Thanks for the clarification. You didn't place that particular sentence in quotes, so I took it as your own commentary rather than a continuation of the examples above it.

Yes, if this had been a spoken conversation, you would have heard the sarcasm in my voice!


Markle

Your sarcasm on this particular subject hasn't been hard to detect; but it has taken some effort spotting the straight face, or where context applies. IOW, do you think Brad and Phil's points are to be totally dismissed, and that McCarthy had no basis for his charges at all? What remains vague for me in your comments is whether the one re: assumption of guilt is a generalized criticism, or being leveled on this subject alone.

I don't really understand your question. In any event, I don't have much more to say about the McCarthy situation. It ended nearly half a century ago, and the historical record is pretty well established. It was an ugly period in American history, and recent revisionists aren't going to change that.

See you on other threads.....

Markle

I'm not much interested in rehabilitating McCarthy either. I think he's been used by the Left as a whipping-boy for many causes--most recently as a kind of comparison to Ashcroft. The shoes didn't fit, imo, as Ashcroft hasn't been investigated or censured. It's a kind of a straw-man, in a way, to make McCarthy's patriotism the issue behind the censure; also, I think it's pretty obvious that there were very real problems he was investigating. This stuff all gets glommed up in extreme Left and Right reflections.

Now, has anyone actually seen Farenhype 911?

I agree, Phil. My point to Markle was that in making his comments he seemed to be castigating McCarthy in the extreme, without any serious consideration of the very real Communist Threat during that era. You'd think the Iron curtain were still functioning, and socialism a valid alternative in current world affairs. McCarthy is, it seems, a red herring for leftists to use and abuse when other topics aren't as shrouded with extensive bias.

No. I've yet to see Farenhype. But I hear you can download it with Michael Moore's permission, copyright laws notwithstanding. Maybe as a gesture of good faith to the leftist posters here at Shalom, conservatives should watch it. Given my more conservate leanings regarding such laws, I'll probably rent the movie at Blockbuster.

But here's a link to the alleged permission given by Moore:

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/714/

W.C., they're not talking about Moore's movie, but another one.

See http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Phil said: This stuff all gets glommed up in extreme Left and Right reflections.

Hey, I hope you're talking about Ann and not me! But seriously, it is the nature of culture, politics and even water-cooler talk to not only talk about the facts but, more importantly, what they mean and how they are interpreted. One man's aggressive questioning of a witness is another man's witch hunt. Truly there was a lot of politics and intrigued mixed up in the McCarthy event, so much so that even now we have trouble wrapping our brains around the whole subject. The only bone I'll pick with you, Phil, is that the specific language in the censor of McCarthy is hardly damning. In some instances what McCarthy did was to openly criticize some higher-ups in his own party. Call that being a loose cannon or with hunter. I suppose there is truth in both. But there's also truth in that the truth hurts and people don't like their shortcomings being aired in public. And if one has the power to do something about it then, well, that's politics, but not necessarily any kind of "saving the republic from the likes of McCarthy.

In another thread I ran across these words for Madison:

quote:

In the words of Madison's famous formula in Federalist #51: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

That's what happened. It all worked. Too well, perhaps, since nowadays I'm sure you might all note how easily one who speaks out forcefully on a controversial topic is too easily cast aside as "a divider, not a uniter" or other such nonsense.

Hey, I hope you're talking about Ann and not me!

Sure, and some of the articles you quoted, especially the one that had opponents to McCarthy's censure acting on principle while the 74/96 who voted for it succombing to political pressure from the Eisenhower administration (not exactly known for its love of communism). Some of that seemed pretty gratuitious in its implication of motives.

But there's also truth in that the truth hurts and people don't like their shortcomings being aired in public. And if one has the power to do something about it then, well, that's politics, but not necessarily any kind of "saving the republic from the likes of McCarthy.

Well, of course not, only it could have been checking the excesses in a legitimate investigation gone awry. Some of the web sites seeking to rehabilitate McCarthy don't seem to be able to bring themselves to say that there were any abuses going on . . . Kind of reminded me of Clinton apologists, as I noted.

Some of the web sites seeking to rehabilitate McCarthy don't seem to be able to bring themselves to say that there were any abuses going on . . .

Part of that is disagreement over what is actually an abuse. It's a difficult subject to delve into because of preconceptions (and I submit that this subject is absolutely riddled with preconceptions).

But let's do a little thought experiment. I think most people would be surprised at not only the things that are being taught in higher education but the pedigree of the people doing the teaching. From what I've read over the last few years, academia is chock full of Noam Chomsky's and other unreformed and unapologetic Marxists/leftists/communists. Is this a McCarthyistic slur and attack on academic freedom or is it a valid critique in an attempt to show that "academic freedom" has too often come to mean "free from differing points of view"? Might people be shocked if there was a hearing whose purpose was no more than to publicize this fact? What if people were given many examples of the courses, books and teachers whose result, when taken in totality, was to teach little but a hatred for this country, a hatred for capitalism and a love for Marxist socialism?

Let's say I was the chairman of the "Committee on Academic Integrity". I would be vilified in a heartbeat. I might ask fair, though pointed, questions and the headlines the next day would be of the Nelson Inquisition. This is part of the legacy of McCarthy. The other side in this debate perfected the tactics and techniques of crying foul, of crying "witch hunt". In doing so it is THEIR attitudes and techniques that have had a chilling effect on free discourse in this country ever since. "Mr. Chomsky," I ask from the podium. "Isn't it true that your affinity for communism is so strong that you once denied the genocide in Cambodia?" "Mr. Nelson," replies Chomsky. "Have you no shame?"

It's probably safe to say that from time to time McCarthy might have overstepped the bounds of propriety; at least as far as this country's ethics are concerned (there were no such ethics on the side of the communists). But one should also remember the context: rooting out communist influence and espionage in the state department and other places in the government. And this came notably after the Rosenbergs. The threat was real and the threat was severe. If McCarthy's tactics were excessive at times then let's face that squarely. But let's also face that he, like today (think of the New York Times) was bringing forth for all to see the dirty little secret of the connection or sympathies between the left and liberals in this country and the communists. You can expect them to kick and scream and cry foul all the way to the Volga.

quote:

Part of that is disagreement over what is actually an abuse. It's a difficult subject to delve into because of preconceptions (and I submit that this subject is absolutely riddled with preconceptions).

I liked your thought experiment which followed this quote, Brad, and some of the points you've made on this thread. But the answer to your question about who decides what abuse is for a governmental investigation such as McCarthy was charged with is our elected officials. In recent times, we've seen them doing the same concerning the events surrounding 9/11 and the state of our intelligence services. That's what they did re. McCarthy and his work as well. We might not like the results, which are sure to be tinged with "politics," but, for better or worse, that's how it goes in this country. I'm suspecting we're in agreement at least on process, here, if not the actual results.

Phil, I�m not rebutting or bouncing off your last remarks, but I�ve run into an interesting topic that puts some of what I�ve said into further context. If I�m not quite convinced of the standard characterization of the old McCarthyism it is because of the New McCarthyism which is on display nearly every day:

-----

From Jay Nordlinger�s Impromptus:

quote:

Al Franken called David Horowitz a racist � what an asinine charge � and, unlike a lot of other people, David wouldn't take it. So he has answered in a big and damning way. One of the glorious things about David � aside from his knowledge and intelligence and eloquence � is that he can't be bullied. Oh, for a million more of him. When we � we Reaganites � gained Horowitz, we gained a lot.

Al Franken: Racist
by David Horowitz

quote:

The charge of racism is a toxic accusation in our culture more damaging than the charge of "Communism" at the height of the McCarthy era. It is the contemporary version of the witch-hunt and the fact that its stigma can be applied so casually by leftists to conservatives in their line of fire reflects how instinctive this enterprise is to people who think of themselves as "liberals." The witch-hunt may even be said to be instinctive to progressives who regard themselves as the avatars of human decency and reason, the rest us as turn-back-the-clock reactionaries and � well, racists.

quote:

Although neither Sean nor I had said anything about the legality issue this was Franken�s attack: "The fact that Osama isn't actually a foreign head of state and that Clinton issued his presidential directive to assassinate him didn't stop Hannity from writing in his book about a February 2001 episode of Hannity & Colmes on the topic. Guest racist David Horowitz is quoted as saying: �We can protect ourselves from terrorist threats like Osama bin Laden. It would be nice if the CIA were able to assassinate him.�"

The "guest racist" bit, of course, was entirely gratuitous, It was casually interjected as though it referred to an obvious and widely recognized fact. This is typical fairness for Franken.

As it happens I marched in my first civil rights protest in 1948 before Al Franken was born. For more than fifty years I have supported minorities and defended their civil rights in public word and deed, and raised millions of dollars to help inner city minorities whom racism has scarred. In fact there is no single cause � except America�s wars against totalitarian foes � to which I have devoted myself more consistently that than that of racial equality. Not a shred of evidence exists to the contrary. I have written more than a million words on racial and political matters -- all of them public record. There is not a single sentence, or phrase, or comment of mine that could be cited to justify Franken�s attack.

<< If I�m not quite convinced of the standard characterization of the old McCarthyism it is because of the New McCarthyism which is on display nearly every day..... >>

Sorry, Brad, A does not get retroactively promoted to good because B is bad.

The world is not that binary, and life is not a zero-sum game. Black is not bad BECAUSE white is good, and black is not good BECAUSE white is bad. BOTH extremes can be wrong...or right. Old McCarthyism is not good because new McCarthyism is bad. They're both bad.

You have identified what is the devil for you, and EVERYTHING that opposes your devil is automatically good. Things are not that simple.

Markle

Sorry, Brad, A does not get retroactively promoted to good because B is bad�You have identified what is the devil for you, and EVERYTHING that opposes your devil is automatically good. Things are not that simple.

No, Markle, I�m trying to understand the McCarthy era and to understand it is to understand how it was characterized in the past and why. When you see the left so outrageously and vigorously smearing its critics today then it should at least cause one to pause�and perhaps to even reconsider the old evidence.

<< When you see the left so outrageously and vigorously smearing its critics.� >>

Exactly. The left is incapable of civil discourse. Like when that smug liberal Ann Coulter referred to the Democrats in Boston as "the Spawn of Satan Convention."

Oh, wait......

Markle

Exactly. The left is incapable of civil discourse.

Didn't say they were incapable of it but I do think they let slip with incivilities far in excess of their quota.

JFK was good freinds with McCarthy...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm

Then there was that other McCarthy who is sorry for being right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy

http://www.thecie.org/gene/

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/...de-13/mccarthy1.html


He was followed by a great liberal who lost all 50 states but carried the United Nations and the District of Columbia. (He's still really mad about
Vietnam and Iraq, which, after all, are identical as the old and new McCarthyism.)

http://www.townhall.com/column...mas/ct20011115.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0405-06.htm

Some real ammunition for markle in the above links

These are not quite as persuasive, but good:

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020422&s=mcgovern

http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/mar03/128783.asp

http://buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04007.html

Honestly, I don't know what got into me, it must have been Bugs Bunny's hammer.

carryon,

mm <*)))))><

quote:

Thanks to the most crudely partisan decision in the history of the Supreme Court, the nation has been given a President of painfully limited wisdom and compassion and lacking any sense of the nation's true greatness. Appearing to enjoy his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces above all other functions of his office, and unchecked by a seemingly timid Congress, a compliant Supreme Court, a largely subservient press and a corrupt corporate plutocracy, George W. Bush has set the nation on a course for one-man rule.

He treads carelessly on the Bill of Rights, the United Nations and international law while creating a costly but largely useless new federal bureaucracy loosely called "Homeland Security." Meanwhile, such fundamental building blocks of national security as full employment and a strong labor movement are of no concern. The nearly $1.5 trillion tax giveaway, largely for the further enrichment of those already rich, will have to be made up by cutting government services and shifting a larger share of the tax burden to workers and the elderly. This President and his advisers know well how to get us involved in imperial crusades abroad while pillaging the ordinary American at home.

Man, I had no idea George McGovern was such a demagogue and, frankly, a bit of a nut.

quote:

INTERVIEWER: I want to take you back, Senator, to the beginning of the decade, to 1960...

SENATOR EUGENE McCARTHY: Oh, yeah, I remember that.

Now there's the start of an interview that doesn't fill me with much confidence that the rest of it is worth reading.

From the McGovern quote above:

quote:

Thanks to the most crudely partisan decision in the history of the Supreme Court. . .

I've come to the conclusion that people who talk like this cannot be reasoned with (unless they're referring to the Florida Supreme Court, 2000, ). Not only did Bush win every recount overseen by the mostly Democratic County Commissioners in Florida, he won the full-state recounts sponsored by the press afterwards. The only reason the U.S. Supreme Court intervened was because the Florida State Supreme Court was legislating from the bench by suspending Florida's own election laws. They got slapped on the wrist early on by the U.S. justices for doing so, then they put a stop to the insanity there a second time.

I've come to the conclusion that people who talk like this cannot be reasoned with (unless they're referring to the Florida Supreme Court, 2000, ). Not only did Bush win every recount overseen by the mostly Democratic County Commissioners in Florida, he won the full-state recounts sponsored by the press afterwards. The only reason the U.S. Supreme Court intervened was because the Florida State Supreme Court was legislating from the bench by suspending Florida's own election laws. They got slapped on the wrist early on by the U.S. justices for doing so, then they put a stop to the insanity there a second time.


There have been a billion words written about that but I see it could have been summed up in about a hundred.

<< Not only did Bush win every recount overseen by the mostly Democratic County Commissioners in Florida, he won the full-state recounts sponsored by the press afterwards. >>

That's true. Bush won Florida, and hence the election, by a few hundred Florida votes. But an interesting fact has emerged that you may have heard about. It turns out that in 2000 a few thousand people who lived in other states, but had second homes in Florida, voted in both their home states and Florida. There was no way at the time to cross-check every voter to see if they were also registered in other states.

This makes you wonder how much double-voting is going on in other places around the country as well. Food for thought.

Markle

I would guess that sort of thing equals out, Markle, as it's just as likely that Gore/Kerry voters did the same.

We'll never know for sure. But naturally enough it tends to be more affluent people who can afford more than one home. Not all of them, but the majority of them lean Republican.

2000 was a freak occurence. It's rare that a presidential election is so close. Although Gore won the national popular vote by half a million, the electoral college system and the way the states fell brought the decision down to a single state and the difference of only a few hundred votes. A lot of things could have changed the result one way or the other, and illegal double-voting is one of them. It makes you realize what tiny things can completely change history. Suppose President Kennedy hadn't been wearing a back brace in Dallas, so he would have fallen after the first non-fatal bullet wound. He would have survived and pulled the US out of Vietnam in his second term.* All the history of the 60's and beyond would have been changed. Or suppose Bobby Kennedy had taken a different route out of the Ambassador Hotel after winning the California primary and didn't pass through the kitchen where Sirhan Sirhan was waiting with a gun. Bobby would probably have become president in 1968 instead of Richard Nixon. Who knows how history would have changed. Or suppose the fourth plane on 9/11 hadn't been delayed, so that the passengers had the time to learn from calls on their cell phones that the other three weren't just the old-fashioned kinds of hijackings, which made them know they had to fight back. The White House or the Capitol Building would have been destroyed. It's pretty spooky to think of how little things can change so much.

Markle

* I took a college course in the making of foreign policy from his former Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the Vietnam desk. He told us what the planning for the future was before JFK was killed. LBJ had different ideas.

But naturally enough it tends to be more affluent people who can afford more than one home. Not all of them, but the majority of them lean Republican.

Yes, but as well all know, Republicans emphasize moral values in their everyday lives and so would never think of voting twice!

. . . It's pretty spooky to think of how little things can change so much.

All very interesting! I think that, too, works both ways, however. Who can know what little things steered us to safety instead of an accident? I wonder about that sometimes when I inadvertently make a wrong turn, or get held up by a train? Then there were all the reflections on where was God on 9/11, which don't really resonate with my theology, but are nonetheless interesting to consider.