New ad compares Bernie Sanders to FDR. Really?

Courtesy of The Hill: 

The Bernie Sanders campaign is comparing the presidential candidate to Franklin D. Roosevelt in a new ad released just days before the New York primary. 

“Even when the deck is stacked, a New Yorker will find a way to break up big banks, create millions of jobs and rebuild America,” the narrator says over footage of the 32nd president, a New York native. 

“Some say it can’t be done again,” the ad continues. “But another native son of New York is ready: Bernie. Rebuild the middle class, make Wall Street banks pay their fair share, give every child a chance.”

Well so much for Bernie Sanders having no ego.

Damn that is a ballsy move.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt of course was in office for three terms, implemented the New Deal, and oversaw America's participation in a second World War.

Sanders might as well compare himself to Jesus while he's at it.

Is the label "Liberal" once again in vogue? It may soon be. Update!

The Atlantic explains why the term "liberal" was once highly respected and how that changed:  

It wasn’t always this way. In the first half of the 20th century, “liberal” enjoyed a certain prestige. When Franklin Roosevelt began using it to describe the ideology of the New Deal, for instance, small-government types accused him of linguistic theft, claiming that since the expansion of state power threatened liberty, they—and not the New Dealers—were the true liberals. 

But by the 1960s, the American right had stopped claiming “liberal” and begun demonizing it. Over the next two decades, being a liberal came to mean letting criminals terrorize America’s cities, hippies undermine traditional morality, and communists menace the world. It meant, in other words, too much liberty for the wrong kind of people. Fearful of its negative connotations, Democratic politicians began disassociating themselves from the term, and as the Obama interview showed, they still do. 

But that political logic may be out of date. “Liberal” became a dirty word at a time of soaring crime, when Democrats came under attack for allegedly prioritizing the rights of criminals over the safety of everyone else. Today, crime has dropped so dramatically that even prominent Republicans advocate less punitive sentencing. The decline of “liberal” into epithet status also coincided with a cultural revolt, especially on sexual issues like abortion and gay rights, which frightened many middle-aged Americans. But today, the people demanding greater cultural liberty—whether they be gay couples wanting to marry or individuals wanting to legally smoke pot—don’t seem nearly as radical. Finally, “liberal” grew associated with weakness during a humiliating phase in American foreign policy: when America’s defeat in Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis dealt painful blows to national pride. In the post-Iraq era, by contrast, Republican efforts to out-hawk Obama on foreign policy have utterly failed. 

“Liberal,” in other words, got its bad name because of a series of racial, sexual, and global bogeymen that don’t frighten Americans nearly as much anymore.

However all of that could change if only we have the courage to change it.

But there’s reason to believe that today, many Americans eschew the term not because they associate it with any particular unpopular attitudes or issue positions, but merely because they’ve only heard it discussed negatively. In a thought-provoking 2013 paper, Christopher Claassen, Patrick Tucker, and Steven S. Smith of Washington University in St. Louis note that although most Americans prefer the term “conservative,” those same Americans are “remarkably consistent” in telling researchers that they prefer liberal policies. How come? One reason may be that “conservative” has positive “extra-political” associations. To many Americans, it connotes “caution, restraint and respect for traditional values,” positive attributes irrespective of one’s views on specific policies. 

But even more important, Claassen, Tucker, and Smith suggest, may be the negative way in which “liberal” is publicly discussed. “When certain labels are emphasized or favored by political and media elites,” they write, “the public is more likely to identify with them than others. Public framing often promotes the term ‘conservative,’ while the term ‘liberal’ is used with much less frequency and has long had a more negative connotation.” Part of the reason Americans consider liberal an epithet, in other words, is because they mostly hear it used as an epithet.

If you have noticed I tend to favor the word liberal on this blog, over the more PC term "progressive."  And the reason for that is becasue I refuse to allow myself to be labeled by the conservatives who have this irritating way of creating language that everybody quickly adopts, and which never describes people like me fairly.

It is the same reason that I call myself an "Atheist" rather than an "agnostic." Sure calling myself an agnostic would offend fewer people and make me seem more acceptable, but it would be a inaccurate, and I don't pander to assholes.

So yes I am a liberal. Like most people I am somewhat too complex for that label to fit comfortably, but it describes my politics, my morality, and my feelings about personal freedom better than any other.

And I for one thing it is a beautiful thing to be called. ESPECIALLY when it is shouted at me by a raging homophobic, misogynistic, conservative jerkwad!

Update:

Yeah, what he said.