The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .



Here’s an email titled, “Under what rock did you crawl out from?”


I applaud your red-baiting ignoramus-rousing article,
“Two Cheers for “McCarthyism.”

You are a true example of why George Bush’s Junta should be brought down a soon as possible. As US deficits soar, as false Homeland Security warnings abound, as the stock market continues to sink from the lack of addressing corporate fraud, we have you, Jonah Goldberg, tells us how wonderful it was to have Joe McCarthy falsely accusing thousands of upstanding Americans of being Communists.

Maybe we are better off with Bush’s attack on Iraq resulting in having the whole Arab world committed to Jihad against America, rather than re-instituting McCarthyism. Why not? You are rich and can avoid the effects of the global upheaval that will result from your hero’s misdirected war.

Here We Go



Re: Bleg


Many thanks to the numerous readers who responded. There was less to this
than meets the eye (than met my ear, I mean). Everyone agrees that “Goo
Fay” is just Costello’s idea of a Frenchman’s pronunciation of “Goofy.”
This must have been a lot funnier in 1946 than it seems to me now, to judge
from the gales of audience laughter. The actual sketch, however, is still
one of the all-time best comedy routines, for my money. Just listen to
their timing! BTW, does everyone know how A & C split the proceeds from
their act? I was surprised when I heard.

Web Briefing: December 25, 2014

Bleg: Americana


Here is a bleg about Americana. I have a tape of an old (1946) radio show
with Abbott & Costello doing the “Who’s on First?” sketch. In the run-up to
the sketch itself, A & C have an exchange along the following lines. I’m
transcribing it as I hear it… and that’s the point, because I don’t
understand the joke. Can someone please explain it to me?

A: … they give these ball players nowadays very peculiar names…
C: You mean funny names?
A: Strange names, pet names, like Dizzy Dean…
C: And his brother Daffy?
A: …Daffy Dean…
C: And his French cousin.
A: French?
C: Goo Fay.
A: Goo Fay Dean… Oh, I see…
[Lots of audience laughter.]

What am I missing here? Who or what was “Goo Fay Dean”? (Please don’t
explain the stuff about “Who’s on first”—that, I get.)


I Wonder If They Will Take His Nobel Away?


Here Come Da Judges?


The Senate Judiciary Committee approved three appellate nominees today on bipartisan votes: John Roberts, Deborah Cook, and Jay Bybee. This does not mean all three are in the clear, however. As Robert Novak details here, some Senators are intent on holding up more of President Bush’s appellate nominees.

Two Emails Contra Cal Pundit


Your “fair enough” response to this position is very congenial and illustrates a significant difference between conservatives and the left. If a conservative speaks or attends a seminar etc. at a place like Bob Jones University he or she will not be characterized as having a “vague association” with a fundamentalist group by the left.That person will be villified as showing their true colors.etc. Almost every person of the left I have known will tell you sooner or later that disagreement with their point of view means you are either stupid or a bigot. No leftist I have ever met would have been as receptive to an alternative point of view as you were to CALPUNDIT.

By the way all your efforts are a delight to read but this McCarthy
piece is a keeper.


I have to admit my first reaction to your column was similar to Cal
Pundit’s. Shame on me for not reading more carefully. You are correct that there is nothing wrong in hunting communists, McCarthys’s problem was that he did it with such paranoia and self-serving dishonesty. And you clearly identified him as a lout. Such a marvelous and infrequently used term is lout. You should do more with this. How about an online poll where readers vote for the “Greatest lout of the past” and “Greatest lout of the present”. McCarthy could lead the list of choices from the past and, though my first reaction is to lead the list of the present with Bill Clinton, methinks Chuck Schumer would be far more appropriate (in the vein of McCarthyite dishonesty).

Cal Pundit


Has some thoughtful criticisms of my column. But I think he’s missing the central point. He writes, “It’s not McCarthyism to accuse a communist of being a communist. It is McCarthyism to accuse someone of being a communist who has only a vague association with communist friends, groups, or ideas.”

Fair enough. And as I said the column and in the Corner, I am no defender of false-accusations and I think McCarthy’s tactics set back the cause of anti-Communism. But the Hollywood Ten, for example, were not victims of “McCarthyism” since there was nothing vague about their membership — not “association”– with the Communist Party. Moreover, McCarthy had little to nothing to do with Hollywood communists. When Lilian Hellman said that anti-Communists picked communism as a cause with as much cynicism as Hitler picked anti-Semitism, she meant that there was no substance to the search for Communists. But there was. They did help Stalin get the atomic bomb, you know. That’s hardly a strategically trivial point. Every effort to find, expose and punish spies and vassals for an enemy power — which, again was really quite evil — was ridiculed as McCarthyism. That’s why the opponents of the Bush administration use the word so much. They want to suggest there is no point to looking for terrorists in our midst because they don’t exist and anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot of some kind.

As for Calpundit’s assertion that I spend 1,000 words defending McCarthy the “man,” I’m not sure what he’s talking about. It seems to me I defended the cause of anti-Communism which liberals routinely label “McCarthyism.” As for the man, how many times do I have to call him a “lout” and a “jerk” before Calpundit will see that I’m not defending the man?

Randian Bloggers For Tailgunner Joe


Now that’s something you don’t hear everyday.
Check it out.



I’m not going to post all of these emails. But i find this one really intriguing because of its larger significance:

I am constantly amazed by the views of a conservative mind. I was an Eisenhower Republican when I was young, but the party moved so far to the right after that, at ever increasing speeds, that I am proud to call myself a Democrat now. The Democratic Party moved to the center and replaced the Republican Party’s concern for civil rights, the middle class, and sensible economic policies. A conservative, it seems to me, is homophobic in that they see evil in essentially all peoples that they disagree with. How sorrowful to have to live like that.

The first two thirds is boilerplate. But then this guys says that conservatives are “homophobic” because they see evil in essentially all peoples that they disagree with.”

Again I say: Fascinating! Already, Fascism means anything undesirable, McCarthyism means anything mean and, now, homophobia means hatred of people who disagree with you. You would think that even this guy would understand that we still need words for people who don’t like homosexuals. I confess that I don’t like the word homophobia because I think fear is not necessarily the best explanation for anti-gay views. But we’re stuck with it.

But here we have someone who believes, in all honesty, that hatred of active, dues paying, spying, Stalinists can best be described as “homophobia.” This is the sort of slippery thinking that will give you road rash on your butt if you don’t watch out. Are environmentalists homophobes because they hate oil men? Are vegans homophobes because they hate meat-eaters? Are gays homophobes if they hate Christian fundamentalists? By this logic I guess my dog is a homophobe because he loathes squirrels so. Then again, you know what people say about squirrels…

Student War Supporters


A pro-Bush, pro-war student group has been founded at Harvard Law School to oppose the anti-warriors: Students for Protecting America.

Tailgunner Joe


As a footnote to Jonah’s splendid essay on McCarthy, here is a piece I did
for NRODT 5 yrs ago

For Example


This guy makes me want to say nah-nah, booby-booby:

what disgusting drivel this one is. I used to think there might be a bottom for you conservatives to hit at some time. Now I think there is no low limit you folks will sink to in trying to justify your hatred of all people who do not agree with your and your self righteous bullshit. If you had lived during the Mcarthy era it might remind you of the lies, destruction and anti American wave of hatred and fear he generated through out our society. He was a liar and a boob and it was not till he was finally outted that we were able to resume life as Americans who could agree to disagree over political ideas. One thing you conservatives seem to always be ready to do is hate someone or something to justify your existence.

Ah That Did It


Not much hate mail in response to my McCarythism piece. Then Instapundit put up a link and now the civil libertoids of the blogoshphere are annoyed.

Re: Malaysian Leadership


A little less than a year ago, Kevin Cherry noted on NRO a Malaysian qualification to what terrorism is: condemnation not needed when the victims are Israelis.

What’s The Point...


of a fan site if it’s never updated?



“Tabula Rosa”


Senator Schumer may not know his Latin, but Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine knows Estrada is no “blank slate” — and is the subject of disingenuous smears.

Bad Stats


The Center for Consumer Freedom exposes the ridiculous assumptions behind the highly publicized claim that “excessive” drinkers and underage drinkers account for 50% of alcohol consumption. The phony statistic is the product of a neo-prohibitionist research center run by former Carter/Johnson cabinet official Joe Califano. The center is well-known for producing dubious statistics about alcohol.

Big Day For Cloning


House takes it up today. The real ban (Weldon-Stupak) is expected to pass, but a wide margin would help encourage the Senate (especially a wide margin opposing the bad (i.e. half ban) substitute for it, from Rep. Greenwood).


Sign up for free NR e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review