Friday, June 08, 2012


BigFurHat is asking for votes for a new label for liberals progressives communists.

Voting is open until 8pm tomorrow, so hurry!  CLICK HERE!

He has ten options.  We voted for one of these four:





Updated 7pm:

Holy Cow!  Rush Limbaugh gave a little talk on his show yesterday about labels.  He explained why the labels of "Socialist" and "Communist" didn't work in the past.  Key word: "didn't".  He knows his vocabulary and is always keen on what words to use and which words to avoid.

Very instructive: 

If liberal has lost its punch, its shock value, then why do liberals want us to now call them progressives, hmm?  Doesn't matter.  "Liberal" works every time it's tried.  "Socialist."  You know why socialist hasn't worked in the past?  It's like communist hasn't worked in the past.  I will tell you exactly why. I realized this many moons ago.  A little Indian lingo there, a little Elizabeth Warren lingo.  The American people simply don't want to believe that they have elected a socialist.

 When you start calling members of the Democrat Party communist, it didn't work.  People didn't want to believe it.  It was too outside the realm of what was reasonable.  The communists were people like Castro and Gorbachev. Well, not Gorbachev, they loved him.  Khrushchev.  Yuri Andropov, Brezhnev, big eyebrows and stuff, mean guy, Mao Tse-tung.  The idea that an American could even be one of those people was just, no.  Calling somebody communist didn't work.  Socialist, much the same cache.  Now I think it's profoundly different.  Socialists are happy to be called that.  There are many socialists in the Democrat Party.  One of them identifies himself as such, Bernie Sanders.  It still is not helpful.  It can still be an albatross around somebody's neck.  That's why they don't want it used because now it does have cache, now it does work, because now we've got one. 

No comments: