Replies

To be fair I would have to search out Kristol's actual comments vis-a-vis Beck. But it appears from this that he has made Beck the issue.

Again the speaker becomes the issue not what is spoken. Where are the substantive counter arguments to what Beck is saying? We know Beck can sound a bit nutty, already!

A lot of us remember the 1950s and wonder where were the counter arguments to what Senator McCarthy was saying.

We see now 50-60 years later that much of what the Senator was saying was TRUE. That's why there were few substantive arguments against McCarthy -- the Left had to make McCarthy the issue and given his personality and foibles it was an easy thing to do that and destroy him.

It's the same "make the speaker the issue" trick that the CP/USA and the liberals back then used, many of whom are now "neo-cons" having been labeled as such by their progressive friends and who were chased out of the Democratic Party.

Frankly I wish the "neo-cons" would reclaim their Democratic Party from the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus/street revolutionary rabble and return it to it's rightful status as a traditional patriotic political party. (That ain't name calling, that's what the 1960s New Left was/is.)

But it appears from this that he has made Beck the issue. Again the speaker becomes the issue not what is spoken. Where are the substantive counter arguments to what Beck is saying?... A lot of us remember the 1950s and wonder where were the counter arguments to what Senator McCarthy was saying... We see now 50-60 years later that much of what the Senator was saying was TRUE. That's why there were few substantive arguments against McCarthy -- the Left had to make McCarthy the issue and given his personality and foibles it was an easy thing to do that and destroy him.

Well said.