To call someone by something other than the name he wishes to be called by is rude. To make a mistake is forgivable, but to persist -- deliberately -- in declining to use your adversary's proper name is rude and insulting. It's not a big deal unless you take standing up for yourself to be a big deal. When Democrats go on TV and let a conservative get away with the phrase "Democrat Party" it's signaling that Democrats are weak. They're too weak to stand up for themselves. They're too weak to have a sense of group solidarity or party loyalty. They're inclined to let things slide. They don't want to make a scene. They don't like to have a fight. They're weak. Is a political party that can't even protect its own name really going to keep America safe?

I think it was in the '76 election that Bob Dole claimed "all US wars were Democrat wars."
The a-holes are still using "Democrat party" but they sure can't make that claim any more.
- tom moody 1-30-2007 9:48 pm

related "in a name" disrespect for the foe :

Hello, stumbled across your blog by accident. Just thought I’d direct your friend Jayleigh to a 2002 feature concerning why Saddam Hussein is referred to as ‘Saddam’.
It was originally printed in the LA Times, which, inexplicably, charges you to read its archive. It is, however, reproduced here:
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/30/onemanon.html
Apparently George Bush Sr would mispronounce Saddam’s name so it meant ‘barefoot beggar’ in Arabic.

That's why Saddam tried to have him killed.
- tom moody 1-30-2007 10:01 pm

But that is a secondary point. The whole issue of 'Democrat' party -- other than as an example of Republican infantilism -- is an issue of respect or rather intentional and repeated expression of disrespect as a means of asserting dominance.