Chicago Tribune




Questions for Debate:

Is McCarthiesm on its way back, or is Bachus simply spouting rhetoric that will have no consequences?

Do you agree or disagree with Bachus's remark?

Is the government more repressive than it was before Bush took office?

The first amendment protects people, on both sides of the issue, to make any sort of idiotic statement that they want. Howard Dean has demonstrated this frequently in the past several years for example.

Is McCarthiesm on its way back? No. Unless you consider the recent attempts by the far left via thrown pies, shoes, and verbal insults to silence conservative speakers at college campuses a rebirth of that phenomena.

Is the government more "repressive" than it was before Bush took office? Not really. It is to potential terrorists after 9/11 as a result of the Patriot Act which passed with a large bipartisan majority including affirmative votes by the DNC candidates John Kerry and John Edwards. But, that legislation contained common sense reforms which is why it passed in the manner that it did.

Is McCarthism on its way back, or is Bachus simply spouting rhetoric that will have no consequences? I believe McCarthism is on its way back, but not for Bachus remark. I point to Harry Reid's comments to appellate candidate Judge Henry Saad.



McCarty use to do this. Talk about the 'confidential' files he had on White House employees that were agents for the Soviets. First off Henry Saad has never seen his files, so he has no way of arguing what is written. Secondly, not every senator has access to these files. Thirdly, we are trusting the FBI to keep accurate records. McCarthism at its finest.

Do you agree or disagree with Bachus's remark? Whether or not I agree with Bachus does not matter. What matters if his comments can be link to comments made by Senator McCarthy. I don't see any link between Bachus commenting on Maher's analysis of the military, and McCarthy starting a committee to investigate people.

Is the government more repressive than it was before Bush took office? Obviously not since Mahur show has not been canceled (as what happened during McCarthism, where whole Hollywood studios were shut down) and that Mahur has not been hauled into some committee to discuss if he is or ever has been a member of the communist party.

During the Clinton Years, Clinton claimed that right wing radio, such as Rush Limbaugh, caused the Oklahoma city bombing. Seems the same as what Bachus said.

Is McCarthiesm on its way back, or is Bachus simply spouting rhetoric that will have no consequences?

I don't see the connection here... Did Bachus call for the government to shut down "Real Time"? And what exactly would even THAT have to do with McCarthyism?

McCarthyism was about rampant anti-Communist investigations. Is Maher part of some group that is (rightly or wrongly) being prosecuted here? Read more about McCarthyism here.

Do you agree or disagree with Bachus's remark?

I disagree. I don't know why, but I frequently watch Maher's show. It isn't funny, it isn't informative, but it has some kind of hypnotic effect on me... He frequently pits two liberals (plus himself) against some wishy washy Conservative (if he has a conservative on at all...).

Maher is technically a comedian (not a very funny one, but hey...). He can make jokes about England or anyone else. He can make jokes about the US military's recruiting efforts. Who really cares?

Is the government more repressive than it was before Bush took office?

Again, I don't see much relevance to the cited article.

I don't think the government is any more or any less repressive than before. Government is as government does. I see no effort to crack down on those with divergent points of view. I do see the government taking slightly less of my money. This seems like a much bigger topic, requiring much more than this article to go on.

I don't recall Clinton saying that, but he might have. I sure would like a link. Did he call for Rush Limbaugh's show to be cancelled? Did he call Rush treasonous?

The Harry Reid remark was scary, too. Hadn't heard that one.

I guess I should have asked: Has the government become more repressive since Bush took office and since the end of the McCarthy era?

And that leaves room for some Nixon comparisons, too, if anyone cares to tackle them!

Is McCarthiesm on its way back, or is Bachus simply spouting rhetoric that will have no consequences?
You can substitute one term for another. If you go with McCarthyism you have to admit it's been around since the witch hunts in the rhetoric stage. [From Amlord's Wikipedia link: "The act of making insufficiently supported accusations or engaging in unfair investigations against a person as an attempt to unfairly silence or discredit them is often referred to as McCarthyism."] Perhaps the only full scale McCarty investigation in recent events is Congress' special interest in sports with a commission for the whole shebang.

The call to shut down Maher is along the same lines as the call to regulate private airways:



There's a difference between calling for the expulsion of a fellow politician as opposed to a public citizen. The former has been around since the Republic was born, the latter still takes some getting used to. Though, I'm not sure we should get used to calling for the removal of so-and-so public citizen for inflammatory brownie points. And I admit perhaps in my bias I think Democrats weren't as, well... outspoken in favor of censorship when they were in power. Or in favor of censorship overall.

It's a safe bet elected officials making such startling claims aim to please their constituents. They usually come back to their senses on their own or they can possibly be bought back to their senses. Case in point, check out Wertz's excellent appraisal of Representative Joe Barton's moral absolutism in The Skin Caucus.

Edited to add:



Can you provide a source/link? I thought that story was about Rush or right-wingers or Jewish organizations jumping on the Blame Arabs First bandwagon.

Well, if McCartheism is dead, hypocrisy is alive and well. Thank goodness for online information! I've learned more about our current crop of public 'servants' over the past year alone than my grandmother could have learned in a lifetime!

When I was thinking of McCarthy, I was thinking of the hearings that ruined the careers of many in Hollywood. And apparantly, Maher has already had one show cancelled, supposedly over remarks that got under people's skin.

But what bothered me was not angry citizens, it was this statement by Ari Fleischer:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...lMaher-Comments




"Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do"? I don't care for that remark at all.

Although Clinton may have said something along these lines, I agree with ralou. I don’t recall him making any such comment. I do remember, as was widely reported in the press, his mentioning a "vast right wing conspiracy” in connection with his impeachment. It is not, however my responsibility or ralou’s to corroborate statements made by yehoshua—that’s his job. Perhaps he can dig into his vast archives and drag out a specific Clinton quote to support his statement.

It seems increasingly necessary to remove endless stacks of debris before actually addressing a thread. Excusing someone else’s action by pointing a finger at Bill Clinton is beyond the point tread bare—the wear bars are gone, the tire is bald and flat and the car sits by the curb anxiously waiting for its owner to hustle it down to Sam’s for some new Michelins or for city code enforcement to ticket its owner and haul the car, flat and all, to the impound lot. Along these lines, another poster—on another thread—sought to exonerate Rush Limbaugh by indicting practically the entire Kennedy family. This I will deal with later today. So much debris; so little time.


Now to the Question

Do you agree or disagree with Bachus's remark?

I think I can give an answer to this entire thread by answering this one question.

Bill Maher is a comedian for god’s sake. Comedians sometimes upset people. Occasionally Johnny Carson ruffled someone’s feathers. I personally remember Bill Cosby receiving some criticism for his Noah: Right skit.

http://www.jr.co.il/humor/noah4.txt

I don’t see this as McCarthyism as much as an already flat lined attempt at censorship.

If anyone is interested in what I’m addressing, just do a Google search on Lenny Bruce.

Sure, somebody like Joe Scarborough may fan the flames for a few days. While larger issues concerning the reemergence of McCarthyism exist, Bachus’s remarks are DOA.

Is McCarthyism on its way back, or is Bachus simply spouting rhetoric that will have no consequences?

Bachus is using his right to free speech and perhaps playing to his base. I've lived in Alabama and it is not really Bill Maher country.


Do you agree or disagree with Bachus's remark?


I wholly disagree with Bachus' remark but feel he is welcome to say his piece. When he tries to use his governmental power to actually shut down a television show then I will get my hackles raised.


Is the government more repressive than it was before Bush took office?

I don;t think the government is much more repressive I think it is less expressive. Government is less transparent and there is a defensiveness that connects to the word loyalty that seeks to limit the amount of information that is made available for public consumption, There is a little more repressiveness that shows up in provisions of the Patriot Act and a new mood of "if they don't have anything to hide then why don't they let us look at their stuff" in the air. Secret tribunals and non-entity status limbo prisoners, and exportations to countries without due process or protections from torture do not bode real well for the immediate future of the republic.

But I am an optimist with faith in our system, and I feel 'this too shall pass.'

McArthyism never died in the US.

It was simply dormant and waiting for something to regenerate it in another form.
Moslems perhaps?


Regards...Alan

[Well, if McCartheism is dead, hypocrisy is alive and well. Thank goodness for online information! I've learned more about our current crop of public 'servants' over the past year alone than my grandmother could have learned in a lifetime!

When I was thinking of McCarthy, I was thinking of the hearings that ruined the careers of many in Hollywood. And apparantly, Maher has already had one show cancelled, supposedly over remarks that got under people's skin.]

Please keep in mind that McCarthy didn't have anything to do with the Hollywood hearings. Those happened before the speech in Wheeling and were conducted by the HUAC, which McCarthy was inelligible to be a part of, considering he was in the Senate, not the House.

Why are there FBI files on our citizens in the first place? The Freedom of Information Act was passed because it needed to be. I have no reason to believe that files aren't still being compiled and maintained on dissenters who have an audience.

Having said that, I have to agree that Bill Maher is still on HBO. So, while the self-identified mainstream public takes umbrage at Maher's "low-lying* fruit" remark, neither the Congress nor the FBI appear to be actively trying to shut him down.

I think it's a little over the top.

I think so, but I have not run afoul of the law in any administration, so I could not prove it. It just seems interesting to me that those 1,500 pages or so of the Patriot Act weren't written on September 12, 2001, so the idea of a greater intrusiveness into our public and private lives was already in the works, and the attacks on the United States were just darned convenient.

On a smaller, more plebeian level, employees can be fired if they have the wrong bumpersticker on their car in the company's parking lot--repression is everywhere if you look for it.

*Corrected

After the bombings, Clinton said this. I found multiple sources, but the best link is at Newsmax.com - sorry, a right-wing site but there you go. I do remember him saying this and remember the reaction.

Here are the Google results for the phrase



More obvious was the media pile-on:


More apt to this topic is that Clinton proposed revival of the Fairness Doctrine soon after, and often encouraged people to "shout down" these hate-filled white male voices. Not McCarthyism, but a little chilling.

Carlitoswhey I don't think there is anyone here who can't do a Google search. It would be much more "helpful" if you linked the statements to webpages, not Google searches.

This is really poor scholarship. Try again, please.

- And how exactly would you know what phrase to Google if I hadn't posted it?

- your laziness to click my clink and then - egads - click once more trumps my lack of scholarship.

So here is a link - an archive of the Newsmax article. http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/...f_right_jab.htm
And here is a link of a Brett Bozell. He's certainly right-wing but has extensive archives on presidential and media speech. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbo...b20010613.shtml

The bombing of the Murrah Building occurred on April 19,1995, the second anniversary of the destruction of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, and must be seen in that context.

Yehoshua first mentioned this about Clinton a few days ago. I think people should document their own statements.

Actually you don’t have to click any of the links—Clinton spells all this out in his autobiography, My Life:



That was from a book, a medium I realize is old hat, so let me, in all my "laziness," jump back to the web.

One example is the loosle-knit Phineas Priesthood.

The link is to a law enforcement page.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/Phineas.asp

For a more genralized look at such extremist groups, try this page from the same law enforcement group. Clicking each graphic in the data base gives information on the group(s) that uses it.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp

Fair enough, I have no problem with denouncing Clinton for that, then, kudos for the link, I'm convinced, and will remain so until I see the comment's validity debunked. Now, back to the latest chillings:

A great motivator once said something to the effect of "write what you want about me, just spell my name right." I think Spencer Bachus is trying to muster up support and publicity for some divine project he'll pull out of thin air in a few weeks. He is making accusations with no regard to common law and with no desire at civility. His words inspired controversy, but that is all they are: words. Words with no substance and words that shall inspire no consequence.




If you want to cancel a comedian's show for saying something you do not agree with we would have no evening's entertainment. I do not watch much television but it is a weekly ritual to watch Bill Maher's "Real Time", I was watching the broadcast where Mr. Maher said the statement that is putting Washington politicians in an uproar and I did not find it grounds to charge him with treason. If every person were reported as having said something unpatriotic and were eligible for time in a federal or state facility for treason there would be no one walking the streets. America is a wonderful place, free speech is permitted: and the day that right gets taken away by Mr. Bachus or anyone else is the day our republic begins to shatter.




Things have changed. To some I suppose but it depends on their definition of repressive. Some things some people may consider more regulated, but others may consider things too loose. There is no safe, common ground on which to discuss this question.

1. No.
2. Irrelevant. What I think as pointed out by a previous poster doesn't really matter much to the subject of your debate.
3. No. Our "government" is not "repressive." This is not a dictatorship.

Absolutely not. I don't know Bachus, but I don't see the basis for such an argument.



No, I do not. We certainly don't have Senate hearings going on, probing the personal lives of suspected communists and airing circumstantial evidence of traitorous acts.



No - as a matter of fact, during Clinton's administration a number of people accused Clinton of the same thing - repressing negative criticism and comment in the media. Particularly prior to and during the impeachment hearings. It appears to me that the main stream media is, in fact, much more critical of the Bush Whitehouse than the Clinton Whitehouse. Certainly, Clinton was much more adept at handing the media and using it to his advantage.