• The Copywriter

  • Recent Posts



  • Recent Comments

    • Kyle McFarlin: Walter, This is one of those ‘you killed it’ posts I hope everyone including me follows....
    • mark: If this guy really has expertise then shooting questions at him over a recorded phone call will probably start...
    • Walter: Didn’t even come close to making it right, Kyle. Sadly, our favorite coffee company is another...
    • Kyle McFarlin: As a HUGE fan of Starbucks and someone who is considering the very card you speak of, I hope they make...
    • Tom Humes: Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you. Tom Humes
    • henrry134: Great place to clarify our doubts with the internet marketers. It sounds great that they are virtually...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Good luck winning the contest. Once you have Infusion, I think you’ll find out about cousins you...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Walter, I’m know I’ve fallen into the trap before, so I don’t want to throw stones...
    • Fabian: While it is an interesting argument, I will have to agree with Alice in that just because plants are still...

  • Twitter Connect


    follow WalterTerry at http://twitter.com

  • ROI Tip Jar

    Enjoying the content? Then feel free to drop in a couple of bucks and buy me a Starbucks Grande Americano! Click to donate »

    • « Steering Him Out Of A Marketing Mishap Skid | Home | Pirates Of Progressives - A Marketing Mishap Musical Done Horribly Wrong »

    Marketing Rebranding Mishap Gone Horribly Wrong

    Those wacky liberals are at it again. Oh wait . . . it seems they’re just not happy being called “liberals” anymore. musicalchairs

    For reasons I’m about reveal, they just can’t seem to settle on a name for themselves. But first let’s get to the news — liberals no longer want to be called “liberals.”

    Okay? Are you with me here?

    Remember last summer when Senator Hillary Clinton said she wanted to retire the name “liberal” and now be referred to as a “Modern American progressive“?

    Does anyone else feel a Gilbert & Sullivan song coming on? No? Anyone? Anyone?

    The reason for the old name switcheroo is that she thinks “liberal” is now synonymous with

    “big government.” (Which it is).

    A Democratic linguistic consultant supported her thinking by saying that the word “liberal” has been tainted by its association with the terms “bleeding heart liberal,” tax-and-spend liberal,” and “liberal elite.”

    Now on the other hand, Republican candidates are clamoringover each other to be labeled the most “conservative.”

    Isn’t that interesting?

    Want Proof?

    Here it is — up to this point in time there have been 7 Democratic debates and not once was the word “liberal” used. Conversely, there have also been 7 Republican debates and during them ”conservative” was used over a 100 times.

    According to a recent Gallup poll 43% of voters referred to themselves as Democrats, while only 23% label themselves as liberals. 30% said they were Republicans, while 39% label themselves as conservatives.

    Source: Politico article.

    What 40 Years Of Rebranding Can’t Hide

    Once upon a time a section of the Democratic Party was no longer being happy being called “Democrats,” so somewhere around the 60’s and 70’s they decided they were going to be “liberals.”

    Fast-forward a decade or two and now they don’t want to be called ”liberals,” too much baggage was associated with it. So they decided they wanted to be called “progressives.”

    Doesn’t this remind you of the “I want to be called Loretta” routine from Monty Python’s Life Of Brian?

    Which brings us up to 2007 and now they want to continue hiding the true agenda their myriad of names continues to be associated with. Now they want to be called “modern American progressives.”

    You can almost hear Eric Idle’s character Stan whine, “But I want to be called Loretta!” 

    It will never catch on. It’s too cumbersome, it’s too awkward and more importantly — no one knows what the hell it means.

    Senator Clinton, you missed a very important point. Just from an ideological point of view “liberal” does mean “big government.” That’s not an unfortunate accident, that is the liberal platform — create bigger government and then raise taxes to pay for the bigger government. That’s always been the agenda.

    In order to institute all the social nanny programs liberals are so fond of, they have to create a bigger government and raise taxes to pay for that bloated bureaucracy. Ultimately, to pay for all that we are going to be taxed at a higher rate.

    Of Radical Thoughts, Roses & Dog Legs

    Here’s a radical thought for all of the Democrats/liberals/progressives/modern American progressives/whatever’s next — if you’re not happy with the inherent ideological baggage of your political party of choice, rather than changing up the name every few years to hide your unpopular agenda — maybe you should just change the agenda?

    Seriously, if it’s so unpopular that you have to switch the label every few years to bamboozle people, maybe you should try something different?

    I know, I know it’s a radical thought.

    And didn’t Shakespeare weigh in on the last word on this with, “A rose by any other name is still yet a rose”?

    Okay, I’m not giving the Bard the last word. I’m giving it to Abraham Lincoln, when he employed his now-famous argument, “If you call the tail a leg . . . how many legs does a dog have?”

    Without thinking, most people will say 5. But the only accurate answer is, “Four. Because even if you calla tail a leg, the dog still has only 4 legs.”

    Liberals, progressives, Modern American Progressives — take note.

    Stay tuned, next up I collaborate with Gilbert and Sullivan on a new song!

    Like what you read? Then click here to buy me a coffee.

    By Walter |

    Topics: Marketing Mishaps, Pet Peeves, Pro Analysis |


    To Read More Like This, See . . .

    Comments