The Left's new witch hunt of the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy

michnews.com ^ | Oct 21, 2005 | Doug Schmitz

[Tailgunner Joe]

There are many parallels that can be drawn between the patriotism of the late Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy versus the treason of the late CBS News hack Edward R. Murrow, who just happens to be Hollywood leftist George Clooney’s all-time, favorite Communist media hero. For instance, while McCarthy sought to expose Communism in the deepest levels of government, Hollywood and even the news media, Murrow acted as if the Soviet threat never existed – and even seemed to have sympathized with it.

As a result, Murrow’s politics of hate against true patriots like McCarthy unfortunately spawned even more fellow Communist sympathizers – especially those in the press.

By going on a self-aggrandizing witch hunt of McCarthy at that precise time in history, Murrow made himself a bonafide enemy of the U.S. and subsequently gave us fellow CBS’ Communist sympathizers like his anti-American prodigies, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, who had also sought the destruction of America in the name of journalism.

“For four years, from 1950 until 1954, [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was the only voice in America speaking out against those in government that were Communists, fellow-travelers (liberals who believed in but did not join the Communist Party), Russian sympathizers, and Stalin apologists,” wrote Don Capron in the Oswego Daily News on July 9, 2002. “His enemies, consistent with the Left today, chose to attack the messenger rather than the message.”

But that shouldn’t be too surprising – especially since today’s media leftists like Cronkite and Rather have done everything possible to promote America’s enemies by re-writing history via the news, which turned them more Red with every evening “news” broadcast.

After all, when Cronkite cheered on the North Vietnamese Communists by calling for America’s defeat in the Vietnam War, he was essentially interfering with U.S. foreign policy by changing from a so-called objective news anchor, to aligning himself with the very Communist threat we were trying to eliminate at that place in history.

Similarly, when Rather held doting “interviews” with Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat, juxtaposed to later hunting down not only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but also our military’s current commander-in-chief, President Bush, through patently phony memos, he, too, had proven himself to be a traitor of the U.S. in his willing acquiescence to the world’s bloodiest barbarians.

Of course, these are the same media leftists today, who, time and again, have given fellow Democrat traitors like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin free media passes to trash Bush, our courageous military – and the U.S.

“If anyone has the gaucherie to point to the Left’s nearly unblemished record of rooting against America, liberals turn around and scream “McCarthyism!” wrote Ann Coulter in her wonderfully researched best-seller Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, which masterfully vindicates and sets the record straight on Joseph McCarthy, who equally should have been praised for exposing Communist enablers.

Now, put Hollywood’s latest attacks on McCarthy against the backdrop of the elite media’s malicious lies about Bush and you have all the makings of yet another bankrupted attempt by the Left to grasp at every available straw possible to try to fix the 2006 and 2008 elections through Dan Rather-style fraudulence and anti-U.S. leftist propaganda – even if they have to spit on McCarthy’s grave once again to do it.

“Liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism (p. 1)…“having ceded the lie of “McCarthyism,” now no one is allowed to call liberals unpatriotic,” Coulter wrote in her 2003 book. “Liberals relentlessly attack their own country, but we can’t call them traitors, which they manifestly are, because that would be “McCarthyism,” which never existed (p. 75).”

But that’s exactly why the Left still hates McCarthy: He not only exposed Communist spies in our own government, he also unwittingly stirred up the hornet’s nest of its rogue sympathizers already residing in the U.S. media. In effect, McCarthy dared to not only root out Communism in high places but also question the patriotism of those who had so manifestly belittled its threat. Why else would Murrow have been so strangely compelled to vilify McCarthy without first giving him a fair trial in the court of public opinion?

Similarly, today, while the McCarthys of the New Media are taking the global terrorist threat seriously by reporting the facts from both sides, the Murrows of the Old Media openly mock national security threats, which they have often created themselves, by providing their usual CNN-turned-al-Jazeera-type aid and comfort to America’s enemies. After all, for the last five and a half years, Democrats and their equally corrupt media accomplices have desperately tried to overthrown the Bush administration to try to regain political power and stop democracy from taking root and flourishing in the Arab world.

Ironically, the same Democrats and media allies that viciously decried the false charges of the GOP’s so-called “politics of personal destruction” are now the very ones implementing them by subverting U.S. foreign policy and driving a wedge between President Bush and the American public, while coddling our enemies (i.e., CNN).

We have already seen their vilification of Bush in the form of the baseless, phantom scandals they have eagerly foisted on Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and Bill Frist, as well as the colossal fiasco that is Harriet Miers. However, whether or not you agree with the Miers nomination, the Democrat Party’s media allies will eventually seek the personal destruction of any Republican they can find to put their fellow Democrats back in power.

In effect, the same reason the Left went on a witch hunt of McCarthy is the same reason they, in recent years, have also demonized top conservatives Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, as well as libertarian Bill O’Reilly. It’s also the only way the Democrats can ever hope to win elections, which backfired in 2004.

In the end, that was Murrow’s goal when he maliciously perverted McCarthy’s own strategy and tried to thwart McCarthy’s mission of exposing Communists in our very midst. But what was Murrow so afraid of anyway? Could it be Murrow secretly feared that McCarthy’s heroic endeavors would one day change the course of history and eventually result in the domino-effect-style collapse of Communism? Think Alger Hiss, Adlai Stevenson, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as noted in the Venona Project.

Alongside Murrow, other media figures were also waging war on McCarthy, since the Wisconsin senator suspected them of being spies.

While they launched a massive crusade to label McCarthy as a fear-monger, media leftists at the time were the ones instilling fear in the hearts of their captive audiences – and excusing the blatant treason of their fellow colleagues:

• I.F. Stone, a Stalin apologist and former associate editor of the Stalinist rag, The Nation, who later led the subversive 1960s leftist media call for America’s defeat against Communism in the Vietnam War, was a constant critic of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. But as we later found out from McCarthy’s investigations, Stone turned out to be a Soviet agent.

  “Even today, the New York Times and the Washington Post can’t accept the evidence that I.F. Stone was a Soviet agent,” wrote Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (Feb. 25, 2000).

  Kincaid also wrote on March 31, 1999 that “I.F. Stone postured as an independent writer whose mission was to expose corruption in U.S. policies and the U.S. Government. When North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950, he tried to bolster the false Communist allegation that the United States and South Korea had started the war. During the Vietnam War, he became an icon of the anti-war movement.

  “After his death, the evidence came out. Decoded cables from the National Security Agency, known as the Venona intercepts, conclusively demonstrate that Stone was taking money from the KGB during many of the years he was publishing his newsletter, I.F. Stone’s Weekly. One of the documents describes his recruitment by the KGB. In addition, FBI files released to Accuracy in Media through a Freedom of Information Act request state that an informant within the Communist Party USA had identified Stone as a member in the 1930s.”

• Herbert Block, the 1950s Washington Post cartoonist, who was a strong critic of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nixon, was credited with helping to bring down Nixon via his cartoons; he was also the first person to label McCarthy’s honorable intentions, with the legendary misnomer of “McCarthyism.” Block especially hated Nixon because Nixon helped expose Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy.

• Daniel Fitzpatrick, the 1930s St. Louis Post-Dispatch cartoonist, directly took on McCarthy in his cartoons.

• Walter Duranty, the 1930s New York Times reporter, who covered up Joseph Stalin’s atrocities, also was considered a Soviet agent. Recently, there was a call for the Times to strip Duranty of his Pulitzer Prize for his pro-Stalinist propaganda but, not surprisingly, Times editor Bill Keller refused to relinquish the statute.

• Wilfred Burchett, a self-described Communist sympathizer, was an Australian “journalist” who had stories running in the U.S. media, and was a Soviet agent. Burchett “reported” from the “other side” in Korea, in which he claimed was an attempt to get a balanced view of so-called “Western deception in armistice negotiations.” But according to Capitalism Magazine’s Jean Francois Revel, in an article about anti-Americanism (Feb. 27, 2004), Burchett made up the lie about “the farcical allegation of bacteriological warfare waged by Americans in Korea.”

But these are only a handful of media traitors who sold out to our enemies, while often getting paid under the table by Communists to slant their stories against the U.S.

Slate.com Editor-at-Large Jack Shafer, a devote liberal, but an intellectually honest one, wrote that “Murrow’s intense partisanship” was further transparent when he “secretly tutored the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, on how to speak to the camera effectively (Oct. 5).”

Murrow, however, refused to see the Communist threat that was under his alleged newshound nose when he was busy coaching a Communist spy friend he was aiding and abetting. In fact, Murrow even refused to believe that his friend Laurence Duggan, Harry Truman’s State Department turncoat, could have been a Soviet spy – but he was.

Yet, the late great former President Ronald Reagan could spot a Communist a mile away – and eventually won his 40-year fight against the insidious cancer of Communism, while the anti-U.S. useful idiots in the elite media were hating him for it, which showed up in their slanted coverage against the Gipper.

But that’s what’s really behind the elite media’s opposition to the New Media of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge, where both sides of the issues actually get out to the American public without gatekeepers. This is in contrast to Old Media leftism, where the Communist-Marxist enablers of the past still push their defeated, one-sided, anti-American propaganda that was once never challenged or questioned – until now.

Essentially, it took a grassroots effort to get both sides of the story out – and passed the filters of the mainstream press. With the advent of the New Media, we are not only finding traitors in the Old Media, but also Tinseltown as well – who are increasingly seeking out every avenue possible to sell out America.

Take George Clooney’s new anti-McCarthy hack piece “Good Night, and Good Luck” he’s now pushing – and promulgating, which is nothing more than leftist propaganda within leftist propaganda. What was meant to be a film about Murrow, as well as an indirect thank you card to Dan Rather for his 40 years of sloppy, acquiescently anti-U.S. Pravda, is really a propaganda piece that revives the Left’s witch hunt of McCarthy.

But Clooney never bothered to include the very information that refuted his claims – and ultimately vindicated McCarthy – in his Michael Moore-like history revision.

“A terrific movie about the Murrow-McCarthy duel could be made, mind you, but Clooney and company ignore the material that might argue against their simple-minded thesis about Murrow, the era, and the press to produce an after-school special,” Shafer said of Clooney’s Woodward and Bernstein’s Watergate-style hatchet job on McCarthy.

“…Plowing through the Murrow and McCarthy literature after viewing the film, I was impressed at how deeply Clooney and [Grant] Heslov researched the topic yet dismayed at how they cherry-picked material to compose their sermon,” Shafer added.

Ultimately, Murrow’s March 9, 1954 ambush on his program, “See It Now” – and eventually, Clooney’s October surprise hack piece – on McCarthy, turned out to be nothing more than another public lynching of a great man the Left and their media minions vehemently despised. Even Murrow’s “boys,” Eric Sevareid, Daniel Schorr, Howard K. Smith, Marvin Kalb and Bob Pierpoint, pushed their leftist biases.

But that’s what we’ve come to expect from Hollywood and their media friends. Since the Left is finally being held accountable by the New Media for decades of lies and distortions of history, their anarchical impulses compel them to take their Pravda to the big screen. It’s all a subversive move to try to shift the public paradigm from patriotism and love of country that our brave U.S. military invoke, to the Left’s insatiable lust for complete hegemony that Communism embodies.

By all accounts, Murrow was more interested in making McCarthy out to be a terrorist than he was acknowledging the real Soviet threat. In Murrow’s mind, what better way to spread anti-American, pro-Communist sentiment than through the airwaves, where he had a captive audience – as well as no one to refute his charges. Once Murrow took off his reporter hat and took on McCarthy, Murrow became the exact opposite of who he pretended to be behind the anchor chair. In effect, Murrow was no longer an objective new reporter; he became a Communist sympathizer who adamantly refused to even take much less the Communist threat seriously, much less McCarthy.

Even by Murrrow’s very line of questioning to McCarthy, capped off by the utter arrogance and condensing he displayed towards McCarthy, Murrow showed that he didn’t care about the Communist threat. In fact, Murrow was trying to prove that McCarthy was supposedly the bigger threat to America than Communism. Eventually, there was absolutely no attempt on Murrow’s part to get to the truth.

For Murrow, it was all show to try once again to make a name for himself as he did as a war correspondent, while embracing the anti-McCarthy hysteria that swept the country via Murrow’s partisan grandstanding.

While McCarthy was rooting out Communism, which actually was infiltrating the U.S., Murrow was seeking to paint McCarthy as the real enemy and Communists as victims of so-called American imperialism.

Now, Clooney’s trying to egregiously pass off Murrow as the hero.

“Why I should have expected anything other than an exercise in media triumphalism from Good Night and Good Luck, I don’t know, but I did,” said James Bowman of The American Spectator (Oct. 12). “Silly me. If I had seen the advertising tagline before I saw the movie, I’d have known better.

“In A Nation Terrorized By Its Own Government, One Man Dared to Tell The Truth.” What nation would that be, I wonder? Oh, right, of course it’s the United States of Amerika (Shafer’s spelling). And such nonsense is not only in the tagline.

“The film’s hero, Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn), a once famous CBS newsman, explains his broadcast attack on Senator Joseph McCarthy in March of 1954 by saying he’s “going to go after him because the terror is right here in this room.” Yeah, right. The real Murrow made his name reporting to Americans on the Blitz in London. It’s a little hard to believe that he didn’t have a better idea than this of what “terror” meant.”

In fact, Bowman wrote, Clooney and Heslov also don’t know.

“They have completely and uncritically bought into the official Hollywood version of the McCarthy era,” Bowman wrote. “It’s hardly surprising, but it’s quite false. Not by the wildest caprice of imagination was “A Nation Terrorized” by McCarthy.

“…Because his heroes are so perfect – always right, as McCarthy is always wrong – Mr. Clooney must have seen the need to qualify his admiration in some way, lest his film become mere hagiography,” Bowman concluded.

But there are still many media leftists, however, who insist on showering Murrow and Cronkite with unending praise for confronting so-called “evil” Republicans.

These media sycophants are also blinded to the realities of their own biases that one media hack, Detroit Free Press media critic Tom Lawson, refuses to see Clooney’s leftist propaganda for what it really is: anti-Bush, anti-U.S. hatred, devoid of any facts or logic.

“Before there was Walter Cronkite and “That’s the way it is,” there was Edward R. Murrow,” heralded Lawson (Oct. 14) of Clooney’s anti-McCarthy hit piece, which Lawson enthusiastically gave four stars. “…He was, if not the first broadcast television legend, the first to truly deserve the status.

“George Clooney has been a persistent and mostly on-target critic of how the legacy of Murrow and television news has been tramped on by corporate greediness, political agendas and producers obsessed with celebrity and ratings,” wrote Lawson, who later claimed that the public had an alleged “swift national disillusionment with McCarthy and his fall from grace.”

So what was Lawson’s final analysis on Clooney’s anti-McCarthy propaganda piece?

“Good Night, and Good Luck" stands, tall, solid, impressive and expressive joining not only the best films about journalism, but also those about real Americans.”

Instead of calling McCarthy a real American for courageously exposing Communism, Lawson said he believed Murrow was actually the real American for trying to keep a lid on it. Never mind that Clooney’s poor excuse for a film is laced with inaccuracies, innuendoes and hype.

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Miriam Di Nunzio also fawned over Murrow, while falsely charging that “McCarthy’s famous “blacklist” of celebrities unwilling to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (and those who refused to fink on their colleagues, friends and relatives) destroyed many a Hollywood career and became one of the most dangerous attacks on American civil liberties”:

“The infamous Communist witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the mid-1950s might have turned out differently had it not been for the unflinching persistence of CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, who called the junior senator from Wisconsin to the mat on live television,” Di Nunzio opined (Oct. 16).

Notice that Di Nunzo emphasized “live television,” as in a calculated ambush where Murrow tried to catch McCarthy off guard. But Murrow failed to do so because of McCarthy’s deep convictions and honesty, which the Left always tries to manufacture.

What’s more, Houston Chronicle columnist Eric Harrison (Oct. 14) equally gushed over Murrow, while taking a cheap shot at Fox News, despite ignoring the fact that Bill O’Reilly actually praised Clooney’s propaganda film, saying it was “really excellent.”

In his anti-McCarthy smear piece, entitled “Murrow stood against McCarthy, set tone for nation,” Harrison was at least right on one point: Murrow did stand against McCarthy, but for all the wrong reasons.

In the end, Harrison failed to recognize that Murrow opposed McCarthy because he hated what McCarthy was standing for: America; Murrow did set the tone for the nation at that point in time as one who was nothing more than a Communist sympathizer.

But you wouldn’t know that by Harrison’s relentless praise of Murrow.

“He was principled, cerebral and eloquent – not necessarily qualities we associate with television newscasters today,” gushed Harrison. “They may not even be qualities we want in television newscasters today. But long before Anderson Cooper’s twitchy stutter, Bill O’Reilly’s bombastic bullying or Keith Olbermann’s wisecracks, Edward R. Murrow epitomized the ideal of the TV journalist.”

It’s no wonder then that Rather told the Hollywood Reporter (Nov. 30, 2004) that he often sought the “spirit of Edward R. Murrow” while nocturnally roaming the halls of CBS “News.” As Rather continues to melt down before our very eyes, we also see the real motive behind the collective nature of the elite media.

Because of Rather’s decision in September 2004 to make Bush out to be the villain in the former CBS has-been’s psychotic need for revenge, Rather played a treasonously dangerous game with our national security. It’s as if the Sept. 11 attacks on our country didn’t mean anything to him, despite shedding crocodile tears on David Letterman.

Since then, Rather has been going stark raving mad. Like Murrow, Rather crossed the line as a so-called reporter by denying the terrorist threat to our country. If Rather were serious about the terrorist threat, he never would have gone after Bush in the first place.

So it’s no surprise that Rather has also been praised by Hollywood for viciously smearing Republicans – especially by Clooney, who actually lamented that the Big Three Communist networks were no longer able to get away with speciously vilifying conservative Republicans.

“But Dan Rather and CBS often have shown their belief that good journalism depends mostly on selecting good targets; whether the shots fired at those targets are true or ethical isn’t really the point,” wrote Media Research Center Director Brent Bozell (Oct. 16). “All that matters is: Was the target destroyed?"

“We shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, when Clooney told the Village Voice that “Dan Rather loves, loves, loves this movie.” Clooney expressed sadness at Rather’s predicament, quoting Marvin Kalb. “What’s important to remember about Rather is that the story was right, but the source was wrong. It was fake, but accurate.”

The falsehoods of Hollywood and the elite media are no different now. It’s no secret that Clooney despises the war in Iraq and will do anything to abuse his power in Hollywood to see to it that the terrorist threat we face also gets thwarted. Therefore, it’s no surprise that Clooney worships Murrow, who never took national security threats seriously, either.

Instead of exposing the evils of Communism, Murrow deliberately made McCarthy out to be the evil one. That’s why Murrow would have been proud of his prodigy, Dan Rather, who tried to use phony memos to bring down a sitting Republican president, just like Murrow used known Communists as “witnesses” to smear McCarthy.

It was this fear that ultimately made Murrow demonize McCarthy. In fact, Murrow couldn’t believe that there were actually patriotic American senators like McCarthy who would dare to expose Communism down to its very core (the way Murrow was supposed to as a so-called journalist).

In fact, in his closing smear against McCarthy, Murrow exposed his own utter partisanship and the real motive behind his anti-McCarthy witch hunt.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another,” Rather’s hero said. “We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility.”

But, in the end, Murrow was the one who eventually “abdicated his responsibility” because he blatantly misrepresented McCarthy and sought to destroy him. Like Murrow, this is exactly what Rather wanted to do with Bush.

We are seeing this happening before our very eyes with the way the elite media are putting the Bush administration on trial by playing up the trumped-up charges of Rove, DeLay and Frist. Contrast that with the real charges against Saddam Hussein, which the elite media are playing down. While they have already convicted and sentenced Rove, DeLay and Frist, ABC, CNN and the Times are actually wondering if Hussein is getting a fair trial.

If only we could get censures for these so-called journalists who routinely give aid and comfort to the enemy. What’s even more ironic, Times hack Judith Miller is now trying to cover her tracks by calling for a shield law to protect confidential sources. But in Miller’s case, she wanted to protect the sources who sought to destroy President Bush, while she desperately tried to escape culpability for her treasonous role in the “leak.”

Now, in the same way, with Clooney, the devil is definitely in the details.

“…Were there, in fact, any communists in Hollywood, the media or the government and were they a real danger to the Republic?” Bowman wrote. “These questions the movie never thinks it worth its while to ask, let alone answer…”

In Clooney, we also see the remnants of the Hollywood Left that went after McCarthy with a vengeance.

“I think Clooney and Hollywood are paranoid,” wrote Don Irvine of Accuracy in Media (Oct. 5). “They feel the need to present this piece of revisionist history in an effort to defend their out of the mainstream way of thinking.

“In commenting on the situation today, Clooney says of journalists, “They’re the first writers of history. There is no civil-rights movement without journalists. There is no end of McCarthy. It’s been a tough time for journalists – if you ask a tough question of this administration, on a rare occasion when they have a press conference, you’re put in the back of the room, or you're Maureen Dowd and you get your credentials pulled. To question anything about them is meant to be unpatriotic.”

Since Clooney is giving journalists so much credit, Irvine concluded, he should also mention how “journalists misreported events in Vietnam that led to the end of the war and to genocide in Cambodia.’

“Or how about without journalists reporting favorably about Saddam Hussein during the first Iraq War we might have been able to oust him and prevent further killings of Iraqi citizens by his regime.

“As with most Hollywood liberals, Clooney lacks the facts and will not help restore honor to the word “liberal” whatever that is supposed to mean.”

Today’s mainstream media resemble more of the Murrow-style of “journalism.” By not welcoming the New Media of Fox News, Newsmax.com, Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge, who have broken through the pro-Democrat gatekeepers and essentially exposed the Old Media of Communist and terrorist sympathizers, they are nothing more than Pravda channels that live within their own little bubble.

It’s the meltdown of this leftist media culture that is no longer in control of the message and in charge of pushing a pro-Democrat agenda they once did without challenge.

For example, the McCarthys of the New Media are reporting what the Old Media Communists refuse to report:

• The real story of the so-called CIA leak investigation is not Karl Rove; it’s Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame’s attempt to abuse their classified positions in Washington, D.C. to treasonously subvert U.S. foreign policy in Iraq.

• The real story behind Tom DeLay’s baseless indictment is Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, Dan Rather’s close friend, and his politically motivated charges, which no one in the elite media are calling Earle on right now.

• The real story behind Bill Frist is a partisan-motivated Clinton holdovers who excused Bill Clinton’s corrupt ties to Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom.

It’s media leftists like Rather, who are only starting to crack up under the weight of their own anti-Americanism that is also left unreported.

This is especially true since the Left can’t tell a true patriot like Joseph McCarthy apart from a U.S. traitor like Edward R. Murrow.

[TrailofTears]

Excellent, one of the very best explainations of what happened in those days and how it built a rebellion of useful idiots for today.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Although I share the same last name, I'm not related. But it is effective in running off leftist moonbats when I claim my "Uncle Joe" as opposed to their "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

[HoosierIsolationist]

Great article, but Senator McCarthy wasn't the only man speaking out against Communist influence in government, education and the media. Here's a list of some of McCarthy's comrades-in-arms within the US Senate:

Bill Jenner
Herman Welker
John Bricker
George Malone
Harry Cain
Pat McCarran
James Eastland
Everett Dirksen...just to name a few... Jenner was probably more fanatically anti-Communist than McCarthy was.