (and again, I'll reference the dictionary definition, which designates when, and only when, the capitalized form of "Democratically" is appropriate).

[sandnsea]

87. No, Democrat refers to more than one Democrat

It's plural as well. Teamsters can be individuals, as can a teamster; but Teamster refers to the entire union. Teamster-controlled docks. Democrat-controlled Congress. Vote Democrat!! It means to vote for the entire party. Democrat-controlled is the correct usage. democratically is an adverb.

[Shakespeare]

88. No, it doesn't. There is a democrat, and many democrats.

This isn't like the word "deer," which can mean either singular or plural. "Democrat" has a specific singular form, and a specific plural form.

And it's "vote Democratic," not "vote Democrat."

For the past participle example to be correct, you would have to be referring to just one democrat. Since that doesn't work, then the adverb/verb "Democratically controlled" would be the correct choice.

[sandnsea]

89. Democratic is an adjective

Pertaining to the Democratic Party, Democratic votes or values. You can vote Democratic in that sense. But you can also vote Democrat, just as you can vote union. It's a Democrat-controlled Congress, a Congress controlled by a group of Democrats. It signifies who is in control, not the characteristics of who is in control.

[Shakespeare]

90. No. Again, different rules (declension) for different words.

And it has nothing to do with this very, very long subthread.

Do YOU even understand what you mean when you begin contorting yourself to talk about "characteristics of who is in control?" I've laid out, in painstaking detail, what the grammar rules are, what correct sentence structure should be--and still you keep insisting that "democrat-controlled" is correct. It isn't. And ignoring all the grammar handbooks in the world won't ever make it correct.

I think I finally put my finger on what was throwing you, and you won't even stop to consider that (the confusion over the past participle example). Thing is, I can completely understand why and how that could confuse you. However, "Democrat-controlled" is wrong. Period. It is grammatically incorrect.

You are still wrong. You were wrong at the beginning of this sub-thread, and you continue to be wrong. And I will keep arguing and explaining (and explaining and explaining) as long as you care to keep going with this nonsense. As Arlo Guthrie sang, I'm not proud. Or tired.

[sandnsea]

91. for little d democracy

You just refuse to acknowledge the proper noun Democrat is different than democrat.

Lots and lots of journalists disagree with you. I don't know how much more proof I can give you to show you you're wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%27democrat-controlled%27&btnG=Search

[Shakespeare]

92. But it's NOT different.

The grammar usage for big-D or little-D democrat is the same across the board.

And I have 1,020,000 google hits for Democratically controlled. That's more than yours. So?

So far, you have not given any proof at all. You keep throwing out random links and inaccurate analogies (which I just keep on shooting down). That does NOT prove your point.

[sandnsea]

93. 1,380,000

So I guess I win. :eyes:

Google is not a measure of correctness, I only put the link up to try to get through your head that journalists do not use 'Democratically-controlled'.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=democrat+controlled&btnG=Search

I am a Democrat, we are Democrats, and the Democrat-controlled Congress is in charge. I am a mother, there are mothers, the mother-controlled PTA does good work. Not the motherly-controlled, the mother-controlled. I've given you the rule that applies, I've given every example I can think of. Others have too. Finally, I've shown you respected journalists that use Democrat-controlled.

I don't know why you refuse to get it.

[Shakespeare]

94. That was my point.

No, google is not a measure of correctness. In fact, I'd bet that if you googled "democrat congress," which even YOU won't deny is wrong, that you'd get a zillion hits for it.

And yes, journalists DO use "Democratically controlled." No hyphen (the only adverb that EVER gets a hyphen is "well"). Perhaps you should amend your search parameters to use the actual phrase we've been arguing about.

And for the last goddamn fucking time, you cannot apply the rules of declension for one word to all other words. Just to use this (tired) example one more time: He is a Republican. They are Republicans. The Republican controlled Congress is in charge. Whoa! Totally different usage than the word "Democrat." As has been demonstrated ad nauseum. Amazing, isn't it? The English language is a marvelous, complicated thing.

Your examples are BAD EXAMPLES. They are INACCURATE examples. They are WRONG examples.

The rule you pulled out of your ass does NOT apply here, and I've explained why. With relevant examples. Examples that you've not tried to dispute at all, beyond just saying "you're wrong!"

I'm not wrong. The grammar rules are not wrong, but your understanding of them is, and woefully so. And no "others" have chimed in disagreeing with me--just you.

I don't know why YOU refuse to "get it."

[sandnsea]

95. He is a Democrat

They are Democrats. The Democrat-controlled Congress is in charge. Just as the Republican-controlled Congress used to be.

It could be the idiot-controlled Congress. It could be the Muslim-controlled Congress. It could be the cleric-controlled Congress. What it cannot be, is the idiotly, muslimly, clerically, OR Democratically controlled Congress because democratically is an ADVERB. It would modify HOW the Congress is being controlled, not WHO is controlling it.

I'm done.

[sandnsea]

96. "patriotically controlled"

NO results. Stunning.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22patriotically+controlled%22&btnG=Search

Patriot-controlled 203 responses

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patriot-controlled&btnG=Google+Search

Do you get it yet? If Patriotically is the correct adverb for controlled, then there would be at least one person who had used it that way. There's not. Because it's Patriot-controlled, controlled by Patriots. Not controlled patriotically.

Just Like Democrat.

[sandnsea]

85. democratically is an adverb

governmentally is an adverb. (Oops, I spelled it wrong. I can admit a mistake.)

But it goes to the point. They're both adverbs. They aren't correct for government-mandated or Democrat-controlled.

Yes, you can prove your wrong all day long. Even after you've been shown the precise rule. It's really sad.

[Shakespeare]

86. Yes, I know they're both adverbs. Please check out my other response to you.

I think I finally figured out what's confusing you, and I've explained why. And I'm trying NOT to be rude about it. The hyphenated past participle example you gave is is not correct here (and I explain why it isn't).

I have only proved, repeatedly, what is grammatically correct. That's not what's sad here.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. I Think That's What I Said

I said it was correct, but adverbially the "ly" ending could be used. I said it was right either way.
The Professor

[ncrainbowgrrl]

29. If a true concern is for economy of space- it could be "Dem- controlled congress"

Otherwise, it's like saying that the republics are in minority status

[ProfessorGAC]

31. That Would Work

All i know is that in the one journalism class i took (as an elective i thought would be interesting, because it was at the height of Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate), we were taught to be as concise as possible with some latitude given for eliminating normal grammatical rules. (e.g. - Ending a sentence with a preposition was ok if it meant you used less words.)

So, i was just suggesting a reason why the author did that. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong.
The Professor

[sandnsea]

32. Who controls Congress

Democrats. So it's a Democrat controlled Congress. If we were discussing the how of governance, democratically vs. tyrannically, then the OP would be wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with economy of space, it's plain old right. Except for perhaps the dash. It's the Democrat controlled Congress. Or the Democratic (Party) Congress. It is most certainly NOT the Democratically conrolled Congress.

[Shakespeare]

35. Except that it most certainly IS. n /t

[ProfessorGAC]

37. It Still Operates In A Democratic Fashion

People vote. The majority carries the day. So, it is a democratically controlled system. It's a democratic republic, right?

So, both would seem correct.
The Professor

[Shakespeare]

39. That is correct.

In one case, it's an adverb. In the second, an adjective.

And I can't believe I'm having to explain this (and I'm not talking about you, Professor).

[sandnsea]

42. That's NOT what the OP means AT ALL

And I cannot believe your big fat ego won't allow you to admit you made a mistake.

[Shakespeare]

44. I have not made a mistake.

Hell, I've even diagrammed sentences (above) for you to further demonstrate correct usage.

[sandnsea]

46. And you did it fucking WRONG n/t

[Shakespeare]

48. LOL--no, I didn't.

You're a real piece of work. You keep saying I'm wrong, yet you can't prove me wrong. Hmmm.

[sandnsea]

50. The sky's purple

Prove me wrong.

You seem to think if you keep saying something, and throw around vocab words, it automatically makes you right. It doesn't. There's no such word as Democratically as it relates to the Democratic Party of Democratic (Party) Congress.

[Shakespeare]

52. Yeah, that's just about the way you argue.

"Throwing around vocab words" is what explains--and confirms--my argument.

I'm going to post this one last fucking time (from the definition YOU posted):

4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.

Sorry, you lose this one.

(And one more time, in case you still don't understand this point: "initial capital letter" means big-d "Democratically.")

[sandnsea]

40. little 'd' democratic

Exactly. Which is what I've been saying all along. That isn't what the OP refers to at all and I'm sure you know that.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. What's With These Dupes, Today?

.

[treestar]

64. This is true

The person probably thought that was the right word for the spot.

Using this to spot Freepers only works where the word clearly is out of place, such as when they say "Democrat Party."

[Eric J in MN]

2. If they want Negroponte as Secretary of State,

...why couldn't they wait until the appointment to put him in the State Dept?

[GreenTea]

4. I believe Cheney will step down - The Dem congress certainly can't

impeach someone who's quit, nor can they impeach a "clean" new replacement as VP, the republicans aren't going to just sit around and let the Democrats (Pelosi) take control of the presidency.

A new republican VP would also have a running chance at the White House in 2008.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Clue Train: Never Happen. CONDI IS PRO CHOICE.

I don't know who these self-important "political analysts" are who don't grasp the clear fucking reality of who precisely controls the Republican Party.

Same thing with Guiliani. Neither will get anywhere near the White House on a Republican Ticket. Ever. Nope, not then, either.


Nope! Still not gonna happen.


Nope, not now, either.


Back to class, people!

[Virginia Dare]

43. You're right, I don't see the right wingnuts rallying behind Condi...

it would go against the grain of their inner-core racism.

[librechik]

73. they don't have to --her term would be up in 08, no elections.

and no Congress approval necessary for that kind of appointment.

[Matariki]

22. This poses an interesting question. I think I could actually be happy with this scenario.

I was very, very happy when Pelosi became the speaker of the house for several reasons. Not the least of which was the historical significance for women. I thought about my 16 year old niece and how different things are for her, how many more possibilities and role models she has as a young woman than I did at 16. It made me wonder if I'd be as happy had Pelosi been a republican. In some ways I think yes. In spite of all the bad about Rice, I'm still happy to see a woman in her role, and a black woman all the more so. It helps break barriers. If she is appointed vice-president, it will only make it easier for a woman to be elected president sooner than later.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Wow!

You'll find no more dedicated pro-women's rights type person than me. But with genuine respect, such logic is not sound. :( Further, Rice may be black, but that's no assistance in helping her relate to your average, everyday AMERICAN "person of color." (or vice versa)

You see, in BushWorld the only color that truly matters is that mean GREEN. :puke:

You and me + 99% of America are mere peasant classes ... breeders of future cannon fodder to entertain the Elite during never ending war eras. :(

[Matariki]

25. What you are saying is true - yet

there always seems to be political obstacles to having a woman run for president or even be on the ticket as vice president. Whatever election it is is always 'too important' to 'risk it'. If a woman was appointed as vice president it would help break through that obstacle - even if that woman is a republican monster like Rice. Can't you see an issue in more than one way? Yes it would suck to have any of Bush's lapdogs as vice president - but if Cheney resigns that's going to happen anyway - and Rice really couldn't be worse than him anyway. Concurrently, it would be great to finally have a woman vice president.

[CTyankee]

33. You make an excellent point!

Condi would be in a box where she could do less damage for our country than her wanderings and blunderings into foreign policy, except to go to state funerals. I don't see how she could be considered "in line" in any way for the White House. I can't see blacks voting for her, what with her $1,000 shoe shopping during Katrina.

I would hate, tho, for people to say "See, I told you women can't run anything."

[Matariki]

36. and that too is a good point

'I would hate, tho, for people to say "See, I told you women can't run anything."'

Just as Margaret Thatcher was a really horrible role model for *anyone*. Still, the more women in government the better. I look forward to the day when it's no longer an anomaly or is an issue in and of itself.

[sniffa]

41. and my 3+ year oLd prediction wiLL come to fruition

condi survives a bLoodbath in the primaries as rove's chosen successor.

[Jacobin]

75. I think he's on to something there

Another re-arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Condi would be far less destructive as VP than Cheney, but then Cheney is pretty much neutered right now anyway, so whatever.

If I were thinking along the feminist lines, I would hope this wouldn't happen since Condi is such a disaster.....I can hear it now: "See you can't have a woman in a position of so much power because she forked it all up."(leaving aside for a moment the obvious fact that Bush has a schlong and two little tiny balls....those bits of logic wouldn't work)