How Republicans Blew It

[foxpaws]

Waterloo

March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.​

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

 

[shagdrum]

The Allure of Bipartisanship
Peter Suderman

Could Republicans have avoided the ObamaCare catastrophe if they'd played nice, bought in, and worked with Democrats to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill? That's essentially what former Bush speechwriter David Frum alleges in this piece, which Jake Tapper reports is being distributed to reporters by the White House. It's no surprise that the Obama administration likes Frum's argument: What he says, basically, is that by following the most conservative voices and refusing to cooperate with Democrats, the GOP assured that the most progressive possible bill is what would pass.

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

...Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

...We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
​

Frum is concerned with GOP party prospects and I'm not, and that's certainly going to affect how we approach the matter. But here's the problem I have with his argument: RomneyCare may have been developed with Republican establishment support, but if your focus is good policy rather than good politics, it's not worth defending. Neither would any potential compromise along similar lines have been.

Frum doesn't spell out exactly what deal he thinks Republicans should've cut, but the ground that he's implicitly suggesting should've been given up was basically the whole enchilada: the insurance mandate, the subsidies, the government run and regulated marketplaces, the expansion of Medicaid. These are rotten policies that, in just a few years, have already had rotten outcomes. What would have been gained by ObamaCare opponents caving and supporting something along these lines?

The best precedent for a Frum-style strategy of selling out compromise is probably Medicare Part D. That bill picked up support from genuine fiscal conservatives like Rep. Paul Ryan because the understanding was that, if this version doesn't pass, something bigger and worse will. As a political calculation, this makes sense. But the end result wasn't one to be proud of: We still ended up with a poorly designed, unsustainable, potentially disastrous policy. If ObamaCare opponents had compromised, that's all they would have succeeded in passing here. Fine, you might say, but that's what we got anyway! Fair enough. But unlike the current situation, they would have been responsible for those outcomes, would have given liberals political cover, and ultimately put themselves in a far weaker position to push for reforms.

 

[shagdrum]

Not the first two lines there:

Could Republicans have avoided the ObamaCare catastrophe if they'd played nice, bought in, and worked with Democrats to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill? That's essentially what former Bush speechwriter David Frum alleges in this piece, which Jake Tapper reports is being distributed to reporters by the White House.​

Foxpaws propagandizing for Obama. Again.

 

[fossten]

Frum is the biggest idiot out there. He has no credibility with conservatives.

Limbaugh has been successful no matter who or what has been in control of Congress or the White House.

 

[foxpaws]

Live and die in your ignorance...

Are happy with the Rush's and Beck's defining the Republican party? I am happy with Rush and Beck defining the Republican party.

That should scare you, and cause you to look at who you are putting out there as the mouthpieces/moral barometers for the party.

They put it all on the line against this bill and lost -

Oh, and shag - Frum is arguing that the republicans should have put anything on the table - it wasn't going to be taken serious by the Dems - but, there was a good chance it could have bled off some of the Dem support, especially in the Senate. The Dems were trying to find something they could support out of the right corner.

 

[Calabrio]

Are happy with the Rush's and Beck's defining the Republican party? I am happy with Rush and Beck defining the Republican party.

Good, then shut the hell up.

They put it all on the line against this bill and lost -

Who lost?
Who lost in Virginia.
Who lost in New Jersey.
And they who the Kennedy seat in Mass.

The radical democrat leadership managed to pass an unconstitutional bill against the will of the people, by engaging in corrupt vote buying, intimidation, arm twisting, and using unconstitutional procedures.

And in they end, the only bipartisan support for this bill existed in the OPPOSITION. You consider that a victory?

Obama has about a 43% approval rating.
Pelosi and Reid have approval ratings in the single digits.

Oh, and shag - Frum is arguing that the republicans should have put anything on the table - it wasn't going to be taken serious by the Dems - but, there was a good chance it could have bled off some of the Dem support, especially in the Senate. The Dems were trying to find something they could support out of the right corner.

There were Republican programs... and you know it...
But supporting this nightmare of a bill because it included a couple "good" provisions would have served no purpose except providing political cover to the Democrats and Obama.

No thanks.
You own this bill. All of it.
And you will be held accountable for it.

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, and shag - Frum is arguing that the republicans should have put anything on the table - it wasn't going to be taken serious by the Dems - but, there was a good chance it could have bled off some of the Dem support, especially in the Senate. The Dems were trying to find something they could support out of the right corner.

Are you still claiming not to support this bill?

If the Republican's in the Senate had not been afraid of being labeled "the party of NO", this bill would have been stalled in the Senate. If they had stood firm against opening debate on the bill it would likely have died there.

Also, as Cal pointed out Republican's did "put things on the table". You are perpetuating a LIE and you know it.

It is very telling that you claim to be against the bill yet you parrot every talking point like a good little propagandist; especially now that the bill has passed and the Dems need to divide the opposition to avoid repeal. Is the idea of repeal that much of a threat to you?

 

[Calabrio]

There were at least three other comprehensive bills introduced by Republicans.
One by Cobrn, Burr, and Paul Ryan. Another by Tom Price. And a third by Shadegg.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you still claiming not to support this bill?

If the Republican's in the Senate had not been afraid of being labeled "the party of NO", this bill would have been stalled in the Senate. If they had stood firm against opening debate on the bill it would likely have died there.

Also, as Cal pointed out Republican's did "put things on the table". You are perpetuating a LIE and you know it.

It is very telling that you claim to be against the bill yet you parrot every talking point like a good little propagandist; especially now that the bill has passed and the Dems need to divide the opposition to avoid repeal. Is the idea of repeal that much of a threat to you?

Yes, they put things on the table - but nothing that appealed to blue dog dems, I have read the Price bill, and it wasn't going to appeal to the dems on the fence - the reps needed to bend enough to move the dems off the bill that eventually passed. They didn't need a bill that would win - they just needed a bill that would upset the balance of power.

And it is very difficult to repeal a bill shag, the Dems have tied up extra drug coverage under medicare, expanded coverage for kids, and the hi-risk insurance pool in this bill. They do that for a reason - so they have support for the bill from special interest groups who are now invested in the bill, and those some people will fight for the bill.

The Republicans will not win enough seats in the senate to repeal the bill as long as Obama is the sitting president - because Obama wouldn't sign a repeal and there won't possibly be a 66 majority to override the president after the elections later this year.

And by 2013 there will be so much water under the bridge it will be even more unlikely a repeal would happen.

I don't like the bill - I especially don't like the mandates - I have stated that many times. But, now you look at what is feasibly next.

If you are in politics for a while shag - you learn to lick your wounds and go on to the next battle - there will be plenty.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, they put things on the table - but nothing that appealed to blue dog dems

So they should put something on the table that appeals to the majority...regardless of weather or not it compromises fundamental principles and leads to bad policy; politics over policy.

Also, by conceding they put things on the table you...

1. verified that you were perpetuating a LIE
2. undercut the entire premise that Frum's argument is built on

It is clear that your reason for posting this article was not to point out a legitimate criticism but to divide opposition to this bill and Obama's socialist agenda.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It has been a long time since I have been on the political forum, but I think I need to chime in here.
This health plan will never see the light of day.
It is unconstitutional, and not enforceable.
Dictating, with backing from the IRS as a watchdog, that the american people BUY health insurance or be fined for not doing so smells of a government takeover , and reeks of communisim.
Eventually the USSC will get this tossed in their lap, and there is only one decision they can make concerning this health plan, and that is, forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.
It can not be compared with the states requiring people to buy auto insurance.
It is a whole different can of beans.
People purchase auto insurance for the priviledge of driving.
People can't be forced to buy health insurance because health is not a priveledge.
So sit back and watch what happens in the next 60 days.
The first thing that will happen is an injunction to cease and decist, virtually posponing any action to go forward with the health plan.
That will be followed with months of court briefs and arguments, then it will be handed over too the USSC which more than likely will move on it imediately.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

Oh, and shag - Frum is arguing that the republicans should have put anything on the table

Yes, they put things on the table - but nothing that appealed to blue dog dems

SELF *owned*
There is no such thing as a 'blue dog' Democrat. They're all 'Lap Dogs.'
So you admit that the Democrats simply refused to be bipartisan. The only resistance they encountered was within their own party. So much for Obama being anything but divisive, eh?

The Republicans will not win enough seats in the senate to repeal the bill as long as Obama is the sitting president - because Obama wouldn't sign a repeal and there won't possibly be a 66 majority to override the president after the elections later this year.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Any more glittering jewels of knowledge you'd care to drop on us?

And by the way, 66 is not a 2/3 majority in the Senate, Oh Wise Sage of the Government.

You say you don't like the bill but you're doing an awful lot of celebrating.

 

[MonsterMark]

You say you don't like the bill but you're doing an awful lot of celebrating.

Because her check is in the mail for her efforts to twist the facts and outcomes of this horrible bill.

Take a look at what this bill is going to do to families making over $88,000.

Lots and lots of houses for sale coming to a neighborhood near you.

IBD (Investors Business Daily) does a great job laying out the coming calamity.

The taxes in this bill are overwhelming. Say goodbye to the luxury and recreational industries.

Doesn't Foxpaws remember Clinton's famous 'luxury tax'?

This is 10 times worse.
The greatest grab of wealth for redistribution the Country has ever seen.

Congratulations to Barack, our CIC (Communist in Chief) on a job well done.

 

[fossten]

Because her check is in the mail for her efforts to twist the facts and outcomes of this horrible bill.

Take a look at what this bill is going to do to families making over $88,000.

Lots and lots of houses for sale coming to a neighborhood near you.

IBD (Investors Business Daily) does a great job laying out the coming calamity.

The taxes in this bill are overwhelming. Say goodbye to the luxury and recreational industries.

Doesn't Foxpaws remember Clinton's famous 'luxury tax'?

This is 10 times worse.
The greatest grab of wealth for redistribution the Country has ever seen.

Congratulations to Barack, our CIC (Communist in Chief) on a job well done.

Good points. It's all about ideology with these people - they don't care about the details, as long as their side wins and pushes more Marxism. McCarthy was right about these people.

So, fox, why not just drop the charade and own publicly what you really are - a statist and a Marxist.

 

[foxpaws]

Yes - I was wrong when I stated 'any bill' I should have stated 'a feasible bill'...

Shag - If you haven't realized it yet, it is a game - and you play the game to win. The republicans and dems have many points in common in the current bill - if the Reps would have put a bill on the table that would have encompassed those, thrown a bone to the Dems, then the Dems that didn't want the bill that Reid was pushing, but needed to back some sort of health care reform legislation (remember many of them were voted in because they promised health care reform) to appease their constituents, could have backed the alternate bill.

It is all about numbers - get enough that you can't pass with 60 - and they could have defeated the senate bill... get 1 dem to move and they could have avoided this.

The Republicans put everything behind this, not only because the bill itself, but also because of the perceptions involved. Now, finally, the Dems can be seen as being able to move a piece of massive legislation. The passing didn't hurt one democrat any more than they had already been hurt. They were already targets for the fall election - any democrat is a target, regardless of how they voted. So, vote, say you did what you went to Washington to do (enact health reform) and get on with the rest of the session.

Now the Dems can sell the positive parts of the bill-and there are many. The Republicans are only seen on the side of 'no'. Unless you make over 1/4 million dollars, your taxes aren't going to be affected any time soon. Those aren't Democrat voters anyway. The Dems didn't lose voters there, but, once they start selling the benefits of the bill to their traditional voting base, it won't seem to be so doom and gloom. They may be able to move back some of those people who were so fired up about the defeat of the bill. If it is found out that the bill isn't as terrible as the Republicans made it out to be, the Republicans could face some backlash.

If your grandma isn't hauled off to the death squads... well... perhaps there was some grandstanding involved. If we aren't all flying the hammer and sickle next week, well, maybe we aren't going to go off into the abyss of communism.

If you can insure your 23 year old kid on your policy - well, maybe that isn't so bad. If your folks now spend $1,000 a year less on prescription drugs, well, that is sort of a good thing. If your coworker's family, whose child has MS isn't denied health insurance - heck - what's wrong with that.

The Dems will be all over selling the good points of the bill, many of which will happen long before people start feeling any of the 'bad' effects. The Republicans will be selling the fuzzy idea that it has stripped away your rights. You are still going to your same doctor, your insurance hasn't changed, you don't wait for months to see a medical professional - what has changed?

And the specter of failure was going to be just as damaging as the passing of the bill. The Republicans ended up putting the Dems in a lose-lose situation. So, why not pass the bill, something democrats have wanted for decades. The political coin was going to be the same.

Not a Marxist or statist Foss - more centrist liberal - a'la Clinton...

 

[shagdrum]

It has been a long time since I have been on the political forum, but I think I need to chime in here.
This health plan will never see the light of day.
It is unconstitutional, and not enforceable.

Parts of it are unconstitutional. But getting those parts declared unconstitutional is another matter. Those parts have to "see the light of day" in some manner for someone to have standing to challenge them.

And just because parts of a bill are declared unconstitutional, doesn't mean the whole bill will be null and void.

The individual mandate will go pretty quick. Ironically, that will speed up our travel down the road to serfdom because it makes the incentive structure set up by this bill even more economically unsustainable.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - If you haven't realized it yet, it is a game - and you play the game to win. The republicans and dems have many points in common in the current bill - if the Reps would have put a bill on the table that would have encompassed those, thrown a bone to the Dems, then the Dems that didn't want the bill that Reid was pushing, but needed to back some sort of health care reform legislation (remember many of them were voted in because they promised health care reform) to appease their constituents, could have backed the alternate bill.

This is not "a game". It is American society and socialists like you see fit to experiment with that society; consequences be damned. This is why ideologues should not be in power; untested postulations based in abstraction from reality trump everything.

There is no middle ground here. That is the part you are missing because you like to ignore the different world views in play. If you look at this problem with one world view you see it as a need for more rational planning. If you look at it with another point of view, you see it as a problem of too much planning interfering with and destroying what works. Anything proposed by one side will make the problem worse in the view of the other side.

There is no middle ground. To reach any middle ground, one side would have to sacrifice it's core principles. To say that the republicans should have proposed something appealing to the dems is to say that republicans should sacrifice their core principles.

That narrative is being used by dishonest propagandists like you as a way to divide the opposition to Obama. In fact, every thread you have started in the past week or so has been aimed at doing that.

The republicans only blew anything in the eyes of those like Frum who have no principles. His whining serves the purposes of propagandists like you who look to divide the opposition.

 

[fossten]

Not a Marxist or statist Foss - more centrist liberal - a'la Clinton...

Baloney. The proof is in the pudding. You follow, applaud, and support the most leftist, socialist President in history. You'll work for his re election. You're celebrating this 'win' as though it's a game. You're a proven liar and a hypocrite.

Nobody believes you anymore.

That narrative is being used by dishonest propagandists like you as a way to divide the opposition to Obama. In fact, every thread you have started in the past week or so has been aimed at doing that.

Actually that applies to every comment she's made as well. She's the most persistently dishonest person I've ever seen.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - you are wrong - there is so much middle ground.

If you go by your 'world views must remain whole, with no middle ground', then we were doomed almost from the onset of this country because of public education. Public education is a socialist ideal. In your version of the worldview you feel is best for the US, you should pay for your child's education, that is what you are espousing. That worldview would have no public programs like public education. We should have paid the price for this flaw long ago. Somehow we managed to hold on for 200+ years in spite of this very socialist idea. A core principle has been laid on the sacrificial table for a very long time here shag.

And shag it is a 'game' with very high stakes. You learn the rules, you learn how to work within those rules, or heck, even change the rules (if you own the deck you might get to change the rules). There aren't chips on the table - there is policy on the table. Ever play Diplomacy?

To table something a few dems may have gone for would have achieved defeating the bill. The means may not have been all neat and tidy - but the result would have been what the Republicans wanted-to defeat the bill. Results matter, means are quickly forgotten.

And the Republicans having core values - come on - both sides sacrifice them at one point or another. Pro choice dems sacrificed to get this bill passed. Hard line Republicans voted in the Welfare Reform Act to get something started, even though there were many parts of it they didn't like.

Compromise and 'win the game'. Fact of DC shag. It isn't, never has been, and never will be, the black and white world you aspire to.

And, starting threads - something I rarely do. However, the overwhelming amount of right wing rhetoric that you and foss and Cal posts gets boring, I thought it would be interesting to see a little of both sides represented as threads.

But, I actually think it is better to let you just continue on, without messing up the lovely conservative stench this forum exudes...

 

[foxpaws]

Baloney. The proof is in the pudding. You follow, applaud, and support the most leftist, socialist President in history. You'll work for his re election. You're celebrating this 'win' as though it's a game. You're a proven liar and a hypocrite.

Nobody believes you anymore.

Actually that applies to every comment she's made as well. She's the most persistently dishonest person I've ever seen.

Obama isn't even close to FDR or Wilson or heck, maybe even Johnson - come on, learn your history Foss.

And will I work for Obama? Depends on who the Republicans shore up... I like Pawlenty...

Politics is the game Foss - the results are what we live with. Be a realist here, things swing back and forth...

Maybe that is what you and shag have so many problems with - idealists are fine in academia and in some sort of fantasy world, but realists get things done. I have an ideal society that I would love to live in, however, I know that won't ever happen. I set that unachievable goal aside so I can work at making the society we have better (in my view). So, you deal with what you are dealt with - work at changing what you don't like, give in where you have to, and maybe, for a while, things move in a direction you like.

 

[fossten]

Obama isn't even close to FDR or Wilson or heck, maybe even Johnson - come on, learn your history Foss.

And will I work for Obama? Depends on who the Republicans shore up... I like Pawlenty...

Politics is the game Foss - the results are what we live with. Be a realist here, things swing back and forth...

Maybe that is what you and shag have so many problems with - idealists are fine in academia and in some sort of fantasy world, but realists get things done. I have an ideal society that I would love to live in, however, I know that won't ever happen. I set that unachievable goal aside so I can work at making the society we have better (in my view). So, you deal with what you are dealt with - work at changing what you don't like, give in where you have to, and maybe, for a while, things move in a direction you like.

You believe, like Obama, in taking from those who earn and giving it to those who do not. That is Marxism.

 

[shagdrum]

Maybe that is what you and shag have so many problems with - idealists are fine in academia and in some sort of fantasy world, but realists get things done.

And you subscribe to liberalism; an ideology (root word; ideal) that is based in a utopian vision which is abstracted from reality.

Conservatism (root word; conserve) is, technically, not an ideology and is not based purely on abstract postulations but in principles meant to preserve what has been proven to work throughout history.

This dynamic is why liberalism leads to wreckless, radical change; like we are seeing with this health care bill.

 

[mikemark8]

I didn't read a lot of this because, frankly, it just goes on and on and...but, Democrats who think this was some resounding victory should realize that with the great majority they have in the house, a 3 vote victory is hardly impressive. Those three votes could easily have been because of the lies and bullying by the Chicago-style politics now infesting Washington. Get over yourselves, November is going to be a big wakeup call to both parties-people are pissed, no ifs, ands or buts, the classic politician is now going to be a target of the electorate.

Enough is enough. I wasn't convinced of anything changing until Kennedy's seat went to a Republican-THAT is proof that the CHANGE this idiot promised is not exactly what he and his cronies thought they were going to inflict on America. It is not about parties, or majorities in Congress anymore-this is about the future of the country and I believe that there are millions of voters who will not allow this fiasco to repeat itself, starting in November 2010.

 

[foxpaws]

And you subscribe to liberalism; an ideology (root word; ideal) that is based in a utopian vision which is abstracted from reality.

Conservatism (root word; conserve) is, technically, not an ideology and is not based purely on abstract postulations but in principles meant to preserve what has been proven to work throughout history.

This dynamic is why liberalism leads to wreckless, radical change; like we are seeing with this health care bill.

Liberal - origins (roots)
Liber is a Latin adjective meaning free, unrestricted, unrestrained, etc. The adjective liber is likely derived from the Latin verb libero, liberare, liberavi, liberatus, which means to set free. Liber could also be used as a substantive adjective within the context of the Latin language, meaning a freeman or freedom.

 

[shagdrum]

Liberal - origins (roots)
Liber is a Latin adjective meaning free, unrestricted, unrestrained, etc. The adjective liber is likely derived from the Latin verb libero, liberare, liberavi, liberatus, which means to set free. Liber could also be used as a substantive adjective within the context of the Latin language, meaning a freeman or freedom.

You know that modern liberalism has almost nothing to do with liberalism in the classical, traditional sense except that both are ideologies. The word was co-opted and corrupted in the early and mid 20th century by progressive liars like you.

Conveniently ignoring that distinction does help you muddy the waters though, eh?

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
-Norman Thomas; six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America​