How does Joe Moore get away with consistently referring–totally incorrectly–to the “Democrat Party“? He did it again last night, only the most recent incident. Doesn’t accuracy and factual correctness (forget political correctness) mean anything over there at KHON (Fox News)? In this particular case, Moore’s persistent error has political overtones and can be interpreted as a blatant political bias:

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun “Democrat” to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being “democratic” — or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, “to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.” In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Are Moore’s consistent references to the “Democrat Party” intentional political slams or merely ignorance?

Well, let’s try to eliminate the latter possibility.

Hey, Joe. The correct title is the Democratic Party. I’m not making it up. Here’s the official registration filed by the Democratic Party of Hawaii with the State Campaign Spending Commission. Repeat after me: Democratic Party. Democratic Party.

Of course, perhaps I need to consider that Moore might be just reading his script prepared in accordance with some unpublished Fox News directive.

Any comments or clarifications appreciated.

Free association gets me to my favorite description of KITV’s Dan Meisenzahl from Jackie Chappel’s new blog:

Dan was the last banana I passed in the Jamba Juice Banana Man Chase a couple years ago. (The boy can run!)

In yesterday’s Advertiser account of the mayoral debate, Ann Kobayashi is quoted referring to Mayor Hannemann: “I see blame, bullying and excuses.”

I haven’t been a Mufi fan in the past, and I am well aware of his reputation for bullying behavior, but it seems to me that Mufi as mayor has been pretty straight-up in dealing with most public issues. He got into office and quickly pushed a budget with higher spending for infrastructure and went public with his “bad news but bite the bullet” message. He’s pushing for rail and has been most public about it, not hiding behind others. I’ll have to ask Ann what she’s referring to with her blame and excuses line.

Why do right-wingers have to be such jerks? It isn’t just the crowd behind Rove & co. It’s right here at home, too.

I was just treated to the transcript of a radio talk show featuring state Sen. Sam Slom and Hawaii Reporter’s Malia Zimmerman back on November 5, 2004 and was surprised to see my name there.

You’ll recall this was in the context of a series of attacks Zimmerman made on mayoral candidate Duke Bainum’s wife and her role as care giver for a family friend. I criticized Zimmerman’s reporting as one-sided and biased, and having ignored counter evidence.

Here’s what Slom had to say about it in his introduction.

We had a lineup of–I call them the Cowards of the County–starting off with Duke Bainum, Ben Cayetano, Jeremy Harris, Bob Jones, Ian Lind, Gary Okino, Keoki Kerr, Andy Winer, and a cast of other losers who attacked hawaiireporter.com, attacked Malia Zimmerman. These are all strong, manly girly-men, you know, because they picked on a girl who is a sole proprietor, entrepreneur, and they had the audacity to try to bring Mufi Hannemann into this. And he and nothing to do with this story. And–can you believe it–they tried to drag me in, too, and my personal life….

Slom then goes on to attack:

…the “Pravda-tiser”–as we love to call it–and the “Red-Star Bulletin”….

At least I’m in good company here.

Is Slom always this nasty? Well, we certainly know one thing he’s good at–calling people names.

I just went back to look at what I wrote that Slom characterized as picking on this poor girl.

Here is my inflamatory conclusion from an October 28, 2004 entry concerning Zimmerman’s reporting.

Unfortunately, this is not an unfamilar situation. A parent estranged from immediate family and planning to leave their inheritance elsewhere, but being challenged by a son or daughter who believes they are entitled to those same trust assets.

No one can claim to know the “truth” based on this public record, but it is strikingly clear that Zimmerman’s version omits many of the basic facts needed to even appreciate that there are two sides to the tale.

Looking back, I’m sure that I had the right of it, Slom’s colorful but pathetic blathering aside.

Okay, let’s end this with some calm morning colors. This was Wednesday’s dawn seen from Swanzy Beach Park in Kaaawa.