The Left’s responses to various stimuli are now so predictable they’re practically Pavlovian:
- You criticize the president or his goals? You’re racist.
- You criticize Hillary? You’re sexist and/or you’re “scared” of “strong women”.
- You object to the way Mozilla’s CEO lost his job? You hate gays.
And if you try to discover the truth about a possible Democrat scandal, you’re accused of “McCarthyism“.
—
Recently, the cries of “McCarthyism” have been employed so often, they should put in for overtime. They’re pulling double-duty in both the IRS investigation and the upcoming Benghazi select committee. Since it seems that only the GOP is even slightly curious as to what went on in both of those scandals, it’s not hard to guess why we’ve seen them painted in McCarthyite terms.
To be fair, on occasion the former senator’s name is also used by those on the Right (HERE, and HERE), but those usages are dwarfed by better than 100-to-1. Plus, few if any are from the dominant political party, its leaders or the major Media outlets.
Furthermore, those examples all lack the contrived synchronicity which is so prevalent on the Left. In size, impact and scope, there’s simply no comparison.
But don’t bother telling any of that to the Dems. Like a 4-year-old with a new word, they’re just dying to endlessly repeat it:
- “…We oppose Chairman Issa’s efforts to re-create the Oversight Committee in Joe McCarthy’s image, and we reject his attempts to drag us back to that shameful era…” – (Elijah Cummings (D), one month prior to the contempt of Congress vote for Lois Lerner)
- “…This exercise that we are engaged in today is nearly identical to the actions of Senator McCarthy…” – (Jim McGovern (D), on the vote to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress)
- “…this is the first time since the 1950s and ’60s that a committee has stripped somebody of their Fifth Amendment right and then at the same time went on to a criminal contempt citation. And this is unprecedented except in the McCarthy era…” – (Elijah Cummings (D), also speaking on the Lois Lerner contempt of Congress vote)
- “…not since I heard the line uttered ‘We have the names of [57] card-bearing members of the Communist Party’ have you seen something that’s so blatant as this.” – (John Larson (D), commenting on the Benghazi select committee)
Not to miss out on the fun, or quite possibly because it’s the only Joe McCarthy line she’s ever heard, Representative Louise Slaughter (D) offered this old chestnut:
Slaughter looks so gosh-darned proud of her own cleverness there! Too bad she got the actual quote wrong. Doesn’t matter, I suppose, as long as she gets to impugn a Republican on television.
—
Of course, the Press has been hammering this same note for ages, too. A month ago in the Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank wrote:
“…I have here in my hand a list of six people who think Darrell Issa is a fellow traveler of Joseph McCarthy. I compiled these names while watching Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, lead his panel’s proceedings Thursday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress…”
So, Milbank counted six Democrats, ALL of whom “coincidentally” made the same comparison at the same time. Yet rather than taking issue with the curious serendipity of one reference occurring to six different people simultaneously, Dana instead decided to… also make the same reference himself.
That’s some inspired journalism right there.
Laughably, Dana then one-upped himself this week by comparing Senator Ted Cruz to (who else??) Joe McCarthy:
“…The Texas Republican, in his latest McCarthyesque flourish, said he had a list of “76 instances of lawlessness and other abuses of power”…”
To me, the most incredible aspect of this is that the Washington Post actually pays him for such banality. Is this a great country, or what?
—
Both Issa and Cruz should be fairly used to this monotone invective by now. In Cruz’s case, he had The New Yorker calling him “McCarthy” over a year ago:
“IS SENATOR TED CRUZ OUR NEW MCCARTHY?”
And Darrel Issa had MSNBC doing the same thing to him last summer:
“Issa’s demagoguery stirs up echoes of Joe McCarthy”
Heck, even relative newcomer Joy Reid got the memo, and added her two cents to the McCarthy-palooza:
“Could McCarthyism Be Making a Comeback?”
I swear, individuals with Tourette’s aren’t this repetitive.
There IS one little point that I’d caution the Dems and their sycophantic flunkies in the Press to keep in mind: Joe McCarthy was right.
Meaning, that as various lingering questions about the Benghazi-and-IRS scandals eventually get answered, the folks who’ve been screaming “McCarthyism” at the top of their lungs may (and by rights, should) be shown to be far, far bigger demagogues than the very man whose name they’ve abused for so long.
Two Heads are Better Than One 
Well, you can’t have “Slaughter” without “laughter”, which is all we need to say about Ms. Louise.
When your response to every accusation is an ad hominem attack, haven’t you already LOST the argument???
Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.
Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours at the Republican booth at Nokesville Day in Nokesville, Virginia. The weather was great, but the day’s main event, the parade, had finished hours ago. So the crowds were dwindling, and I was bored. When an obvious Democrat, someone manning the Democrat’s booth walked by, I decided to have a little fun. I offered him some our literature, and that led to brief discussion.
For a little while I managed to get the fellow to consider whether our politicians spend our money in accordance with the Constitution. We got there when I asked him why he was a Democrat, and he ignorantly said the Republican Party was the party of the rich. I pointed out that was not true, and then I said the real difference between the two parties is over who controls spending the taxpayer’s money and all those government regulations. Would we not be better off with less government and control over our own money? As it is, we don’t even know how the government spends all our money.
In response, that Democrat said something amazing. He said he did know how the government spends our money. Most of it goes into Social Security and Medicare, and 75 percent of the discretionary spending goes into Department of Defense. Since that is a rather low level of detail, it awed me that anyone would presume that such a factoid would equate to certain knowledge as to where the Feds are spending our money. So I just pointed out what he is calling discretionary spending is authorized by the Constitution and what he is calling mandatory spending is not even mentioned in the Constitution. He then said that Constitution implies such powers. What galled me about that is that when I asked this guy what the Constitution is for he said the Constitution says what the Federal Government is suppose to do.
I think at some point after that this fellow began to realize he was not making any sense. So he fell back on an old Democrat strategy. He blamed Bush for the state of our economy and the deficit. 🙄 I suppose that since George W. Bush was a Republican and I am a Republican that rendered anything I believe irrelevant?
To win their arguments, what Democrats generally do comes down to one of three things.
1. They attack the character of their opponents (This reblog provides classic example.).
2. They use the end to justify the means. How many times, for example, have we heard the argument that it is for the children? And instead of debating whether what they propose is morally right, Democrats resolutely attack their opponents as being hateful of some defenseless group.
3. They buy off the opposition. That is largely what pork is all about, and this is actually their preferred solution. That’s why there are so many RINOs.
So what can Conservatives do? We have to stick to the fundamentals. When Democrats start in on some form of character assassination or try to buy us off, we have to stick to the fundamentals. We have to remind people why the end does not justify the means. And if we don’t know why the end does not justify the means, then we have some homework to do. What’s the best reference for the difference between right and wrong? It’s the Bible.
Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN !.
Reblogged this on Critical Mass.
Pingback: Remember: NO ONE is more upset about (fill-in-the-blank) than BARACK OBAMA… | Two Heads are Better Than One