The Return of McCarthyism

[HAL 9000 96]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

Okay. So there was nothing wrong. No harm no foul. Never mind that others are now afraid of what will happen to them if they ask a question. And if you want to talk about people being asked to spy on neighbors, (I was out of the country for the entire Bush and half of the Clinton administrations, so if this happened under them, I missed it, and happy that I did) what was that about sending in "fishy emails"?

And if you find the "intellectual parallels astoundingly similar" then I'm sure an equally good, probably more intellectual parallel could be made that Obama is a communist. But again, you conveniently won't see that. I don't see either. I think to call this a "Return to McCarthyism" is as intellectually dishonest and as big a disservice as when people accuse anyone and everyone of being a Nazi. People were actually destroyed under McCarthyism. People who did not have power were destroyed by people in power. Obama is in power now. He holds all the power. His party is in power in congress. If you actually think he can be destroyed in the way that people were destroyed under McCarthyism, then you are the one with the tenuous grasp on history.

Who's afraid?

Plenty of people are asking questions.

Regarding those emails, perhaps a dose of context would help you answer your own question. It seems 'records can't be set straight' anymore. And again- it really is incongruous to equate spying on neighbors with 'reporting' misinformation.

Completely agree with you on the silliness of calling Obama something he isn't and his tactics as of the sort seen in the 50s. No, I do not see him being damaged much by such stupidity nor do I think I have made any points to that effect. In fact... it is the GOP and the hysterical right wing media circus show that is doing itself in by acting so irrationally.

All about the context, it's all about that.

I'm afraid. And if I'm afraid, so are a lot of other people. Good for the people asking questions. I'm proud of them and hope they keep it up.

So you agree that there is no "Return to McCarthyism", but you just said it that the "intellectual parallels are astounding." Which is it? Context. It's all about that.

As for your non-answer about the "fishy emails," when is it ever neccessary to send in the "fishy emails" in order to address the misinformation? Send in your questions and they will be answered. You don't need to send in the emails. That seems so blatantly obvious to me that I can't believe anyone would miss that. In your line of work are you allowed to forward personal emails on to others with their personal information in them without their consent? I can't in my line of work and I'm a lowly teacher. I have to protect all personal information of all I come into contact with. The whole process was changed because it was wrong. Even the people who started that program admitted that, but you still seem to think there was nothing wrong with it. It might have been pure sloppiness and not intentionally designed to stifle opposition to start that program in the first place. I'd like to believe it was. But yet again, people like you dismiss it as harmless. It wasn't harmless. And neither was the complete ripping apart of a private citizen for the sake of political expediency.

Then be unafraid.

Now as for non-answers... I think you just need to delve deeper into the nature of the term 'misinformation.'

Like I said, there is a very clear difference when it comes to gathering information on neighbors vs gathering the false information information spread around by smear campaigns.

As for ripping apart of a citizen... I have yet to see Joe's guts on his Ohio lawn. Unless it was some sort of self-sacrifice that's resulted in (as mentioned above) a book deal and some (I assume) lucrative activities. You seem to be making a big deal about very little.

And... 'intellectual parallels' usually imply the rational and logical patterns used to arrive at conclusions between different phenomena. Think about that for a moment.

Edited September 22, 2009 by HAL 9000

[HYENA 4]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

There were 3 days between when Joe met with Obama and the Presidential debate where McCain name dropped Joe and used him as the poster boy for the "working man". Joe also appeared on TV interviews on that same day and held a press conference at his home the day after.

He was whoring it up in the media with the best of them. If he didn't want that kind of attention - he should have refused all the media appearances, not actively sought them.

Interesting. I had heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate when McCain mentioned him. At that point, to those in the know it seems, McCain was strumming on already thrumming strings. He was using a name that already held meaning to his listeners. As for Joe "whoring" it up, when the press are camped out on your lawn and following you whereever you go because you've asked a question, what will you do? I would probably avoid them because, as I've already stated, I would be afraid of that sort of scrutiny. But I'm not proud of that. I wish I had the guts to stand up against that sort of unfairness, say what I believe and press be damned. But at this point with a child in my life, I feel I have too much to lose. I know the power of the press, especially unchecked, which it seems it is as there are so many even here on little old VJ ready to excuse them and even justify their behavior. Especially when there are people in positions of power who will abuse that power to do background checks on me. Even though they might not be able to find anything incriminating about me, they could probalby embarrass me somehow.

Remember how the pricks in the press condemned the Atlanta bomber guy and it turned out he never did anything? I think the guy's name was jewell.

And the Jean Benet Ramsay case....and on and on.... Now I gotta say the Ramsays are sick for entering her into those kiddie porn beauty contests but the police ignoring dna all over the place, etc. I don't like the police, the Ramsays or the press.

Edited September 22, 2009 by HYENA

[GabiandVi 34]

Furthermore, trying to equate McCarthyism with getting slammed on by the wolves in the media is a bit ignorant of actual history and what transpired during those times, but I am pretty sure that's already been mentioned.

It has also been mentioned that the equation was to point out the idiocy of the criteria being used to suggest that Obama is the victim of McCarthy-like harrassment. See previous posts. The criteria given by the OP described what happened to Joe the Plumber better than anything that is being or has ever been done to Obama.

I agree that what was done to Joe was not on the level of what happened during the McCarthy era, but in a world where people support what was done to him, we are getting closer to the point where a McCarthy-like witch hunt could take place, and that would be when those in power use that power to intimidate and harrass and even imprison those who disagree with those in power. NOT when some members of the media and some private citizens accuse the most powerful man in the country of being a communist.

To suggest that this is a "Return to McCarthyism" (see title of thread) is as wrong as suggesting that there is Naziism afoot or that, so far, we have seen communism being implemented. If you have a problem with that label being tossed about, you should equally have a problem with this claim being made. But everyone seems to want to overlook that point. Again, I ask, convenience?

Perhaps because the intellectual parallels are astoundingly similar?? Certainly that would make sense to most of us...

Joe is doing just fine now.

As a matter of fact, with his whoring up of pundit/correspondent status he may even have placed himself in that next tax bracket under Obama's proposal. Good for him.

Hardly a life ruined, and he should have known the kind of maelstrom he'd put himself and his family into for being a pawn and a tool for McCain's campaign.

What that has to do with the current administration is seriously beyond me, although I do remember certain times in the last administration that seemed to have moments of neighbors calling on neighbors for potential activities threatful to America. Now all I can see are people fed up of idiots misinterpreting public record and the hysteria of who can yell the loudest contrary to the electoral mandate being attempted to be implemented.

Okay. So there was nothing wrong. No harm no foul. Never mind that others are now afraid of what will happen to them if they ask a question. And if you want to talk about people being asked to spy on neighbors, (I was out of the country for the entire Bush and half of the Clinton administrations, so if this happened under them, I missed it, and happy that I did) what was that about sending in "fishy emails"?

And if you find the "intellectual parallels astoundingly similar" then I'm sure an equally good, probably more intellectual parallel could be made that Obama is a communist. But again, you conveniently won't see that. I don't see either. I think to call this a "Return to McCarthyism" is as intellectually dishonest and as big a disservice as when people accuse anyone and everyone of being a Nazi. People were actually destroyed under McCarthyism. People who did not have power were destroyed by people in power. Obama is in power now. He holds all the power. His party is in power in congress. If you actually think he can be destroyed in the way that people were destroyed under McCarthyism, then you are the one with the tenuous grasp on history.

Who's afraid?

Plenty of people are asking questions.

Regarding those emails, perhaps a dose of context would help you answer your own question. It seems 'records can't be set straight' anymore. And again- it really is incongruous to equate spying on neighbors with 'reporting' misinformation.

Completely agree with you on the silliness of calling Obama something he isn't and his tactics as of the sort seen in the 50s. No, I do not see him being damaged much by such stupidity nor do I think I have made any points to that effect. In fact... it is the GOP and the hysterical right wing media circus show that is doing itself in by acting so irrationally.

All about the context, it's all about that.

I'm afraid. And if I'm afraid, so are a lot of other people. Good for the people asking questions. I'm proud of them and hope they keep it up.

So you agree that there is no "Return to McCarthyism", but you just said it that the "intellectual parallels are astounding." Which is it? Context. It's all about that.

As for your non-answer about the "fishy emails," when is it ever neccessary to send in the "fishy emails" in order to address the misinformation? Send in your questions and they will be answered. You don't need to send in the emails. That seems so blatantly obvious to me that I can't believe anyone would miss that. In your line of work are you allowed to forward personal emails on to others with their personal information in them without their consent? I can't in my line of work and I'm a lowly teacher. I have to protect all personal information of all I come into contact with. The whole process was changed because it was wrong. Even the people who started that program admitted that, but you still seem to think there was nothing wrong with it. It might have been pure sloppiness and not intentionally designed to stifle opposition to start that program in the first place. I'd like to believe it was. But yet again, people like you dismiss it as harmless. It wasn't harmless. And neither was the complete ripping apart of a private citizen for the sake of political expediency.

Then be unafraid.

And you should be afraid as well. You are not now because you are standing on the right side of the fence, but the tide will turn and you will be standing on the wrong side of the fence someday with the opposition wielding the power and you could find yourself in the position of a Joe the Plumber, and you might not be so fortunate as he is to enjoy the scrutiny or to survive it. Apparentlly, despite the "substantiated" attacks on him, as one poster suggested, he had actually done nothing wrong.

Now as for non-answers... I think you just need to delve deeper into the nature of the term 'misinformation.'

Like I said, there is a very clear difference when it comes to gathering information on neighbors vs gathering the false information information spread around by smear campaigns.

I don't care about the term "misinformation". I care about them asking for people to send in the "misinformer's" personal emails. But you've totally ignored that. Either because you actually are blind to it, or because you are trying to obfuscate.

As for ripping apart of a citizen... I have yet to see Joe's guts on his Ohio lawn. Unless it was some sort of self-sacrifice that's resulted in (as mentioned above) a book deal and some (I assume) lucrative activities. You seem to be making a big deal about very little.

I guess you don't understand figurative language. Again, when it is you or yours squirming under the microscope, sorry I forgot you don't understand figurative language. When the power has shifted and is in the hands of the opposition and the media and public officials are "rightfully" deeply delving into the private lives of private citizens who disagree with them, I will still believe that it is wrong, frightening, and stifling to freedom of speech and a sort of thougtht police state, but I will still be too frightened to stand up for that citizen. I'm not making a big deal because I care about Joe the Plumber. I'm making a relatively small deal, that you are dismissing, because I care about equality, the sense of private citizens that they should be able to speak freely, and the balance of power.

And... 'intellectual parallels' usually imply the rational and logical patterns used to arrive at conclusions between different phenomena. Think about that for a moment.

"Intellectual parallels [being] astoundingly similar" prove there is a "Return to McCarthyism" in one post from you but then you agree in another there is not a "Return to McCarthyism" but now you say you can conclude based on a rational and logical pattern between an arm of the government using its power to hunt down and destroy private citizens (McCarthyism) and Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (private citizens) using their pulpits to call the most powerful man in the country (the head of the government) a communist. (I'm sorry. I know I keep saying "destroy" and no one was actually crushed to smithereens just like Joe's guts weren't strewn over his Ohio yard. Maybe I should say that their backgrounds were delved deeply into so that they were intimidated and sometimes even brought to trial and so that as a result freedom of speech was stifled and and private citizens begain being afraid to speak out, but then I might be drawing a parallel . . .) Anyway, do the astounding similarities prove that there is a "Return to McCarthyism" or does the rational and logical pattern you used cause you to conclude that there is a "Return to McCarthyism" or do you think, as you have stated that there is NOT a "Return to McCarthyism?" Which is it? Context. It's all about that. Think about it for a moment and when you have decided, yes there is or no there isn't a return to McCarthyism, let me know.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

McCarthy is awesome.

He's been dead 52 years.

Sorry I don't have time to spend hours on here picking through what I think is a grammatical error. Like this person does.

Its common knowledge how long he's been dead. Its no different than saying Lincoln is awesome, or Kennedy is awesome.

You people on your quest to sound "right" and sound "smart" only makes you that much more stupid.

[zqt3344 21]

What kind of liberal wacko feel sorry for us we are being attacked by radical right drivel is this Col BG???? Weak, very weak. If you cannot stand the heat being a liberal loon then get out of the kitchen and stop whining around!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

Nope. That's not how it happened. The event at which Joe tossed a question at Obama took place on 12 October. Nothing happened after that event. It was three days later on 15 October that McCain made several references to Joe. Also that day, Joe appeared on CBS Evening News - not that he had to but this is what made him more or less a public figure. He held a press conference on 16 October - don't know, I'm a private citizen and have never held a press conference. ABC News reported on his unpaid taxes in Ohio on 16 October. He's been on the News ever since pretty much throughout the rest of the campaign.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

Nope. That's not how it happened. The event at which Joe tossed a question at Obama took place on 12 October. Nothing happened after that event. It was three days later on 15 October that McCain made several references to Joe. Also that day, Joe appeared on CBS Evening News - not that he had to but this is what made him more or less a public figure. He held a press conference on 16 October - don't know, I'm a private citizen and have never held a press conference. ABC News reported on his unpaid taxes in Ohio on 16 October. He's been on the News ever since pretty much throughout the rest of the campaign.

That's what I think was strange - it wasn't just that Joe was videotaped asking Obama a question (which just happened to resonate with a portion of McCain's base), it was that he used it as a springboard to court publicity in the media - and he did it deliberately.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

McCain made Joe the Plumber a figurehead for his election campaign. Not only that Joe chose to participate.

This is kind of what happens when you put yourself in the firing line of public life.

Joe the Plumber became a figurehead in McCain's election campaign because he had immediately been put in the firing line. Not the other way around. The background checks began immediately after Obama answered the question, not after McCain took Joe in. The media continued hounding him, but it wasn't McCain's support that instigated the scrutinizing.

Nope. That's not how it happened. The event at which Joe tossed a question at Obama took place on 12 October. Nothing happened after that event. It was three days later on 15 October that McCain made several references to Joe. Also that day, Joe appeared on CBS Evening News - not that he had to but this is what made him more or less a public figure. He held a press conference on 16 October - don't know, I'm a private citizen and have never held a press conference. ABC News reported on his unpaid taxes in Ohio on 16 October. He's been on the News ever since pretty much throughout the rest of the campaign.

That's what I think was strange - it wasn't just that Joe was videotaped asking Obama a question (which just happened to resonate with a portion of McCain's base), it was that he used it as a springboard to court publicity in the media - and he did it deliberately.

McCain had no base. What conservatives did vote for him, only did so because there was no alternative for them in the GE. McCain was never a conservative. Many many people stayed home. I held my nose and voted for him, but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

A "maverick" and "moderate" doesn't technically have a base. Its populism and trying to appeal to everyone he possibly can. He didn't start portraying himself as a conservative until the primaries.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain's problem was that he didn't adequately define his campaign platform. The Joe the Plumber thing was a last ditch attempt to appeal to the conservatives (i.e. the traditional GOP base).

[Joseph & Ana 0]

McCain's problem was that he didn't adequately define his campaign platform. The Joe the Plumber thing was a last ditch attempt to appeal to the conservatives (i.e. the traditional GOP base).

Yeah you're right. He was ALL over the place. In a way I'm glad he didn't get in there. Would have destroyed the Republican party even worse than it already is. They seriously need to get back to basics, and it seems they still haven't matured being slapped around. I think many many democrats and many many republicans are going to be thrown out in the primaries coming up. Thats my prediction, but we'll see.

[NickD 203]

Can't talk about McCarthy without talking about Nixon, one was either as good or bad for this country as the other, McCarthy was good, he kicked the bucket, Nixon was bad, he became the nations leader.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

McCain's problem was that he didn't adequately define his campaign platform. The Joe the Plumber thing was a last ditch attempt to appeal to the conservatives (i.e. the traditional GOP base).

Yeah you're right. He was ALL over the place. In a way I'm glad he didn't get in there. Would have destroyed the Republican party even worse than it already is.

You know you had the wrong candidate with McCain when even Glenn Beck says that he thinks the country is better off with Barack Obama.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

McCain's problem was that he didn't adequately define his campaign platform. The Joe the Plumber thing was a last ditch attempt to appeal to the conservatives (i.e. the traditional GOP base).

Yeah you're right. He was ALL over the place. In a way I'm glad he didn't get in there. Would have destroyed the Republican party even worse than it already is.

You know you had the wrong candidate with McCain when even Glenn Beck says that he thinks the country is better off with Barack Obama.

You also know that you have the wrong candidate when Ann Coulter says she's supporting Hillary (when McCain won the nom.)

Maybe we should change this thread to "you know you have the wrong candidate when...."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He didn't adequately define his campaign, but he also didn't adequately distance himself from Bush. That was the real killer.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

McCain didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He didn't adequately define his campaign, but he also didn't adequately distance himself from Bush. That was the real killer.

Thats how I feel. When I heard he won the nom, I knew it was over.

I'm hoping history repeats itself and Jimmy Carter brings us another Reagan.

(i'm not here to debate Reagan, so its not a baiting post.) back to topic...