is Progressive the new Liberal?

Thom Hartmann used to proudly refer to himself as a progressive. The other day I heard him refer to himself as a Democratic Socialist.

Rebranding?

Why is that important to you?

I don't mind any of the labels: Democrat, Liberal, Progressive... You guys still don't have a clue what "socialist" actually means, so the more you throw it around, the more you show your stupidity. But I do not consider myself a socialist...Although I DO agree with Bernie Sanders 99% of the time, and he calls himself a "Democratic Socialist."

Democracy4Sale wrote: Why is that important to you?

I don't mind any of the labels: Democrat, Liberal, Progressive... You guys still don't have a clue what "socialist" actually means, so the more you throw it around, the more you show your stupidity. But I do not consider myself a socialist...Although I DO agree with Bernie Sanders 99% of the time, and calls himself a "Democratic Socialist."

Maybe you didn't notice... it was a progressive democrat and national talk show host throwing it around... Thom Hartmann.

I agree with LJ here... there's no difference, any term fits depending on the audience. Progressive is a great term for the left because it suggests "progress", even if it's just progress to the left.

I do think this rebranding is important. Like when Exxon put a new name on their Exxon Valdez tanker. The current label is tainted so take up another new mantle.

Based on the hate here, you think the TEA Party movement would rebrand themselves, but it seems like they still like the name, haters got to hate.

Since most of the teabaggers are too ignorant to know what the original TEA party was about, and like the usual lemmings who follow the astro-turf FreedomWorks cheerleaders off the cliff, I'm sure they do like the name. (I still find it hysterical that they didn't bother to find out if the term "teabaggers" had an alternate meaning before they wrapped themselves in it...)

The Tea Party doesn't even know the TRUE history of the Tea Party. Why would they work to the benefit of the Corporate Monopolies the Original Tea Party was Protesting

The Boston Tea Party was against a multi-national company. Take a minute and watch, eliminate ignorance. It was actually protesting a TAX CUT GIVEN TO THE EAST INDIA COMPANY which was hurting our small American business and these trickle down teabaggers are acting in the exact opposite of the Original Tea Party.

[youtube:3jqqxx4r]

[/youtube:3jqqxx4r]

But, hey, it gives you a chance to use the word "patriot" in a sentence and wrap yourselves in the flag while doing Corporate Amercia's bidding and walking off the cliff. You're right...Hater's got to hate. Keep it up.

Just because you think they are beholden to corporations doesn't make them. Luger, the corporate choice, lost.

They are much more independent, sometimes stupidly independent, but they are not following the complete plan.

You make an (incorrect) assumption that I said the astro-turf rank-and-file were beholden to corporations. Stop putting words in my mouth. I think most of them are too stupid to realize that Corporate Amercia is behind it.

Democracy4Sale wrote: You make (an incorrect) assumption that I said the astro-turf rank-and-file were beholden to corporations. Stop putting words in my mouth. I think most of them are too stupid to realize that Corporate Amercia is behind it.

But Obama will be beholden to the corporate paymasters funding his campaign? And the teachers unions $$$$ instead of the students who need better educations?