After reading a small volume by a reporter on Edward R. Murrow, it is fitting that I also picked up a small volume on his nemesis, Joe McCarthy, written by a reporter (Tom Wicker) as well. Just started to read it, but Wicker references a probable source of the famous "I hold in my hand" number. Also, he recalls a chance meeting with McCarthy in the Capitol, after his downfall. The man still had signs of charisma and the need/ability to connect with the average voter. Wicker suggests this was a major draw, which reminds me of reports of the ability of a man like Tom DeLay -- equally unpleasant overall -- who could connect to voters in his special way.
This is why on some level it is annoyingly counterproductive just to focus on money connections or whatever when talking about the current bunch. Yes, that matters on who is chosen. But, put aside the ideology and such -- the people still can connect. Sometimes, this is done fraudulently, but there still remains an important charisma factor, helped by hard work taking advantage of the connection achieved. [It helps when imperfect and/or downright dangerous choices are given a pass or even helped along by the media* and fellow politicians etc. This was done in the age of McCarthy, and it is done today -- the golden age of the press, that is, was not just BB (Before Bush).]
This is why Kerry was such a lousy choice and why some -- even though he was so green etc. -- wanted Edwards. Or, even Dean (people felt he honestly voiced their concerns ... and damn, he mostly did). The book itself has an aim to understand this "Shooting Star," the man and why he managed to be so successful for those few years. An important lesson that should be taken to heart regarding those in power today. Maybe, we can actually win the next couple times around in the process.
Anyway, back to McCarthy ... His famous speech had him holding in his hand a list of 205 names of communists in the State Department. This smoking gun was never shown, but a biographer suggested it referred to a letter to Congress from former secretary of state James F. Byrnes. Four years before he reported that screening of three thousand employees being transferred to the State Department had led to 285 recommendations against such employment. 71 had been discharged in 1946, leaving 206. I guess maybe one more retired afterwards.
McCarthy was not totally consistent as to his charges anyway. The next day he spoke of 205 "bad risks" (putting aside the possible haziness of those recommendations lodged against) and 57 "card-carrying communists." It is unclear how he obtained this number though others did raise various claims somewhat in that ballpark. Likewise, "card-carrying" in this respect did not mean having a laminated CP membership card (sometime in your life), but also supporting any number of causes somewhat in the "fellow traveler" category. And, he was known for inexactitude.
The author with help of later "Venona Project" Russian files ... does note that there were some problems with communists in government and elsewhere. But, they mostly were all dealt with by the time JM was in his heyday, so he in effect closed the barn door (doing so badly) after others rounded up the cattle. Also, the exaggeration and patently unfair tactics not only harmed thousands of lives, but it was downright counterproductive. Thus, even as some later had to a bit sheepishly admit that there was some "there" there, they could still underline the injustice of it all.
Anyway, putting aside the conspiracists and so forth, just supporting various communist causes in the 1930s etc. (which included racial equality and union activity) did not make one a traitor. See also, the book Many The Crimes.
---
* The Stephen Colbert thing is just a relatively petty -- if telling (Randy Rhodes is right to say sometimes the best commentary comes from satirists like him) -- example. This is so even if, yes, some of the reality community blogosphere are bowing down to him a wee bit much because his wicked (via his t.v. show character) commentary was just too on the money not to be gleeful.
Still, Richard Cohen's piece calling him a "bully" today is simply over the top on the moron meter -- I used to think this guy was pretty sane, though his anti-French piece in early 2003 suggested the depths he had gone. (Cohen -- after most of the known world other than the loyal 1/3 -- recently finally admitted he was wrong to support Bush's argument for war.) Cohen adds to his stupidity by attacking blogs as closeminded partisans who basically just tell each other what they already "know" (in context, it did seem likely sarcastic).
In reality, blogs often add useful commentary and fact material that many (you know, me) do not know as well as a place (and not just among comments ... these days blogs often have various bloggers with somewhat different points of view) for discussion. Finally, aside from the inability to always agree given all the areas covered, many make it an issue (see again the comments) to go to blogs with points of view with which they don't agree. Or, at worst, commentary -- with links -- on such content.
Atrios is right -- superwanker!