Follow Dr. Waddy

Submit your email address below to receive updates on new articles, radio interviews, videos, and posts. Don't miss out!

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Listening In to Nixon



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil is a humdinger!  We cover the controversy over the President's Baltimore tweets, the constant refrain on the Left that Trump and Republicans are "racist," the state of the Democratic primary race, and prospects for Brexit now that Boris Johnson is at the helm.  Historically, we cover the importance of the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, generational politics on the Left, and the complex historical legacy of Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, including Nixon's culpability in the Watergate Scandal and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of his taping system in the Oval Office.  Don't miss it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58jkNXDHB0Y&feature=youtu.be

18 comments:

  1. The talking points for the MSM and the democratic party are clear. I wish the media's response to the Trump/Cummings issue(s) was shocking, it simply is not. Unfortunately, the media is no longer objective, Dr. Waddy. I am very surprised that Twitter hasn't suspended the President yet and yes,certainty there is a risk for the President to be tweeting so much. Personally, I enjoy it and I am one of 60 million followers. There are times when I hang my head and go, "Are you kidding me? Just be quiet." It is what it is, right?

    After last nights debate, I truly enjoyed Marianne Williamson. She called it right and I felt really bad that she did not receive the time she deserved. I also think she came out the winner for the debate. I do believe you are right in your assessment of USA politics; asinine and juvenile.

    As for Nixon and Watergate, I really think that is a complicated issue/topic. I agree, the tapes did not shed him in a good light and I am sure, if one were to tape my household, one would get the same impression. Hence, no 'smart home' for me, wink.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Waddy and Linda:Last things first; Nixon (a human being after all) had been viciously excoriated since the late 40's for attacking communist sympathizers in the U.S. and especially Alger Hiss, #3 in the State Dep't. and a proven shill for the hellhound Stalin. But mostly he was sneered at for being, well,ordinary and unfashionable but daring to butt in to the exalted circles of the elect and elite. To the day of his disgrace it was for the latter offense he was most viciously hounded and it caused him and his heroic Pat acute pain. He lacked Donald Trump's no doubt cathartic relish for public confrontation with those who unwisely engage him. I think it unseemly for those whose private discourse had to have included unimaginably vile references to him to task Nixon for venting in what should have been private circumstances, his anguish and resentment of their unrelenting onslaught. "Oh, but his language was so vulgar and unbecoming a President". THIS: from those who went to the wall to excuse a "President" who was proven to have enjoyed sexual services from a pathetic ingenue while conducting official business on the phone!Their consummate hypocrisy is to be expected of them but it is not that for which we must most fear them; it is the clear message of their willingness to do ANYTHING which their self centered sense of justice moves them to do to acquire power and when in power? "Chaos is come again".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Though Johnson surely endured enervating criticism, some of it highly personal, it was from then mostly youthful radicals (pukes). Nixon was, I agree, a general target for all classes of "fashionable", "hip" and presumptuous hyenas and is, it appears, the target of a contemporary effort by the MSM to reassign his perceived shame to Donald Trump as part of its allout campaign to defeat him. Ok, wanta talk about Nixon? Then lets also talk about the Clintons, yeah. And while we are at it, let's pay close attention to the increasingly overwhelming evidence, for which a reckoning approaches apace, of Obama and Clinton dirty tricks aimed at establishing "insurance" against an unendurable Trump victory, just as Nixon may have wished to head off an excruciating second Kennedy rebuff.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Though it was difficult to keep my gorge from rising, I listened to the Wednesday night Dem dialogues on the radio. I rejoice at their hyperbolic , desperate cacaphony which established an ever more durable impression of their hypocrisy, childish frustration and determination to drag all of America into their hissy fit plagued playpen.What insu
    fferable brats they are!

    I understand good many of them have proudly refrained "no one is above the law" in these times, in tasking him for "obstruction of justice" (of all things) and have sought to summarily condemn our President thereby for conduct they hasten to assert he undoubtably engaged in in some ethereal consummation with Russia; what, they know not wot! But surely, they urge, it happened; "I mean, we feel it did".

    As you urged, they bank on the totalitarian shibboleth that if you repeat a presumption, be it a bald faced lie if you will, then an effective mass will believe it. They have much historical reason to presume this but we are privy also to that history and fully aware of their intent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Waddy: I fully agree with your perception that President Trump is, in his Twittering, succeeding in baiting the oh so sensitive and, well, wounded left, as does a skilled and fearless player do to those who unwisely reveal their weaknesses to his unforgiving probes. They can dish out the condemnation, the calumny, the dirt but they just can't take it(can they?), the candy asses that they are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Waddy: I would predict that if Biden's lead persists or if he perceives it weakening, that he will(for different reasons) name an unassailable running mate, I think Stacy Abrams, in an effort to shore up his left flank. The further ahead he is the more the apologetic Biden would be to elevate a crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Linda, good points. I wonder if Twitter really would suspend Trump? That might be a card they'd play only in 2020... It'll be all hands on deck for the Trump-haters in the autumn of 2020, needless to say.

    Interesting that you were so impressed my Marianne Williamson. Unfortunately I didn't see the whole debate (the first night), so I missed most of her remarks. At times she strikes me as unhinged, but she's clearly striking a chord with some people. Personally I hope she runs as an independent! The more candidates, the better...

    Jack, I agree -- Nixon's use of vulgar language, which engendered much hyperventilation in the Watergate days, and since, just proves that he was a politician, and a man, of his era.

    An interesting subject, the MSM's disdain for Nixon. No doubt they despised him in 1968 and 1972 too, but they failed to coordinate effectively against him. What caused them to deal the deathblow so late in the game, after (it must have seemed) his political triumph was complete? I suspect there is more to the story.

    As for the Dems, they all seem to feel that Trump's dalliance with Russia, and his "obstruction," are proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. The only point of disagreement is...what should be done about it? This, to me, is one of the scariest things about the persecution of Trump. Intelligent people seemingly can convince themselves, and others, of the flimsiest falsehoods. We see what we want to see. So much for the primacy of human reason!

    Jack, I'm intrigued that you think Biden will name a running mate before the primaries have even begun. It would make news, for sure, and I suppose it might be well-received in some circles. Stacey Abrams might help shore up the black vote, which for Biden is absolutely essential to his prospects. Abrams has been awfully quiet of late too -- suspiciously so. But naming a running mate so early would be HUGELY unconventional, and somewhat risky. Personally, I doubt Biden thinks he needs to do something that radical. He probably feels he has the race well in hand. He may even be right, at least for the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Waddy:Fate and Frank Wills gave them the opening they had always wanted, to vent their volcanic spleen over simply the continuing presence of Nixon in U.S. politics. I was a liberal in 1968 and Nixon's astonishing revival was terribly disturbing.After all that fevered idealistic "struggle" this is what we got? Oh well -'72. Then he gets a landslide - Nixon! What 'da?! We may well see that almost unendurable picque gather again in 2021 if the President wins and what fell course it may take is an ominous thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jack, do you really think Biden will really make it through and be the candidate? I'm not so sure.

    As for the debates--I listened and not watched. I had had enough after like 5 minutes. Since my husband likes to know what the other side is up too, he watches the debates. I simply can not stomach them--all I hear is "Yada, yada, racism, yada, yada, white privilege, yada, yada, Medicare for all, yada, yada." Actually, its more like the teacher from Charlie Brown; wonk wonk wonk. lol---although I quite enjoyed it when Tulsi gave Kamala a word or two.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Linda: I think right now that Biden is the most likely of the pack but the prospect of someone else winning is very plausible. Dr. Waddy is right in that its highly unlikely that he would name a running mate before having secured the nomination. He might do it in desperation; this election has to be his last hurrah. But if and when he does triumph he will have to allay his obvious existential guilt by undergoing very public auto da fe before the Grand Inquisitors of Political Correctness. He will be sorely tasked by them and part of his penance will be to accept any running mate they mandate. He might attempt to make an early installment on his debt by "suggesting" a suitably correct running mate and then, if chided, timorously submitting to his betters to demonstrate contrition.He'd like to disingenuously move to the center in the general election but if he can't motivate the increasingly extreme perhaps majority of his party, he can't win. With a running mate probably assured in any circumstance to be a crazy, he won't be able to outcenter President Trump. I thought for awhile it would be Gillibrand but I think she is really running for Student Council President.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LOL Jack...that Gillibrand is something else, isn't she? (shaking my head)

    I just don't know Jack...I think Biden has some sort of memory issue(s)...just watching my mil decline in the past year with dementia--well...I'll just leave it at that. I am just not so sure if he will make it through. Honestly, the only candidate I see is Harris, and I sure don't like saying that. Nonetheless, whomever it is, good luck, they will need it, smiles. They all are sure digging themselves deeper...now especially after the latest shooting and with the MSM is just getting worse everyday with the cajoling.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack, I think the Left's sheer self-isolation does them a disservice. They can't imagine that enough "deplorables" exist to elect one of their own, because they refuse to speak to us on a day to day basis! They should get out more...

    Linda, I agree that it's fun to watch the Dems slam each other. Gabbard is rather good at it. A cool customer. I think she wants to be Biden's VP. Will he become the nominee? I think probably not, but I still give him a good chance because of the divided field.

    As for Biden's VP, a woman is virtually assured, and a person of color a very high likelihood. On the other hand, Buttigieg would shore up the white liberals, and because he's gay that would give Biden some PC cover. Stacey Abrams would be a poor choice, in my view. Too radical and risky.

    Linda, I agree with you that Biden is going soft in the head. It comes and goes, though, as one would expect. He can still be a wily political operator from time to time -- and the media will set the bar mighty low!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Your comments on Biden and Abrams have much merit. Abrams' intemperance after her having had the governorship stolen from her by many thousands of benighted and irrelevant Georgia voters suggests that she would be a loose cannon and as you say, Biden is canny.

    Harris and Warren appear to be serious contenders now and what I fear is them , or any Dem, teaming up with Klobuchar(hope I spelled that right). She offers a refreshing contrast to the crazies in that she expresses herself in a measured and objective tone and apparently has the courage of her convictions. She has actually dared to suggest that Trump voters had some creditable concerns! She could be used by a radical to shore up the "moderate" flank. Perhaps Gabbard could fill that role too. Buttigieg would surely please vacuous suburban style liberals but they are solidly against the President anyway, I think. That he would offer some PC cover is plausible but it could backfire with some minority members.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jack, you're right that Buttigieg comes with some potential downside, although my guess is that he would be fairly uncontroversial as a VP selection. VPs are never that crucial to begin with.

    So you fear Klobuchar? As a Presidential candidate she might be formidable, if only because she appears so reasonable, but I doubt she'll get anywhere near the nomination. She isn't the flavor of the month. That flavor is: socialism with sprinkles on top.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr.Waddy:Oh, I think she might exercise a moderating influence on,I think, an actual or disingenuously committed Dem leftist, if only by association. But you are probably right that it would be minimal. She might be their answer in 2024 against Pence or Haley.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jack, I can't begin to imagine what the Democratic Party will be like in 2024! Hopefully, it will have run so far to the Left that it will fall flat on its face...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Waddy: We must earnestly hope for their elimination from the main American body politic. But we did see their shameful redemption in 1992 by the cynical malevolent Clintons. I think we can predict by now their determination to pursue a hard left course and can reasonably predict its disastrous consequences for them in 2020, though we must not presume and must keep the heat on them to the end. What would their reaction to defeat be?Aside from the insane reaction of their frantic underground, to embrace another amoral Clinton? Who? Perhaps among the Dem also-rans is to be found this individual.Klobuchar? Ryan? Or, perhaps, they will be engulfed by the now very possible radical wave and will be headed for the dismissable fringes where they belong.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A wonderful subject for speculation, Jack! Sometimes parties do die of their internal contradictions... That could happen to the Dems. I suspect, though, that they would be rescued by Americans' habit of uplifting the party-out-of-power as a check on the powerful. Only a sea-change in the media could truly kill the Democratic Party, in my view.

    ReplyDelete