Worse Than Waterplame
August says what needs to be said :
I have become utterly fed up with using “gate” as a suffix. Every major scandal that happens in this country should not be called “something”-gate. We’re already calling the Williams thing Payolagate. Jesus, that’s stupid. Stop it now. Think of a new word.
It’s strange that thirty years later, we’re still using Watergate as the measuring stick for all scandals. Since the current resident at 1600 Penn has been been on hand for quite a few scandals worse than covering up for some incompetent burglars, I say it’s time for a new suffix.
Since there are few things worse than taking petty revenge against a minor political enemy by deliberately leaking the identity of a CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction while fighting a war based on weapons of mass destruction, I can’t think of a more fitting scandal moniker than -Plame. Here’s a few examples :
Payolaplame (or Plameola) - The White House funneling propaganda money to conservative commentators.Ratherplame - A rather plain scandal involving CBS using sloppy evidence to support a story that still hasn’t been disproven.
Memoplame - Republican staffers breaking into senate computers and stealing confidential memos for over a year.
Nippleplame - When Janet Jackson’s boobie stole our country’s innocence.
WMDplame - Okay, this one doesn’t really work, but it’s not much worse than WMDgate.
EnronPlame - See above.
And those are just the scandals that got names. Anyone have some naming suggestions for the controversies over lack of armor for our troops, the cooked intelligence that lead us to war, the corporate welfare in the Medicare bill, the lies about who benefits from the President’s tax cuts, the complete lack of interest in terrorism by the Administration prior to 9/11, the Pentagon diverting money provided by congress for Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq invasion, the constant rhetorical links between Iraq and al Qaeda, “Mission Accomplished”, Bush’s lack of interest in the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, the secret meetings of Cheney’s energy taskforce, war profiteering by Halliburton…..
16 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nah. Leave -gate alone. It resonates.
-plame just sounds partisan.
Comment by pusillanimous wanker — January 14, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Jeez, you know we’re in trouble when treason has become a partisan issue.
Comment by greg — January 14, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
Teapot Dome was a huge scandal in its time. Why don’t we call it Payola-Dome?
Comment by Unstable Isotope — January 14, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
Or Tammany Hall. Halliburton Hall has a nice ring to it. Personally, I’ll stick to fiasco, cover-up, abomination, cock-up or whatever is appropriate to the particular situation. The way things are going, I’ll need an unabridged thesaurus soon.
Comment by cavanaghjam — January 14, 2005 @ 9:35 pm
Well, one thing’s for sure - we have to stress the LIES.
We have to use the word LIE, not mislead, not deceive, LIE.
Lie Lie Lie, He’s a Liar
He’s Lying!
man, I didn’t realize how irregular the spelling for that shit was..must be an old word.
old words have power - on syllable
LIE LIE LIE - Bush Lies.
Too much beer. signing off now.
especially liked the last paragraph of the post BTW.
Comment by Dave — January 14, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
I believe the practice of affixing -gate to every scandle was actually started by William Saffire, former Nixon speechwriter, in what may have been an attempt to diminish the shock value of the whole Watergate scandle.
And yes, its a stupid practice.
Comment by Neil — January 14, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
I’m fond of the European (mostly British) habit of referring to these things as “affairs.”
The Plame Affair.
Granted, if you can distract your mind from context, that sounds almost nice. The Plame Affair. Like a fling you had back in the day.
So while I may be fond of it, I don’t think it resonates as someone pointed out above. The only benefit I can really see other than relieving –gate of doing all that heavy lifting is that it would force Republicans into using the word “affair” repeatedly, hopefully translating into action. Then we’d get some resignations and more exposure of the right as morally bankrupt.
Wishful thinking on my part.
Comment by The Critic — January 15, 2005 @ 7:54 am
Yeah, but “Waterplame” sounds like a hippie birthing technique
Greg joins the “stop with the -gate” bandwagon….
Trackback by August J. Pollak - xoverboard.com — January 15, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
But then the WMD fiasco gets trivialized into a little “affair”.
Comment by Assamite — January 15, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
However, in the UK we seem to get -gate for almost everything as well. The best exception that springs to mind was the wonderful ‘dodgy dossier’. (I thank my lucky stars for the lack of ‘dossiergate’)
Comment by Andrew — January 16, 2005 @ 3:12 am
This has long been a pet peeve of mine, too. -gate is simply lazy journalism. But why not just invent something catchy each time?
For example, I’m sick of the misnomer “WMD”. For example, chemicals are no more a mass destruction force than some of our conventional bombs. And particularly in light of the folly that justified another Bush Oil War, it’s time to kill that one.
IWMDTDF is better: Invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction To Die For.
Comment by Kevin Hayden — January 16, 2005 @ 5:05 am
Naming-gate
From The Talent Show: “It’s strange that thirty years later, we’re still using Watergate as the measuring stick for all scandals. Since the current resident at 1600 Penn has been been on hand for quite a few scandals worse than…
Trackback by SIVACRACY.NET: Siva Vaidhyanathan's Weblog — January 16, 2005 @ 8:26 am
The use of -gate signals it’s elevation to the status of political scandal. Instead of reliving the past, perhaps we should be forward looking and anticipate things that Bush will fuck up. Everyone assumes there will be scandals in the next four years and it is our duty to help the process along. And as we all know facts are irrelevant when creating a scandal. The republicans taught us that.
Comment by Becky — January 17, 2005 @ 10:42 am
WMD had nothing to do with anything.
WMD was a ruse, a red herring, a decoy.
The issue is the partitioning of Palestine.
The world will not accept the partitioning of Palestine.
U.S. foreign policy is being dictated by a foreign government.
The current war is in support of the partitioning of Palestine, and nothing else.
The USA has been buying oil from scoundrels for generations.
Oil is not the issue.
Comment by Hal — January 17, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
I totally agree, the gate thing is worn out.
If we are going to reach back so far for garnishings, what would we call these things?:
Running a gay brothel out of your Home as a prominent government official:
Brothelgate? No way
Having a gay affair, as a married man, and giving your gay lover an excellent contract?
Affair gate? Not a chance
Dating an intern who turns up dead in a park?
No looking into this gate? Too weird
How about?
Trafficantegate… What happened to that guy?
Let’s really reach back…
Ted Drowns a drunk girl gate? Sophmoric
I certainly believe gate is largely overused, and with the exception of a girl giving blowjobs and some white water deal, this slander is genuinely tossed at one party in particular.
What do you guys think?
A dumb ass Wallmart shopper from a flyover state.
Comment by David Hucks — January 17, 2005 @ 11:45 pm
If you ask me, “Ghraib” is a better suffix than “Plame.”
And David, what “slander”? In order to be slanderous, and assertion needs to be not true. Which “gates” do you think are not true?
Either way, the hypothetical slander would lie in making false charges, not in the “gate” suffix itself. That’s inactionable lameness.
Implying that there’s some sort of bias present simply because there are more “gates/Plames/Ghraibs” when the president is a Republican than when he’s a Democrat is as ridiculous as implying that the refs in a basketball game were biased because they called more fouls on one team than the other.
And would ya leave your self-pity at home. If some guy wants to start attacking you in ad hominem terms such as “dumb ass Wallmart shopper from a flyover state” then he’s an asshole. But don’t try to insulate the positions you’re taking from legitimate criticism by implying that any disagreement is elitist snobbery. As it happens, I’m from a “flyover state” myself. But what’s that got to do with anything?
Comment by some guy — January 20, 2005 @ 2:57 pm