Friends, what could be more fun than a good, old-fashioned electoral free-for-all? That's what the Democratic presidential primaries are shaping up to be. In Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, we seem to have our first "phenom" of the cycle: he of the unpronounceable last name has rocketed into third place, according to some polls, although Biden and Sanders remain high atop the leader board. On the latest Newsmaker Show, Brian and I break down the Democratic field and assess each candidate's chances.
In addition, we cover topics as diverse as: Columbus' first voyage to the Americas in 1492, the Bay of Pigs invasion of communist Cuba, the impending release of the Mueller report, the role of WikiLeaks in the Trump-Russia hoax, the merits of our fine Attorney General Bill Barr, AOC's "issues" with Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu, and why so many millennials support the Left.
Listen now (or later)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Cxo8qvdnM&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Waddy: Re: the broadcast: Imagine Ike commanding the Bay of Pigs invasion. Did Kennedy consult him? He knew rather much about amphibious invasions. You are right in maintaining that the Bay of Pigs set some of the conditions for the Cuban Missie Crisis. Castro was eager to nuke the U.S. (apparently he urged K to launch during the Crisis) but the Soviets acted on their national interests. Perhaps Castro yearned to join Stalin in hell.
ReplyDeleteWhen I tire of the details I fall back on this: the Dems determined directly upon Hillary's insolent rebuff to adopt a tactic most likely to result in the removal of the unendurable Donald Trump from office. The "collusion" ploy seemed best and they invested their all in it. Now they can't back out and they will ride its ever more fantastic lead to their destruction in 2020.
Dr. Waddy: Re; the Mayor of South Bend. Of an intellectually responsible man (a Harvard grad no less) one could resonably expect the following: " Vice President Pence expresses opposition to the enactment of marriage between persons of the same sex due to his faith in the teachings of a Christian religion endorsed by 2000 years of experience, of painful introspection, of reform based on sincere regret for past injustices and of reliance by billions on its spiritual consolation and guidance. I respectfully disagree with him and defend my lifestyle, for the following objective and carefully reasoned considerations."
ReplyDeleteBut I dream. Instead, his stance is that of the characteristic leftist bigot."Your questioning of my irrefutably just position is, by definition, of a nature so onerous as to be summarily dismissable", is the sense of his recent pronunciamentos.
Dr. Waddy: I fear that until now triumphant PM Netanyahu is quite undone by AOC's condemnation. That one who throughout his life has faced the prospect of actual, physical extermination by such as AOC and Rep.Omar and has yet persisted would now relent is to be expected (NOT!).
ReplyDeleteJack, I would agree that launching the Soviet nukes in 1962 would have been idiotic, but soliciting their placement in Cuba in the first place turned out to be a wise move on Castro's part. We blew our chance to oust him in 1961, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis we were honor-bound to leave him in power. I've always thought we weren't the "winners" in the Crisis that we appeared.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Left won't ever give up entirely on Russia-gate, but they might gradually move on to other points of attack. I wonder if they would put Russia to bed with something like censure? That would be a sop to the Trump-haters...
Hard to say whether we should take Buttigieg seriously. It seems Biden is launching his bid officially next week. My guess is Biden will steamroll the lot of them -- my guess is also that they will start blasting each other (everyone but Biden), because the field really needs to narrow quickly for anyone else to have a chance.
As for homosexuality, it has always baffled me that the Left's position is...it's genetic, and therefore good. The Left has NEVER believed that human behavior is genetically determined, and, even if it is, that has little to do with whether it's good or bad. Stalin might have been a natural-born psychopath, but that doesn't mean we have to like it...
Dr. Waddy: A superlatively perceptive point about homosexuality; I've never seen it before and you do great benefit in expressing it. You are so right: the left directs excoriation unlimited toward any who would ascribe to any group it favors inherent features. OOOPs! . . .I hope to see the South Bend Mayor confronted so for his disdain for those who doubt the presumptuous integrity of "marriage" between those of the same sex. Say or establish by law what union they will, and our free and lawful country affords them ample opportunity to establish tolerant, benevolent, protective and respectful means to that end, YET, it cannot be and is not marriage. No effort so disdainful of human history in all its manifestations deserves such confirmation, no matter how forthcoming it may be by an intimidated court or a temporarily overpowered real America.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Your view that we did not win in the Cuban Missile Crisis has much merit but I would suggest the following:
ReplyDeleteCastro knew after it that we were willing to do all to prevent him from spreading the Communist rot. We were within a day of invading. In that sense we confirmed the Policy of Containment and except for "Che"s fatal adventure in Bolivia, Fidel wisely refrained from messing with us. He knew what was in store for him otherwise.
Also, our IRBMs in Italy were part of the negotiations and we didn't give them up. I would respectfully maintain that we bested the Commies in that episode. They were hard people but I think they recognized in America a demonstrably unbeatable force.
I couldn't agree more re: the institution of marriage, Jack. The only semi-acceptable alternative that I see to traditional marriage is to get government out of the marriage business altogether, or at least to surrender the issue entirely to state and local government. Alas, the current model is not likely to change, because our elites would be aghast.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Cuban Missile Crisis, you're right that the only kind of "winning" that mattered in 1962 was psychological. We felt like winners, and Castro and Khrushchev and their admirers felt like losers. Well done, President Kennedy!
The irony of the whole affair was that land-based intermediate range missiles were about to become obsolete, or irrelevant, because of SLBMs. We almost blew up the world over a question of vanishing strategic importance.
Dr. Waddy: Its ALMOST comical to recall. We now know the Soviets had approximately 20 ICBMS as we called them and that their accuracy was sufficient perhaps to hit rural Western New York or maybe the steel plants. The installation of IRBMs in Cuba cut the delivery time on, say, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville and yes, some Air Force bases, but that was not very different from the 15 minutes possibly doable by ICBMs. I hate to say it but we would have survived the destruction of those places. Washington would probably have been blanketed and that would have made problems, yes.
ReplyDeleteTrue. The Soviets were scrambling in 1962 partly because they KNEW how weak their strategic deterrent was. You have to give them credit, though -- it only took them a few years to get up to speed...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I'm a Russophile but not without reservations. Their history and geography are so compelling and their art,architecture, music, writings and their majestic names - I'm fascinated by them all, for what it is worth. Their endurance of their WWII crucible cannot be but admired. Their early space effort was heroic, especially for a country so recently savaged. But one must also consider the price their long suffering populace paid to finance their military progress, which among so many other things sent their overly heavy space vehicles into those early and alarming orbits using their massive ICBMs. Those Cosmonauts did have guts - going up in those tin can contraptions.
ReplyDeleteBut the bottom line was this: they were totalitarians and declared of intention to spread their cancer world wide. We were RIGHT to oppose them and the world benefits to this day from our steadfastness ( at least until we were betrayed from within, by those who had benefitted most from our antityrannical crusade, the very children of our Greatest Generation ).
I couldn't agree more, Jack. The Russians may be admirable, but the Soviet Union was an existential threat. It's a pity that the Russian people were hoodwinked by Bolshevism, but as long as they were under its power they were deadly enemies of Western Civilization. I'm glad those dark days are behind us. Now, of course, as you point out, the enemy lurks within. Whether that constitutes "progress" is debatable!
ReplyDelete