Must read: E. J. Dionne writes about Karl Rove and "The New McCarthyism"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701317_pf.html

<>The McCarthyites' real enemies were not communists but the New Deal liberals who had dominated U.S. politics for 20 years. The McCarthy crowd was willing to divide the nation at a time of grave international peril if that's what it took to beat the liberals.

Rove's instantly famous speech last week to the New York State Conservative Party should be read in light of this history and not be written off as a cheap, one-time partisan attack. On the contrary, the address by Rove, President Bush's most important adviser, provides the outlines of a sophisticated strategy aimed at making liberals and Democrats all look soft on terrorism.

<>In the ensuing controversy, Rove's defenders cleverly sought to pretend that there was nothing partisan about Rove's speech. "Karl didn't say 'the Democratic Party,' " insisted Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman. "He said 'liberals.' " It must have been purely accidental that one of the "liberals" mentioned was the Democratic national chairman and another was the Senate Democratic whip. It must also have been accidental that both of them, like most other liberals, supported the war in Afghanistan, not therapy. At the time, Durbin called the war "essential."

On Friday White House spokesman Scott McClellan narrowed the Rove attack even more. McClellan found it "puzzling" that Democrats were "coming to the defense of liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore," when in fact Democrats were coming to their own defense. McClellan also ignored what Mehlman had conceded the day before -- and what the text of Rove's remarks plainly shows: that Rove was attacking liberals generally, not just these two targets.

more...Dionne ends this column with the observation, "Welcome back to the 50's."

[merbex]

1. "Welcome back to the 50's" sometimes yea, other times

they want to welcome us back to the turn of the 19th century and McKinley's days

They seem to have a fetish for putrid periods of American history

That could be a question to W during a press conference "Why is it that people affliated with this administration seem to harken back to putrid periods of American history with their statements and legislative recommendations?"

[getmeouttahere]

2. Perpetual war, destruction of the social safety net...

welcome to the new gilded age, folks.

[AmandaRuth]

3. not to mention elimination of

minimum wage laws, laws regulating hours and safety issues, and environmental protection laws. In their minds, nothing wrong at all with poisoning the water I drink and air I breath if it makes a few bucks for the top 5%.

Its all about the judges, and I fear for our children, who are going to grow up in a nation that will be much different, and not in a good way.

[getmeouttahere]

4. Right....a real culture of life, huh?