Indianchief, before playing that all too familiar card you may want to wait until someone actually accuses someone of anti-Semitism. You'll also note that I wrote nothing about Judt, and I never had an ill word to say about him. My post was about Walt, and my comment was about the way Steve's tribute was more about Steve, less about Tony. A lot of Steve's colleagues pass away every year. I daresay not many rate even one post from Steve, much less two. The reason for this one being - Steve wants people to think of him in the terms he highlights about Judt.

The difference between them, as far as I am familiar with Judt, is this -- Tony had a lot of controversial ideas, but overall presented them in an intellectually honest way. Steve's ideas are controversial, inasmuch as ideas will be when they are the orthodoxy of one side, but they aren't particularly new and it doesn't take any particular courage to present them (notably, Steve's prestige and wealth have increased greatly since taking on his cause). I just think he knows that history won't judge him as kindly as it has Tony. For one, his work is notable for its intellectual dishonesty, and for two, I think history will look back and wonder how so many people tolerated his ideas (for instance, with his accusations of "dual loyalty" regardless of the fact that he bemoans the "unfortunate" providence of the term, and the attempt to sanitize the charge; and with his co-author's "good Jews/evil Jews" diatribes). I believe that the Father Coughlin's and Henry Ford's of their day probably sounded reasonable to many people too, but history has not looked kindly on them either.

"My purpose is to help eradicate from the world its mania for persecution, to help align all good men. Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile, Christian and non-Christian, in a battle to stamp out the ferocity, the barbarism and the hate of this bloody era. I want the good Jews with me, and I'm called a Jew baiter, an anti-Semite."

-Charles Coughlin, Liberty Magazine 1939, via Wikipedia