Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil was taped before the epic presidential debate, but we still managed to cover a plethora of timely topics. Brian and I discuss the state of the race, the New York Times' allegations of tax avoidance against President Trump, ballot harvesting in Minnesota and the potential for a contested election, the Democrats' no-win situation in opposing the SCOTUS nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the nature of "libertarianism", and where Rand Paul stands on the political spectrum. Whew! What a lineup, huh?
Historically, Brian and I talk about the signing of the Munich Pact in September 1938. My view is that Neville Chamberlain was not the dolt that history has portrayed him as. Hindsight is 20/20. In addition, we cover President Wilson's embrace of female suffrage in 1918. In fact, many states had already granted women full voting rights even before the 19th Amendment was passed. One could make the case that the extension of the franchise to women was an inevitability by that stage. The consequences, as I point out, were myriad, including giving a big shot in the arm to the prohibition movement.
Check it out! Free speech may not be around for much longer, so we might as well make full use of it while we still can, right?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I very much value your assessment that the Dems are in a very hard place now with the nomination of the already very accredited Amy Coney Barrett to SCOTUS. Yes, it may very well be that the sane Dems realize they cannot stop her confirmation but that they also know they must play to their base in a bid to win the Presidency. Of course "my" representation in the Senate, Schumer and his factotum Gillibrand refuse personal audience to the nominee. I feel so very faithfully "represented". But yeah, go to it you two, disrespect a faithful Catholic. When put to the test against your frivolous presumptions,the 2000 year old church stands to counter you and in a manner not only sinking your leftist puppet Presidential candidate but also many of your Congressional aspirants. Maybe the Dems WILL boycott the entire process, final vote and all and at that the real America must rejoice. You don't win by losing like petulant infants.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: In the film The Secret of Santa Vittoria, the defeated local fascists, after having been tortured by the Gestapo were told by the Italian towns people"you, you showed us no mercy when you prevailed". A similar answer is due the left today: : " why, you don't like our power plays? But gee, we learned from you! Nobody with common sense doubts you would do the same if you had the power. You are reaping the whirlwind you so presumptuously and disdainfully generated and you deserve to be marginalized as you fully intended for us."
ReplyDeleteJack, "petulant" is a good word for Senators who refuse to meet with Judge Barrett. That's just plain silly. I'd be surprised if they refused to vote, when it comes to that, but maybe. Boycotting the hearings would probably be the most consequential move they could make, because those hearings will generate by far the most coverage. If I were a Dem, I'm not sure I would want to play the GOP's game and charge headfirst into a clash with an amiable, intelligent woman like ACB. Most of them likely can't help themselves, though. It's a chance to be "stars" again, and you know how they enjoy the limelight.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: I do much ( I am attempting to cure myself from recent overuse of the adjective "very") like your observation on the ability ofJudge Barret to counter the reflexive leftist onslaught which is promised her. The Munich Pact: I do think it meet to consider how terribly scarred the British psyche was by the inconceivable horrors of WWI. To the ruling class in Britain, with so many of their sons having perished in France, it had to have been doubly shocking since the Edwardian age had been so seemingly redeeming! That Chamberlain sought to assure those so hopeful that they would never again endure a "Great War", including the general troop, is understandable. Churchill's objections may well (because he was a veteran of theWWI trenches, have been in retrospect, a vital factor in the awakening of British last minute resolve and the material backing forit) but British desire to avoid the maelstrom so evident 1914-1918, is understandable.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: National political will: its so important. In 1940 and again in 1941, FDR's efforts to build our military won by only one vote! Only Pearl Harbor mustered the national political WILL ! In Britain, the national political will was,perhaps, focused only by Chamberlain's perceived failure to stop the Nazi juggernaut. He was not of WWI and could not comprehend it's evil!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: I meant: It was not of his intent because WWI had permanently addled him and understandably so, even despite the fact that he has not served.
ReplyDeleteQuite right, Jack: no one in his right mind looked forward to another World War. Hitler and Churchill did...but was either one in his "right mind"? You be the the judge.
ReplyDeleteThat's extraordinary that our pre-WWII rearmament was supported by such a narrow majority in Congress. Frankly, I think U.S. neutrality in that war was always more likely than belligerence. A lot of factors had to coincide to drag us against our will and predispositions into the fight.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Churchill had beheld the horrors of combat from the sword and pike melee of Omburman, to the decisive close range use of his Mauser pistol in S. Africa to his complete forward engagement in the Western Front.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack:But it did not affirm in him the sociopathy which it,together with Germany's WWI defeat, confirmed in the unrefined mind of Hitler. I think Churchill gloried in the history of heroism and results positive in human progress on the proven decisive battlefield and celebrated the willingness of the just to confront the wicked in the physically ultimate test.
ReplyDeleteJack, I think you're a bit kind to Churchill. Some men just like killing for killing's sake -- they relish the high adventure and the adrenaline -- and I suspect Churchill might have fallen in that category. Be that as it may, sociopathy is probably a part of leadership, especially top level leadership. You just can't direct the affairs of men unless you're prepared to let some of those men, and sometimes millions of them, go to their deaths. That would be torture for anyone with a normal moral sense...but for alpha males it's all in a day's work. The line between sociopathy and grit/resolution may at times be a fine one, therefore.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I don't mean to imply that Churchill and Hitler were the same. They were hardly that.