Off Topic Messages

Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:56 pm

Good grief. I guess you have a defense of serial killer Ted Bundy, too. After all, he was a Republican; heck he was even a loyal campaigner for us.

Joe McCarthy was an opportunistic alcoholic blowhard.

If you want to lionize Republicans of that era, perhaps you'd make more headway with Margaret Chase Smith, Charles Potter, George Aiken, Robert C. Hendrickson, Irving Ives, Wayne Morse, Edward Thye or Charles Tobey. Those were Republicans who saw through McCarthy's bullshit and stood up to him.

"Many of the people McCarthy accused of Communist party membership were not later identified in VENONA intellegence as being Soviet espionage agents."

"McCarthy was consistently unable to provide any evidence for his allegations. When he declared in a floor speech that he would happily turn over evidence of subversive activities by government employees, Senator Herbert Lehman approached him and held out his hand. McCarthy, having no evidence, ignored Lehman and never did provide such material."

McCarthy's accounts of Communists in the government were frequently quite specific as to numbers and escalated wildly, yet he never provided any such extensive lists.

Nor were those "people" on the "lists" ever called to testify.

Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:42 pm

Are you suggesting that there weren't many, perhaps hundreds, of Soviet spies running loose in the U.S. government in those days?

I'd bet there are a lot of people who would have preferred to have been a target of McCarthy rather than a citizen of the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine or any nation infected by the Red Plague during the 1950's.

Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:52 pm

It's 2005 and some still defend McCarthy? Wow.

Put your Ann Coulter books away and re-learn history. For the record, McCarthy never found a single "Communist" in his un-American witch hunts. He did ruin many innocent lives and livelihoods, what a great guy.


Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:03 am

I am "suggesting" -- no, wait, I stated it explicitly -- that McCarthy was full of bullshit.

The Doc is probably right (darn him :lol: ) to invoke Ann Coulter, considering that you mimic the wording of her recent column, which is leading her home page right now. Her words: "produce a person — just one person — falsely accused by McCarthy" Your words: "produce one person...just one...falsely accused by McCarthy."

In light of that, I think I'll invoke arch-conservative William F. Buckley's review of Coulter's writings on McCarthy. Buckley scrupulously examined the McCarthy history and, in fact, was, to an extent, an apologist for him in his book on the man.

But Buckley notes in his review the absurdity of holding McCarthy up as a paragon of truth and virtue. Buckley, whose conservative stripes I should imagine are clearly visible, tells the truth about McCarthy, which is that he fabricated damaging material about people and institutions, including the armed forces.

Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:08 am

Got you off Bush for a minute, didn't I? :lol:

Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:31 am

Rob wrote:They must have been important enough for him to be one of the two Presidents in U.S. history to get impeached.

I'll let y'all duke it out for time reasons, but it does seem
President Clinton is a bit off-subject, but I concede he injected himself
into the discussion. (There was a time when Ex-presidents tended their gardens...)

But as for Rob's comment, I hear some say this as if it was successful.
It's been awhile but what exactly did Ken Starr finally nab him on?

The term means the following:

Main Entry: 1 im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct

(emphasis added).

It seems a bit unfair (and I know that's hard for some to concede)
that they failed to "kill the king" - they did not succeed with the
impeachment. So it's not accurate to use that phase as if he
actually was thrown out of office as the term means. Like being
arrested, it's not the same as being convicted and found guilty.

And in hindsight for some, wasn't it a big waste of time and money?
Rooting around in polticians' surely seamy personal lives is just
not what we needed -and I don't mean to defend Clinton' activities
in the White House.

I'm otherwise not much of Clinton defender, but the Monica-thing
was a joke. Compared to the stakes today, it seems like a real
indulgence, what with issues like jobs, the cost of health care,
Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism and the rise of China, etc.

Have a good one, folks :!:

Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:29 am

EagleUSA wrote:Got you off Bush for a minute, didn't I?

So much for " intelligent thoughts on this topic ..."


Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:33 am

Glad to see you back!! I missed you. Glad to read some intelligent thoughts!

Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:42 am

I've got to get a new scope .......maybe the barrel is bent......

Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:54 pm

EagleUSA wrote:
That's freaking McCarthyism (yes, another embarrasing Republican who has haunted our party for decades). By endorsing such fools we humiliate ourselves and hurt the party.

You may believe you're a Republican, but I don't buy it. You've obviously bought into the Far-Left media frenzy regarding Senator McCarthy. Republicans knowledgeable about their party's history know differently.

Can you or anyone else produce one person...just one...falsely accused by McCarthy? You can't.

Part of that is because McCarthy's name has become synonomous with all 'reds under the bed' scaremongering in that era. That's not to say the man wasn't corrupt though. He accepted large bribes as a senator from both Pepsi and the prefab housing industry. Hardly a model politician!

Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:29 am

Former General George Marshall was one that McCarthy slandered without cause. Marshall was the achitect of the Marshall plan that lifted Western Europe out of the rubble of WWII, hardly a leader of the communist party. You actually would be hard pressed to find one that McCarthy and his colleagues accused who was actually a communist spy. Maybe Alger Hiss but when you accuse everybody you have a chance of at least one being right.

Eisenhower called McCarthy "a pimple on the path of progress." Reporter George Reedy who covered McCarthy commented: "Joe couldn't find a communist in Red Square- he didn't know Karl Marx from Groucho." Personally, McCarthy really cared nothing about the "Red threat". He used the issue to gain political power for himself and his party. It seems insane for anyone today like even Coulter to defend him. He wasn't a great but thwarted mind like Nixon, he was simply a man who ruined other people's lives for his own advancement.

Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:16 pm

The post wasn't about McCarthy, or's about Clinton - a topic neither the Loony Left nor the anti-Bush Right are willing to discuss here.

Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:07 pm

He's yesterday's news, is he not?

I'll concede he should lay low like most ex-presidents
usually do...


Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:31 pm

EagleUSA wrote:The post wasn't about McCarthy, or's about Clinton - a topic neither the Loony Left nor the anti-Bush Right are willing to discuss here.

A casual reader of this topic may easily discern that Clinton was indeeded addressed, and in intelligent fashion. They might also note that "EagleUSA" has avoided commenting in kind, perhaps because he doesn't have an appropriate Ann Coulter quote to cut and paste into the dialogue.


Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:23 am

DJC wrote:
Clinton has been retired for almost five years, give it a rest.

DJC then wrote:
Again, Clinton retired close to five years ago.

Wow. Doc can count to five!

Here's a few quotes of yours that I cut & pasted. There's nothing new or intelligent about your comments, however. Same old, Same old. Nothing addressed.

Read & learn.

Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:42 pm

EagleUSA wrote:There's nothing new or intelligent about your comments ...

One may observe how you DO excel at irony, but that's about it.

It's a shame you cannot or will not engage in any constructive dialogue. Clearly, you yearn for knowledge.

It must be too hard to process when nearly every reply shows how wrong-headed your opinions are.


Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:51 am

Johnny Boy wrote:
Clearly, you yearn for knowledge.

I've got your "yearning" right here.