Ann Coulter, Joseph McCarthy and Hollywood

I don’t look to Ann Coulter for guidance in forming opinions and, frankly, the lady sometimes scares me. This piece, though, interested me. It’s the first time I can remember McCarthy being portrayed as anything but a buffoon. She makes a case for him being at least partly right.

Also, I know “Hollywood” and “artists” point to long lists of people he wrongly accused and who’s careers were ruined by him. Taking into consideration Clooney’s politics, I have to wonder how that may have slanted his film.

For those interested, and without a link source..

<ul type="square"> Coulter column[/list]

[PoBoy321]

While it's just more biased trash by a lunatic, I'll take a stab at at least some of it.

[ QUOTE ]
As noted here previously, George Clooney's movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," about pious parson Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, failed to produce one person unjustly accused by McCarthy. Since I described McCarthy as a great American patriot defamed by liberals in my 2003 book, "Treason," liberals have had two more years to produce a person -- just one person -- falsely accused by McCarthy. They still can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is the fact that of all the hearings held by Joseph McCarthy, not one led to a single conviction of a "Communist subversive" within the US government. So why can't anyone prove that no one was falsely accused? You can't prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this context. It's impossible to absolutely prove that anyone was falsely accused, it's also impossible to prove a lot of things, but since our justice system is designed the way it is, there is an assumption of innocence.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, I can prove that Murrow's good friend Lawrence Duggan was a Soviet spy responsible for having innocent people murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we do know that there was one, and only one, case in which McCarthy rightly accused someone who was acting as a Soviet spy. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe anyone would find it preferable to have been a "target" of McCarthy in the '50s than to have been an ordinary citizen living in the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine or any nation infected by the Red Plague.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. I would also say that I'd rather be in an American prison than in a Cambodian slum, but I don't think that that means I should be grateful that I'm (wrongly) sitting in jail. McCarthy used his crusade against supposed Communist subversives as a way to attack New Deal Democrats against whom he had a personal vendetta.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to McCarthy, and no thanks to Murrow, the worst horror to befall an American citizen in the '50s was the dire prospect of losing a movie credit -- although, since then, I suppose having to watch a George Clooney movie would run a close second.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK, McCarthy never had anything to with preventing any kind of attack on America.

[hetron]

Good post. Right on the money. The part about disproving a negative is completely correct. For an ivy league educated chick, she sure says some illogical things.

[ QUOTE ]
While it's just more biased trash by a lunatic, I'll take a stab at at least some of it.

[ QUOTE ]
As noted here previously, George Clooney's movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," about pious parson Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, failed to produce one person unjustly accused by McCarthy. Since I described McCarthy as a great American patriot defamed by liberals in my 2003 book, "Treason," liberals have had two more years to produce a person -- just one person -- falsely accused by McCarthy. They still can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is the fact that of all the hearings held by Joseph McCarthy, not one led to a single conviction of a "Communist subversive" within the US government. So why can't anyone prove that no one was falsely accused? You can't prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not in this context. It's impossible to absolutely prove that anyone was falsely accused, it's also impossible to prove a lot of things, but since our justice system is designed the way it is, there is an assumption of innocence.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, I can prove that Murrow's good friend Lawrence Duggan was a Soviet spy responsible for having innocent people murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we do know that there was one, and only one, case in which McCarthy rightly accused someone who was acting as a Soviet spy. On the other hand, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe anyone would find it preferable to have been a "target" of McCarthy in the '50s than to have been an ordinary citizen living in the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine or any nation infected by the Red Plague.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. I would also say that I'd rather be in an American prison than in a Cambodian slum, but I don't think that that means I should be grateful that I'm (wrongly) sitting in jail. McCarthy used his crusade against supposed Communist subversives as a way to attack New Deal Democrats against whom he had a personal vendetta.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to McCarthy, and no thanks to Murrow, the worst horror to befall an American citizen in the '50s was the dire prospect of losing a movie credit -- although, since then, I suppose having to watch a George Clooney movie would run a close second.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK, McCarthy never had anything to with preventing any kind of attack on America.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jt1]

I'm not gonna read her column, but it's been my perception for several years that McCarthy was mostly right about whom he pegged as communists.

The disagreement most Americans have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that He had no right to peg anyone as anything.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna read her column, but it's been my perception for several years that McCarthy was mostly right about whom he pegged as communists.

The disagreement most Americans have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that He had no right to peg anyone as anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

forget his completely unconstitutional methods, and utter uselessness of the witchhunt (alone a disservice to everyone), and the fact that there is nothing wrong about being a communist, as it is quite different from being a spy for the Soviet Union. the disagreement most people have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that he was an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna read her column, but it's been my perception for several years that McCarthy was mostly right about whom he pegged as communists.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you say he was mostly right when he wasn't successful in proving anything he claimed?



[ QUOTE ]
The disagreement most Americans have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that He had no right to peg anyone as anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm baffled by this. His supporters didn't think he had a right to "peg" anyone? Please help me understand.


[ QUOTE ]
forget his completely unconstitutional methods, and utter uselessness of the witchhunt (alone a disservice to everyone), and the fact that there is nothing wrong about being a communist, as it is quite different from being a spy for the Soviet Union. the disagreement most people have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that he was an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
His "method" was Senate hearings. Not what I'd call unconstitutional. The efficacy of Senate hearings I won't argue.

At the time of the hearings there was quite a bit "wrong" with being a communist if you were living in the U.S. That's why he was able to even hold them.

I don't believe he actually ever accused anyone of spying. The fact that you were a "dirty pinko commie" carried the inference that you must also be a spy.

The man wasn't a Mensa candidate, no, but he wasn't an idiot. He was a politician in danger of losing his seat in the Senate. The hearings were designed to get him re-elected.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]

His "method" was Senate hearings. Not what I'd call unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

his method was accusation of people to the point of political pressure on their families, employers, etc. none of those people were ever presented with evidence that wasn't rumor and speculation. many who did not even get a hearing had their constitutional right to due process violated.

[ QUOTE ]
At the time of the hearings there was quite a bit "wrong" with being a communist if you were living in the U.S. That's why he was able to even hold them.

I don't believe he actually ever accused anyone of spying. The fact that you were a "dirty pinko commie" carried the inference that you must also be a spy.

[/ QUOTE ]

you will have to explain yourself. the communist party was not illegal, or outlawed like the nazi party. it had no connections to soviet union, and even if they did, there was no open military conflict with the russians, so there is no illegal activity an alleged communist could be doing other than spying for them.

[ QUOTE ]
The man wasn't a Mensa candidate, no, but he wasn't an idiot. He was a politician in danger of losing his seat in the Senate. The hearings were designed to get him re-elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

so he made up a witchhunt for his personal gain at the expense of american taxpayers and constitutional principles?

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]

you will have to explain yourself. the communist party was not illegal, or outlawed like the nazi party. it had no connections to soviet union, and even if they did, there was no open military conflict with the russians, so there is no illegal activity an alleged communist could be doing other than spying for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't all liberals be up in arms about the horrible witch hunt of the nazis?

[ QUOTE ]
his method was accusation of people to the point of political pressure on their families, employers, etc. none of those people were ever presented with evidence that wasn't rumor and speculation. many who did not even get a hearing had their constitutional right to due process violated.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said, “His ‘method.’” I enclosed the word “method,” because that’s what it was. He used a “procedure” of the U.S. Senate as a vehicle to implement his goals. The constitutionality of what he did was never tested in the only place it matters.


[ QUOTE ]
you will have to explain yourself. the communist party was not illegal, or outlawed like the nazi party. it had no connections to soviet union, and even if they did, there was no open military conflict with the russians, so there is no illegal activity an alleged communist could be doing other than spying for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn’t say the Communist Party was illegal. Their connections to the Soviet Union were real. The degree and importance of the connections, as well as the degree of Soviet influence can be argued.

Yeah, I kinda remember the Cold War. Your definition of “open military conflict” differs from mine. For starters, look up the shooting down of a USAF RB-47 flying over the North Atlantic. We raised quite a stink about it in the U.N., but nothing was done.


[ QUOTE ]
so he made up a witchhunt for his personal gain at the expense of american taxpayers and constitutional principles?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. It took a while, but his “esteemed colleagues,” (I just love it when DC folks say that) finally got tired of Joe’s antics and censured him. A rare action.

Btw, it’s still going on. Watch C-SPAN. It’s really a hoot.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna read her column, but it's been my perception for several years that McCarthy was mostly right about whom he pegged as communists.

The disagreement most Americans have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that He had no right to peg anyone as anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

forget his completely unconstitutional methods, and utter uselessness of the witchhunt (alone a disservice to everyone), and the fact that there is nothing wrong about being a communist, as it is quite different from being a spy for the Soviet Union. the disagreement most people have with him on all sides of the political spectrum is that he was an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a drunk, too.