Rich Lowry should read some history before he comments on it. In his column today he tries to make the self evident point that Obama's politics are gutter politics (there's a real shocker.) He says "...when he (Obama) reflects on his closing arguments during this campaign he'll tell himself, "I'm McCarthy baby. I can play in the gutter."
Lowry's appraisal of the stench of Obama's methods is of course correct, but why must he use liberal mythology, provably false, to compare it to? Is Lowry, or for that matter the whole Sarah Palin bashing, John McCain endorsing National Review staff so ignorant of our history that they believe these myths about McCarthy, or do they know the truth but prefer to adopt the RINO creed of "go along to get along?" I suppose this shouldn't be surprising from a "conservative" writer or magazine that trashed a clear thinking conservative like Sarah Palin and endorsed John McCain, who arguably has done more harm to the conservative movement than any living politician.
In the event the former is the case and Lowry only suffers from extreme ignorance, let me suggest he read the well footnoted book "Blacklisted by History," by Stanton Evans. This book stands alone in giving an unbiased account of the McCarthy period, as can be attested to by anyone who has read it or watched the author debate other historians who have made contradictory claims.
Joe McCarthy was a patriot, his charges were 99% accurate (verified by the Venona papers and the Soviet archives), and the innocent who were tarred by his hearings have only the Democrats to blame. Over McCarthy's objections they prevented the hearings from being closed. The repetition of liberal propaganda says otherwise, and Rich Lowry may buy into it, but if accuracy is considered a virtue among journalists, perhaps he will take my advice and find out what really happened.