I’ll stick with facts. We’re talking history. That should make it clear that no one *now* uses the word “liberal” to mean “libertarian,” so the “no one I know” comment is useless (unless you know people who were alive 120 years ago and have discussed political philosophy with them) but that at some point in the recent past “liberal” did in fact mean limited government and support of free-market capitalism (as it was in opposition to the conservative positions which supported monarchy and mercantilism). It’s really not debatable at all except to people who don’t want to acknowledge that the meaning of words can change over time.

As your link says:

“It is not always clear which meaning is intended” – its highly debatable that liberal ever meant libertarian to any but a minority of people.

Not at any point in history that I’m familiar with.

Timothy said “Doug, Actually I don’t object to the term “Values Voters”.”.

I do, but for different reasons than Doug. First, its non-descriptive, everyone’s a “values voter”, we all vote for what we value. Secondly, the reason why the bigots use this term is its a veiled attempt to paint anyone who doesn’t vote like them as having no values, as being immoral.

Of course, your calling his economic views “backwards” is very telling. I hardly think allowing people the freedom to conduct transactions without the heavy hand of government is what I would call “backwards” but hey, being gay doesn’t mean being “progressive”

Actually I don’t object to the term “Values Voters”.

For one thing, it kinda sounds like something you’d get in the mail offering 25 cents off at the local dry cleaners – and not the clean one but the one with dead flys between the glass and the picture signed “love your pressing, Lesley Ann Warren.”

And secondly it speaks to what one values. These folk value social conformity and religious orthodoxy. Neither of these are necessarily bad things to value, both are useful for social stability and structure. But the way in which they practice those values, and which values they exclude, result in policies that place an undue burden on anyone who does not share their strict adherence.

And here’s the important part: by focusing on values rather than policies, they subject themselves to total acceptance or total rejection. They have assigned their policies as proxy for themselves and everything they stand for.

And increasingly Americans are rejecting these policies. DADT died with significant support. Marriage equality now is favored by a majority.

But having backed themselves into a “values” corner, they can’t “evolve” like the president or the populace. One’s core values don’t evolve.

The only logical response is total rejection. And I rather suspect that they are discovering this to be true and will continue to do so at a rapid pace.

…[W]hile he notes sanctimoniously that he “doesn’t show up at SPLC events to protest the civil rights organization’s beliefs.

It’s not due to virtuousness that Tony Perkins doesn’t show up at SPLC events to attack them. It’s because that would be a public relations nightmare for FRC. The SPLC has moral authority, and FRC has to be careful how they go about discrediting it.

When the SPLC first certified FRC a hate group, the FRC said they were going to go on a bus tour against the SPLC. Apparently wiser heads in the organization prevailed, because we’re still waiting for that bus tour.