Its always good when the President and moron show up in the same sentence. OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, attempting to head off an embarrassing spat with Washington, Thursday quickly distanced himself from a senior official who reportedly called President Bush "a moron." Opposition legislator Jason Kenney told parliament he believed the comments -- which were reported by several newspapers -- had been made in Prague by Chretien's communications director Francoise Ducros. "He [Bush] is a friend of mine, he is not a moron at all," Chretien told reporters in Prague, where he was attending a NATO summit to discuss expanding the alliance. The National Post and newspapers from the nationwide Sun chain said the official had expressed frustration that Bush seemed more keen on building up moral support for a possible assault on Iraq rather than focusing on NATO expansion. "What a moron," the papers quoted the official as telling Canadian reporters on Wednesday evening in Prague.
I believe this person will not be the communications director for much longer. It is kind of ironic...isn't it?
Our moron is dumber than your moron, na na nana na. Seriously though, as a Canadian I’m embarrassed and I offer my apologies. This government has been very stale and has been making major foot-in-mouth gaffs for a couple of years now. Irregardless of whether there is any truth in the statement, for the Prime Minister’s communications director to be saying this to anybody, even her husband, is moronic behaviour of a high order. Sadly, and this is an even more damning statement about the state of our leadership, Chrétien has refused her resignation. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if Chrétien is going a bit senile. He is also a lame duck. He’s announced he’s stepping down after this term, and if he hadn’t offered to step down his own party would have kicked him out. Most of the elected members of his party actually support another minister, Paul Martin. In the meantime he’s become a bit, and perhaps more than a bit, of an embarrassment.
The way I understand it is that she was speaking in what she thought was a private conversation and reporters heard her and reported it (kind of like when Bush called some reporters a-holes to Cheney near a live mike). She offered up her resignation immediatly but her boss would not accept it. He (her boss) then went on to say that she calls people morons all the time and that she's probably called him a moron and she's certainly called "you" (meaning the reporters) morons. Should she have said it? Probably not. Should she have been more careful? Certainly. But we've probably all called people we trust and respect "morons" or "idiots" because we think something they are doing or have done is moronic or idiotic even when we don't think they are themselves moronic and idiotic. If she had used a racial slur (or something like that) it might have given some insight into her character that would require her boss to re-evaluate her employment but just because she thinks Bush is a moron for, say, concentrating on Saddam instead of Osama is not that big of a deal. And this is from someone who likes Bush and the job that he's doing!
Grizzled -- you used "irregardless." The Liberal party is definitely divided. I'm voting PC the next time around. Who's with me?
German Chancellor Schroeder is in the dog house for his anti-Bush election campaign and also because one of his aides said Bush was like Hitler. I guess world opinion thinks the most powerful man in the world is a moronic Nazi...
The problem for me is that she is political aid to the PM and she should NEVER be saying things like this about the leader of a foreign country. That’s kind of a basic that goes with the job. I don’t think Bush should have said what he did either. But, while a leader saying something like that about a reporter is somewhat understandable, though still quite inappropriate, an aid to the PM calling a foreign leader a moron should simply never happen. And if it does, you should lose your job. It’s like a teller getting caught stealing from the bank. It’s the one thing you just can’t do. If you work as an aid for the PM, thou shalt not embarrass him and the country by getting caught calling foreign leaders morons. That is just over the line of acceptable behaviour. You just can’t do it and keep your job. At least, you shouldn’t be able to, IMO. fadaway: Irregardless? You’re an English major and I’m a humble engineering student. You’ll have to reveal to me my transgression. Is that a common maritime word by chance?
Reagan did not fire Stockman for calling his economic plan "moronic". The real question begs whether public figures can have truly private conversations.
I'm not <b>fadeaway</b>, but the urgency of this malaprop invites me in. You should say "regardless." The "ir" prefix is negating. It's the difference between saying "I'm a <b>regular</b> guy" vs saying "I'm an <b>irregular</b> guy." I think I still make this very same mistake. <b<Irregardless</b> flows off the tongue very easily and is just more fun to say...
Most who study English detest the word because it's an improper term that somehow managed to weasel its way into many people's vocabularies. 'Regardless' is generally more acceptable and preferred. I commented because I thought it looked out of place in your writing, which is almost always top notch. Forgive my presumptuousness. Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Maybe we should be apologizing for electing a President that can put your elected officials in such a position.
For what it's worth.... Irregardless was for quite a while a word I used, unaware of it's non-existence. What is more, I have known many people who use it...I didn't find out it wasn't a word until I was almost 20. Based on application, I have always assumed that I, like others, was somehow combining 'irrespective' and 'regardless'... Grizz....you are not alone.....
has this been posted before? from merriam-webster: Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date: circa 1912 nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
