The astonishing closeness of Donald Trump and his campaign to the current (and increasingly murderous) Russian regime has attracted comment from Democrats (and other patriots). That in turn has attracted counter-comment from some of Trump’s defenders (and their dupes, and random Clinton-haters, plus some stray lefties still feeling the loyalty to the anti-anti-Communist causeÂ even though Russia is now functionally fascist rather than communist) complaining about “McCarthyism.”
The comparison seemed to me so clearly absurd as to be scarcely worth the effort of refutation. But, as it seems to have some legs, here goes: Continue reading “No, actually, this thing is not at all like that thing: Trump, Russia, and “McCarthyism””
… gets pretty twisted, when you’re looking for excuses for Michelle Bachmann’s attack on Huma Abedin.
Did you know that half a ham sandwich is better than the love of God?
I can prove it.
If B > C and A > B, then A > C. Â Right? The transitive principle.
Well, let C = the love of God, B = nothing, and A = half a ham sandwich
What is better than the love of God? Nothing. So B > C.
But half a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So A > B.
So A > C: half a ham sandwich is better than the love of God.
If that logic appeals to you, you’ll love Andrew McCarthy’s column about Michelle Bachmann’s attack on Huma Abedin. No, he says, there isn’t any actual evidence that Abedin is anything but a Â dedicated public servant. But that’s no reason not to publicly imply that she’s a traitor and call for an “investigation.”
Someone remarked that it was just too perfect that the New York bus driver who caught the falling child was named “St. Bernard.” Â But “McCarthy” as the name for someone making false accusations of disloyalty isn’t too shabby.
FootnoteÂ Nor could there be a more fitting outlet for this garbage thanÂ National Review.Â William F. Buckley acquired an undeserved reputation as a rational, moderate conservative by disowning the John Birch Society. But he was an active supporter of Joe McCarthy as well as a stone racist who explicitly argued that it was OK for Southern whites, as the “advanced race,” to “take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” in a time where “such measures” included not only illegal voter suppression but also acts of extreme violence.