as we listen to all the blather about Republican attempts to rebrand their party, it usually phrased in terms of taking an established product and presenting it in a different way, sometimes to differentiate it from competitors, in other cases to reintroduce the potential market to get them to reconsider the product or service.

But there is an older and far more sinister use of the term, dating back to the last century and the American frontier.  Remember the way one demonstrated ownership of certain livestock, especially cattle but also horses, was to brand them with a symbolic representation of one's ownership.

While it was appropriate to re-brand previously branded livestock when one purchased same -  and it is in fact required by some current regulations - to rebrand livestock one has not legally obtained was and is illegal, and represents a fraud on those to whom the rebranded livestock is presented for sale - the rebrander does not in that case own what s/he is attempting to sell.

It seems to me that the current Republican attempts are more akin to the latter case.  Only now they are not doing a fraud in pretending ownership of livestock - they are not cattle rustlers.

No, instead they are pretending to espouse certain political positions they do not believe in order to mislead a sufficient number of voters to win elections.

It may not be cattle rustling, but it is still a serious fraud.

Remember this other meaning the next time you hear that Republicans are "rebranding."

Your Email has been sent.