McCarthyism a Red Herring?

Posted Monday, November 23, 2009, at 9:01 PM
View 34 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Mike,

    There were other victims of McCarthyism besides "Tailgunner Joe."

    Dalton Trumbo, without question one of the greatest screen writers of all time, did not have a single screen credit in his own name for years.

    Trumbo, along with many young intellectuals during the 1929-1941 period gave Socialism and the Soviet model of monolithic totalitarianism a serious look, many being members of "socialist groups" on college and university campuses.

    Woody Guthrie, who came out of"Bible Belt" eastern Oklahoma to produce "THIS LAND IS OUR LAND" was a farm worker union activist in California during the height of the depression and generally regarded as a socialist.

    [Guthrie witnessed the "industrial grower's private guard goon squads" beating and killing men, women and children -- and had a full share of lumps, bruises, open wounds and stitches himself. For some strange reason, those dust bowl refugees, many from S.W. Nebraska, N.W. Kansas and Eastern Colorado and Wyoming, objected to working seven 16 hour days and then being driven from camps without pay at 2 a.m. Monday morning.]

    Alger Hiss was convicted of espionage on the basis of a single roll of 35 mm film produced by witness discovered by Richard Nixon -- Whittaker Chambers. Hiss' prison time may have been the result of planted evidence and perjury on the part of Chambers and Nixon.

    Of course, "aerial combat hero-- Tailgunner Joe" was exposed as a complete fraud. He was a stateside clerk at the time he was claiming combat exploits, when in fact, he never saw combat or overseas duty.

    But his lies got him into the Senate, where he did serious harm to our Constitutional process.

    The records show that when his committee's investigators went head hunting and were confronted by hard nosed opposition -- They invariably turned tail and ran, never mentioning that subject's name again.

    And yes, one of the young lawyers working for the committee was Robert "Bobby" Kennedy.

    Fast forward to less than two years ago, several federal agencies with evidence the Fort Hood "shooter" was involved with at least one extremist Muslim mullah, and was in fact attempting to correspond with Bin Laden -- somehow did not get that information to the Army's counter-terrorism staffs.

    I read these reports and am stunned that six and seven years after the World Trade Center was destroyed, the promised coordination of anti-terrorism efforts among all U.S. Government agencies, did not exist.

    The families of those murdered Ft. Hood people deserve an explanation. As citizens, taxpayers, voters and military veterans, we all deserve explanations.

    This information was fully understood by several agencies, who failed to share, as they were supposedly sharing all terrorist information.

    From FBI field agents, the Director, National Security Director, the White House Security Council and all others in the know -- those people who were responsible for these failures between 2002 and 2009, and forward, should be held accountable.

    When are we going to refuse to accept Super Patriot pontificating from people who are allowing this nonsense to happen on their watch?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 4:16 PM
  • *

    One short correction and I just found this out recently:

    For years it was assumed that Alger Hiss was indeed railroaded in an effort to make it appear that the war on Communism was indeed working.

    But after the Soviet Union collapsed a lot of their papers were released for a short time and in those papers the indeed did show that Alger Hiss was working for the Soviet Union

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 5:31 PM
  • Having just read the RNC policy positions, I'd have to say there is a very clear line drawn. Cross it and you're in democrat area. I would think you dems would love this plan, it would give you more voters for your issues, provided moderate republicans bolt. Or perhaps, as you fear, there's not many moderates after all.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 8:32 PM
  • *

    Then you didn't read it very well. Though I must say that it is absolutely hilarious that in the first part they recognize that they have to be more accepting of those with different viewpoints and then at the end say that if someone differs in three of the ten points they won't be receiving any money from the RNC.

    I wonder what their response would be when they find out that Reagan doesn't fit into their plans to honor him by only giving money to ultra-conservative candidates.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 11:49 AM
  • mike,

    For a leftist like you, these points would probably seem out of this world. But for the rest of us, pretty much in line with what we believe. In fact Ronald R. Reagan would be proud to stand by this, and the candidates who support this.

    It's actually very inclusive, only the left, and in some cases, the very thin line middle of the road types won't like it. But they are a minority anyway.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 4:45 PM
  • *

    You totally missed my point, CPB. Ronald Reagan would not get any money under these guidelines. Nice personal attack though that had nothing to do with my post.

    I was merely pointing out that in their proposal they contradict themselves where at the beginning they say that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive and then by the end they say that anyone not agreeing to at least 8 of the 10 points would not be included. That by definition is not being more inclusive its being less inclusive because the only people that would match 8 of the 10 are the mostly right wing conservatives while the more moderates (the ones that elect most Republicans) are told to look elsewhere.

    As for being a leftist I don't see how that has anything to do with their document. Those points are very much in line with the right wing minority side of the party. These are the kind of documents that cause divisions in a party and sprouts a new party. The last three Republican presidents don't match the criteria nor does the leader of the RNC (though the creators have already said the Michael Steele would be exempt which is another contradiction).

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 5:05 PM
  • Mike,

    I assume your talking about the first position that would disqualify Fmr. President Reagan, and it might. He did cut the marginal tax rates which did bring in more money into Washington, his weakness was letting the democrat led congress and senate decide how to spend it. And spend it they did, even more than what was being brought in. Facts do get in the way.

    This is a very inclusive proposal, agree with 8 of the 10, and your included. If not, be a democrat. Why are you so afraid of this, in your world this should guarantee victory.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 7:58 AM
  • *

    Why do you continue saying that if you disagree with more than three it makes you a Democrat? Where in there does it even state that?

    Why do you think I'm afraid of it? I think it's funny to be honest.

    Actually, Reagan raised taxes, expanded the deficit, and bailed out Social Security. So that kicks him out. You say he only raised taxes and the rest was on the Democrats. Talk about revisionist history.

    Let's not forget that while the RNC was so agast that any health care reform would cover abortion while their own medical insurance was covering abortion.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 10:29 AM
  • Yes Fmr. President Ronald Reagan did raise taxes on some, the rich who didn't pay taxes. They were given tax shelters and loopholes that nobody benefited from. Reagan lowered the tax rates for the very rich in exchange of eliminating the loopholes, thus more of the rich were now paying taxes.

    As far a insurance goes, I am not aware of the republican plan paying for abortions.

    I probably changed the subject so many times my argument is probably useless to you, but who cares.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 1:12 PM
  • *

    CPB look it up. Up until last week the RNC had in their insurance plan coverage for abortion. They only removed it after they decried any abortion coverage being in new health care reform and it was brought to light they offered coverage for it. As the Republicans liked to joke about Kerry, they were for abortion coverage before they were against it.

    According to the guidelines that the RNC is trying to approve if you raise taxes at all you will not get monies from the RNC. There are caveats as to who you raise taxes. Reagan would not fit the bill.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 2:20 PM
  • At the risk of being flagged, are you talking about the RNC insurance plan, or House Republican health plan?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 3:08 PM
  • *

    Seriously why do you think asking a question would get you flagged? Get serious

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 3:23 PM
  • *

    The RNC had the abortion coverage. But before you try to cover for them and say that it was Congressional Republicans that wanted the coverage out of the reform you are correct, but the RNC was leading the charge for the calls to get the coverage out despite having the coverage in their own plan.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 3:28 PM
  • So the RNC has eliminated abortion coverage under the leadership is Michael Steele? Sounds like a solidly Conservative idea to me. No hypocrisy here.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 4:01 PM
  • *

    You have got to be joking right? Seriously? So you're view of a party that opposed abortion coverage yet had it themselves and didn't drop it until it was put under the spotlight as not being hypocrisy? That is some fine revisionism there CPB.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 4:34 PM
  • They "righted a wrong" didn't they. Hypocrisy would occur if the did nothing. You know, "do as I say, not as I do" thing. They did the right thing.

    I hope I didn't offend you in any way.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 4:49 PM
  • *

    You are correct they did correct the wrong, but only after they were caught in it.

    In the end they fixed it but that alone does not save them from the hypocrisy label as they were completely against abortion coverage even though, at the time, they provided for abortion coverage. That is the hypocritical act.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 5:03 PM
  • It was a hypocritical act prior to November 13, now it all good.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 5:12 PM
  • *

    So you excuse hypocrisy no matter what it is as long as something is done about it?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 5:32 PM
  • There is no excuse for hypocrisy, it only matters in the present. Did I ever say I excused it? Please don't take this wrong.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 6:17 PM
  • *

    "It was a hypocritical act prior to November 13, now it all good." I took that as excusing hypocrisy as long as it is dealt with.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 7:50 PM
  • I still don't see where I excused it. It was hypocrisy, and it was dealt with. I realize I'm skating on this ice, with the threat of being flagged again, but now your just lying.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, at 8:06 PM
  • Chunky,

    Twist and turn as you will.

    The ONLY REASON the Republican National Party dropped their group medical/health insurance coverage paying for abortions -- IS BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT.

    It that had been a Democrat or the sitting President making a change after someone publicized such glaring contradiction -----

    The screams from you and all the other Neo-Cons on the High Plains would have been deafening.

    Remember, Ted Kennedy sending "Bo" the Portugese Water Dog to the White House kids?

    Nut cases were accusing Pres. Obama of hypocrisy for weeks, because he said they were looking at "pound dogs" and intended to take one of those.

    Ted Kennedy knew that some people had bought "Bo" and decided they could not handle an energetic dog. Kennedy got him to give to the Obama kids.

    But to hear the NeoCons scream, the President had committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    You decide, how does the Republican Party organization providing insurance coverage for abortions in TOTAL CONTRADICTION of their political position -- equate to the Obama kids accepting a dog as a gift??

    I find the GOP embarrassment laughable. The PARTY pulled a "Dumb-Dumb," were being totally hypocritical for YEARS, possibly decades, and now wants everyone to forget the whole thing.

    "We fixed it."

    Suppose Bin Laden promises not to have any more jetliners flown into the World Trade Center -- Will that fix the problem?

    Think at least five minutes before you answer.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sat, Nov 28, 2009, at 1:10 AM
  • Hank,

    I'm just very glad they fixed a problem, a very big problem at that.

    I'm not real sure what a "neo-con" is, I'm pretty sure I'm not one. I don't remember Ted Kennedy send over a Portuguese Water Dog to the White House, not very important in the whole scheme of things.

    Osama Bin Laden promising not to fly anymore planes into the World Trade Center? If I remember correctly, the 2 that were flown into them brought them down. I choose to deal with real world situations, and not the hypothetical, you should too.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 28, 2009, at 12:40 PM
  • Oh yeah, you have one organization against abortions who had insurance that covered it, hypocritical yes, then ended that provision. Hypocritical, no, but bad public image.

    And another organization whose goal is to destroy the USA, and tried it. Then in a hypothetical, says hey won't do it again. Hypocrisy, yep

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 3:55 PM
  • *

    Then if you only deal in real world situations CPB you must know that World Trade Center is being rebuilt, right now, as we speak.

    I'm also guessing that since no one was baited in by your original (as Sarah Palin would put it) "gotcha" you had to repost and then miss Herndon's original point all together. You say that the RNC fixing it's 20 years of hypocrisy makes everything okay, so then does bin Laden making a promise not to ever attack us again fix everything in that situation as well.

    Since we are on the subject of bin Laden and those who attacked us how come we never invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11 since the overwhelming majority of attackers (even the mastermind bin Laden himself) were from that country. If as you like to say that these men cannot be identified by country why did we go into Afghanistan and later Iraq (a country that posed no threat to us and didn't support in any form al Queda). Seems that we used a rather conventional method of war to go after unconventional combatants.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 5:30 PM
  • Mike,

    I cannot recall al-qaeda ever saying they would not hit the Trade Centers again. Do you?

    I have made my point on the RNC insurance coverage and will not discuss further.

    If I recall, we hit Afghanistan because al-qaeda, under the protection and sanction of the taliban, were headquartered there.

    We then hit Iraq, because of the known presence of WMD's (yes, they existed) and the fact they trained and supplied weapons to al-qaeda. Hit one, hit them both I say. I also say we should have taken out Saudi Arabia, could have been easy.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 7:18 PM
  • *

    WMDs did exist ... in the 1980s. By the time we invaded in 2004, what WMDs were left over were so decayed that any exposure to them wouldn't even cause a rash.

    This all retread, but it is a proven fact that Iraq and al Queda had no ties what-so-ever. bin Laden went to Saddam for help and he turned them down. The fact remains is that we invaded a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to us under the guise of "The War on Terror".

    But that once again leads to the question, if terrorists are not recognized as conventional then should this not have been a police action, rather than a military one? In the 8 years since we sent our men and women into Afghanistan to die in order to capture bin Laden we haven't. It even led President Bush to famously say that he wasn't worried about bin Laden.

    I'm sorry but the answer for one war not working is not to start another war.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 8:15 PM
  • -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 8:24 PM
  • *

    These links provide nothing but rumor and theories. There are no facts provided. The one official document provided that had to do with Saddam and al Queda detail Saddam's dealings before 1991 with a group that supposedly had ties to al-Queda. The document itself does not make the link only the author of the article through assumption. Debra Baker says in the article that "The Pentagon papers only stated the EIJ link, not specifically the al-Qaeda link." She then goes on to trash the media for "subverting" the truth after she has spent the article making blind leaps in an attempt to make a connection the document didn't make.

    It can't be fact without verifiable information and unfortunately in all three links you provided there is no verifiable facts, just best guesses.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 9:54 PM
  • Simple reality -- If ignorance is bliss.

    Ol' Chunk is about as blissful as anyone.

    CPB -- There is a cure which works for most.

    I'll spell it for you.


    GOING to websites created by Uber-Conservatives and accepting their prattling as knowledge is just about identical to Blue Collar Ron "Tater Salad' White's "champeen dawg" eating his own excrement and firmly believing he has been dining on steak.

    To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy ---

    You might be a Neo-Con if:

    >>You firmly believe Capt. Harry Truman was a socialist;

    >>You think Ronald Reagan was totally opposed to everything you personally hate;

    You KNOW the sitting President was born on Ross Shelf in Anarctica -- either there -- or Uganda -- or the Congo -- or Canada -- or anywhere but in Hawaii where the state has all the records.

    >>You consider yourself the only History scholar writing on this blog, while Mike is a pretender;

    >>You still want to call me a FREELOADER [Notice since you got your loose-lipped BS called on that one, you immediately avoided further mention];

    >> You firmly believe every word gushing from the mouths of Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and Alabama's Senator Sessions is divinely inspired and absolutely perfect.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 3:04 PM
  • Strange, I don't recall calling HerndonHank a freeloader. But anyway, nice insult Hank.

    Iggy and Carl denigrating my sources while citing,, and the best one of all, School must still be out for the summer.

    By the way, I stand firmly behind my sources.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 6:09 PM
  • *

    Steffanie must be back because she is the only one that ever called Guillermo, Gill.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 8:21 PM
  • I thought it was "gloppy mass", either way, I miss her.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 9:51 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: