We should go with “Willard”?
Well, ideally you’d go with “Mitt;” that being the name he wants to be called, and being an actual name of his to boot.. But at least “Willard” has the advantage of being his actual name as well.
I thought you, yourself, explained the error you’re now making here:
This seems to express disapproval for calling the President Barack Hussein Obama.
And you seemed, at the time, to agree that this was a poor tactic.
Have you changed your mind?
Let’s just go with “Romney.” Hell, I got bored with “Santorum” jokes a long time ago. But if he becomes POTUS he’ll inevitably have some kinda nickname or initialism, like FDR or LBJ or W. The press/pundits/blogosphere never needed one for Obama because his last name is unusual enough.
Agreed. I never understood the use of the term “Algore” as an insult nor have I ever understood how referring to “the democrat party” instead of “the democratic party” was supposed to be insulting.
The master of the false equivalency has struck again. It’s entirely possible to hold the following position without being hypocritical:
(1) Using diminuitive, dismissive, and even insulting nicknames for politicians is, if jerkish, an action that does not deserve particular censure. This would include nicknames such as “Slick Willy”, “Barry Obama”, “Shrub” or “Mittens”.
(2) Calling Obama “Barack Hussein Obama” is a different kettle of fish entirely, as the message it conveys is not “I deride and dismiss Obama” but “I believe Obama to be a foreigner, or a terrorist, or a Muslim… and there IS something wrong with that”.
There’s actually a pattern I’ve noticed in discussions of this sort in which someone on the left claims that someone on the right is a jerk or incompetent, and someone on the right claims that someone on the left is unAmerican or a traitor. Putting aside entirely whether or not those criticisms are or are not accurate in any particular case or cases, those are NOT statements that are in any way equivalent.
Yes, it’s possible to hold both those positions without being hypocritical.
But the OP of this thread listed the following terms as “branding the user” thereof an idiot:
Obamacare
Obamanomics
death panel
warmist
glow-ball warming
Islamofascist
Democrat Party
Demonrats
Dhimmis
Dummiez
Essentially, any disparaging variation on “Democrats”
Is it possible to craft a rule set in which “Obamacare” and “any disparaging variation on ‘Democrats’” is idiotic, but “Mittens” is not?
Sadly, I’m going to have to add patriot to the list. The word used to mean someone who loves their country. But it’s more and more being used to indicate someone who believe with my (usually far right conservative) political point of view.
I’ll second “Mittens”. (along with the charge of hypocrisy in this case. you’re seriously going to argue that that isn’t an insult? c’mon)
And let’s add Broccoli.
“Saul Alinsky style radical”. The use of this phrase is a shibboleth that automatically brands the user an idiot.
“Patriot” does not. Saying “Bob Smith is a patriot” doesn’t automatically mark the speaker as a moron, we need more evidence. Saying “Bob Smith is a Saul Alinsky style radical” does.
I want to add (or second if I missed it) “Darwinism/ist” Darwin did not invent evolution. Evolution was proven fact hundreds of years before he was born. He popularized understanding Natural Selection as a pathway for evolution, not the same thing. Using this term just undersocres that you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t understand the first thing about it and cannot argue your side.
I have no issues with ‘Mittens’ or ‘Willard’ being on the list. It should be Mitt because that is what he wants to be called.
I also want to say if Mitt would like to discourage the use of ‘Mittens’ he probably should avoid doing public appearances baking mitten shaped cookies or showing off his knitted mittens.
And can’t Republicans and Democrats just get along and agree to call the ACA ‘Obamney Care’ Truly both men deserve credit.
Does that include the phrase “Social Darwinism?”
I don’t think “Obamacare” and “any disparaging variation on ‘Democrats’” should necessarily be grouped together, and neither one is really all that similar to “Mittens”, due to the fact that between those three, one is a nickname for a law whose insult value is entirely based on societal context, one is an ill defined group of nicknames for members of a political party, and one is a specific nickname for a specific individual whose insult value comes from its diminuitive cutesiness.
That said, I do think that “Mittens” would have felt entirely appropriate in the list provided in the OP, so I think I agree with your macro point, as long as we leave “Hussein” out of it.
When the Pubs for a boogeyman bawl
They will point, finger trembling, at Saul!
Whose endowments . . . judgmental
Both moral and . . . mental
Make theirs look exceedingly small! 
No, it wasn’t. There had been discoveries of pre-human fossils and geological strata, but there was no clear consensus on what to make of them, only controversial speculations.
Evolution was not a concept invented by Darwin. He invented the concept of natural selection. There were several theories as to how Evolution could happen before Darwin’s ideas, notably Lamarckian inheritance of accquired characteristics. History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
Don’t confuse us with facts
I’d be cautious when making statements like “evolution was proved”. From a Popperian viewpoint, evidence accumulates to lend credence to a disprovable theory. Gould talks about scientists presaging Darwin in their critiques of creationism, but they believed in other concepts such as preformationism. Even the word “evolution” retains the etymological reference to homunculi, deriving from Spencer rather than Darwin. As evidence accumulated in different fields, there were more and more reasons to doubt a creationist account of cosmology and ascent. Darwin refers to relatively recent developments in taxonomy, biology and geology in his book to support his arguments.