When did this happen?

Question

When did the definition of Liberal become: "Anyone who disagrees with George Bush"? This new "definition" seems a tad simple-minded.

Answer 1

The serious answer is that the GOP uses the services of an odious, fat little nerd by the name of Frank Luntz. Luntz has taken up the mantle of Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels. Unlike Goebbels who was known for making angry, red-faced speeches similar to his fuhrer, Luntz is a purely behind-the-scenes player. He is a high-tech Goebbels.

Trained as a social scientist and pollster, Luntz makes widespread use of focus groups and instant electronic registering devices. Using these devices, his subjects react to words and phrases that Luntz presents to them. Participants register either their approval or disapproval as Luntz works through his script.

Using this method, words and phrases are vetted, later to be used by GOP officials, mouthpieces, and politicos. This is why the Bush administration spins out and then soon abandons such goodies as "Shock and Awe," "Greeted as Liberators," "MIssion Accomplished," As they stand up, we'll stand down," "Cut and Run," ad nauseum. These catchy phrases take the place of real any serious planning or policy. It is government of, by, and for the MTV generation.

In the 1990's, the Luntz propaganda machine helped the GOP reposition and redefine the word "Liberal." They have turned it into an epithet.

Unfortunately, our democracy has paid the price for Luntz's wordsmith voodoo. As long as the American people continue buying this government by cliche, we will continue our descent into debt and disrepute.

Answer 2

I'm really tired of the terms 'Conserative' and 'Liberal' when they don't resemble anything like their dictionary definitions. Politicians should be required to fill out a form that tells the voting public how they stand on all the major issues. It sure would be a lot easier on the voters.

Answer 3

I don't consider Bush a conservative. He's a social conservative. To me, that's a liberal who is against abortion and gay rights. Social conservatives have a tendency to be absolutists. Bush's statement after 9/11 of you're either with us or against us is an example of absolutism. In my opinion, absolutists don't belong in public office. Their interests are focused on only a narrow portion of the population and don't care about the rights of all people.
To an absolutists, the end always justifies the means.

Answer 4

Good point, I'm republican but I think his idea for health care is as stupid idea I've ever heard. The insurance is unafordable for low-income people, so offering a tax break to them won't help. It seems to be a way to tax benefits offered by employers, makeing jobs not as attractive as before. But I'm not a lib.for disagreeing with a few things.

Answer 5

Because the cons tried to turn 'liberal' into a smear, but it's starting to wear off.

When did it happen? When a majority of people started to oppose him, unfortunately that was right after his reelection. Better late than never I guess.

Answer 6

Well, most conservatives are "simple-minded". A perfect example of this is our self proclaimed C-student simpleton of a president, the pride of mediocrity.

Answer 7

Republicans are all about "us" and "them". It doesn't matter whether you're a communist, a socialist, a democrat, a Muslim or green party... you're "them"... and you're not "us".

Republicanism is a cult that runs on paranoia, hatred and ignorance.

Answer 8

Yes, your definition is very simple-minded, and untrue.

Answer 9

Yes it does.

Answer 10

Libs are disgusting.