Wednesday, June 5, 2024

What Might Have Been



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show considers the tantalizing "What If" of a world in which RFK (Sr.) was not assassinated in June 1968.  Kennedy romantics no doubt assume that their boy would have done a far better job of running the country, and managing the Cold War, than, say, Richard M. Nixon.  Who can say?  What we know for sure is that sometimes a lone assassin gets a more decisive voice in history than do tens of millions of American voters, and that's a crying shame.

Brian and I also consider the political fallout from the Trump trial verdict, the uninspiring nature of the two major candidates for the office of P.M. in Britain's upcoming general election, the curious logic behind the West's aggressive strategy in Ukraine, our two-tier system of justice, from which the likes of Hunter Biden benefit, the significance of Joe Biden's "tough" new policy at the southern border, and the apotheosis of President Ronald Reagan.

It's a fine show, and listening in will be the highlight of your day -- and on that you have the WaddyIsRight guarantee!




In other news, Boeing finally notched a win, and NASA secured the secondary option for manned spaceflight that it's been pining for, as the Starliner soared heavenward, after interminable delays.  Kudos to Boeing, and may this success serve to reinvigorate our efforts to return to the Moon and journey onward to Mars. 

Boris Johnson, the Conservative former P.M. of the United Kingdom who was ousted by his fellow "conservatives", is sounding off on the Trump verdict, and he sees right through the Dems' strategy of lawfare.  He argues that Trump's felony convictions will help him win.  I disagree.  The evidence so far indicates that they will have little or no effect on the overall dynamics of the race.  It was already Trump's race to lose, and it remains so.


Finally, I had no idea that there was a big political battle taking place in the state of Texas over the issue of school choice.  In case you didn't know, in red states massive strides have been made in recent years in giving parents more options re: where their kids go to school, or if they go to school -- homeschooling has of course become a much more viable alternative.  I've long believed that, if we want to save Western Civilization, Christianity, and conservatism, the best thing we can do is wrest control of the next generation away from leftist teachers and public school administrators.  Finally, after sitting on our hands for decades, we're making real progress along those lines.  Thank God!!! 


  1. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast: Its hard to think of a more authoritative critic than Prof. Dershowitz. I used to think him compromised by leftist convictions but though he may still be a liberal, he has affirmed in the last few years a highly principled , objective, intellectually sound mien which handsomely complements his distinguished knowledge of law and which was probably obvious to most people all along. His condemnation of the Trump accusation and trial in all its infamy confirms it for the detestable mockery of justice that it is. Your observation on the shameful conduct of the judge calls to mind the fact that our legal system takes great pains to ensure that the process of arrest, charge and trial be free of impropriety. If it is found to have been miscarried, the verdict is often completely discredited. No doubt those who brought this kangaroo court to session know that and decided that their antiamerican left cause of ruining DJT could derive much benefit from the trial court process, regardless of the prosecution and the judge's egregious violation of legal ethics and proven standards for proper application of procedural law, most grievously in the cynical contempt shown for the defendant by the D.A. and his disdainful fellows throughout this miscarriage.

  2. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Very serious concern that those western powers which afford material support and sanction to Ukraine against Russia recklessly continue to presume on Russia's not limitless, relative restraint is very much justified. But the fundamental and original terribly mistaken and perhaps willfully ignorant presumption, that a perceived pusillanimous Russia would tolerate Ukrainian membership in Nato and, when it brutally demonstrated that it would not ( NYET!), an outraged and wrongheaded dismissal of the dominating fact that Russia's national security is fundamentally threatened thereby, is the foundation upon which all Russian grievance in this rests. Incremental moves such as an American ok for the use of certain American supplied weapons on Russia itself builds intense resentment on that foundation of Russian
    perceived affront rather than just standing individually and cumulatively. When seen that way, the danger becomes evermore ,highly and unnecessarily, monumental folly. No matter how much we would like for Russia to back down on this, history and geography should teach us that they never will do so. If we know this and contrarily persist for political or strategic gain we do so with already tragic risk. . Nato is strong enough without Ukraine; we should never have trifled with a country as hard and as terribly tested as Russia over this fundamentally unendurable offense to them .When , in defending its national integrity against any hint of the incalculable travail it suffered from invasion in living memory, Russia fulfilled the warnings it had consistently communicated, we foolishly intervened. They have continued to warn us. Justifiably horrified by Russia's onslaught, we may have meant well but we poke a maddened bear and for what? We are playing with nuclear fire; we must simply assure Russia and Ukraine that we will never vote for Ukrainian membership in Nato and there an end to our involvement in the war. Should it be diplomatically unwise for us to admit fault, then so be it. After its over we should use our vast national wealth to help rebuild a Ukraine we wronged with our miscalculation and prodded into a terrible ordeal.

  3. I meant "explicitly admit fault" Jack

  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: In his latest border charade Biden urges us "See! I can do border security. Oh yeah I'm listening to your outrage over it (and will until after the election when, whether I win or lose, the floodgates will be opened wide) .

  5. Dr. Waddy from Jack : If RFK had lived in '68: Some commentators think that Nixon harbored an intense lasting fear and antipathy that he would yet again be robbed of his chance for the Presidency which he, a self made man, had creditably worked for, by an aristocratic Kennedy swell. Would it have moved him in '68 to apparently approve of illegal measures similar to those for which he was disgraced after '72? Would his anxiety on this point have driven him to other miscalculation : eg. a recklessly emotionally charged denunciation of RFK during a debate?

    Another factor: there was widespread resentment among those activists who had "compromised" themselves to "get clean for Gene" after their anarchic immediate history, directed at RFK for sidling Eugene McCarthy out of the way after McCarthy's audacious challenge to LBJ. Might they have vindictively declined to lower themselves further by actually deigning to participate in a fundamental of America's detested "system"? Sans their votes, the first exercised in a Presidential election by the multitudinous boomers, why RFK might have missed coronation altogether. He said he was against the war but if he hit that theme too hard in the election he might have repelled those Americans already outraged by the pro commie "antiwar" crowd. But if he raised any doubt among the "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minhers" they might have turned on him. He was a "take charge " guy with considerable physical courage demonstrated in his attacks on mobsters but it may be hard to predict what policies he would have advanced. He would of course have had the reelection albatross around his neck.

  6. Jack, for all the reasons you cited, I will be fascinated to see how Trump's appeal(s) to his convictions fare, especially in the New York courts but also before federal judges. It would be absolutely magnificent to see our justice system redeem itself at some point -- in fact, at any point, even if it's after November.

    Jack, I would say that if, at the end of this bloodbath, we manage to secure permanent neutrality for a rump Ukraine, we should count ourselves very lucky. That may be the best case scenario. The worst case scenario would be the end of the world -- which, you have to admit, would be pretty darn bad.

    Ah, would RFK have defeated Nixon in '68? I take the possibility very seriously. I mean, Humphrey almost managed it, and he had, as I understand it, all the charisma of a block of wood. Having said that, to win, RFK would have had to navigate some very choppy waters, as you point out, featuring civil rights/race riots, Vietnam, George Wallace, etc. And, speaking of skullduggery, you have to wonder whether Nixon might have been able to use some of the Kennedy brothers' reckless sexual antics against them in '68, in a way that would have been impossible eight years earlier.

  7. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Actually though, Humphrey was at times a thrilling orator. In 1948 he made an audacious stand for civil rights at, I think, the Democrat convention. But he was at times given to overwrought speechifying (Goldwater hilariously termed him "Hubert Horatio Wind who sometimes gusts to" 400? "words per minute"). LBJ treated him with mild contempt. I don't remember the Kennedy brothers' reckless hijinks being openly bruited about in the late '60s. They were perhaps regarded in about the same speculative light as were snickering rumors about Rock Hudson and Jim Nabors. But yeah, it would have been unthinkable to task the King of Camelot about his lack of faithfulness to his magnificent wife, in 1960.

  8. Dr. Waddy from Jack: You hit it right on the head; this is a possibly historic test of American legality. Will the painful, gradually evolved structure of principles which have weathered exhaustive centuries
    long examination in British and American law ,stand up to the presumptuous challenge enacted by this "trial"? Or will it , rather, reveal a neomarxist terribly accomplished advance into the heart of our legal reasoning to make of it a mere tool for totalitarian use of any sort the antiamerican left wills? For future historians (if the future manifests objective historiography) this may be seen as a heady time in which great issues were fought out. But in its midst there is for us little rest . So very much is at stake, NOW.

  9. That's all true, Jack, but we should recall that the Dems aren't the first to twist the law to profit themselves and to discomfit their enemies, and nor will they be the last. Indeed, historically, a genuinely just and fair and free social order is the exception to the rule, surely. So, yeah, we may get stomped in the not-too-distant future, but with any luck our agonies won't be in the Pol Pot league. Maybe Old Man Biden will be a relatively benevolent despot, like...Mussolini? Tito? Pinochet? I did say RELATIVELY, people!

  10. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Biden may well be as you describe. But I remember seeing visitors to prisons coming out charmed by the inmates: "my ,they are easy to get along with". Biden is , I think, of a 1965ish liberal outlook, which held that ("well gee, these revolutionaries aren't so bad; shame on you for calling them Commies") He has little comprehension of the limitless evil of which the radical leftist mind is capable and which it demonstrated with terrible resolve in power in the 20th century. "Well gee again, this AOC may be kind of intolerant but she has some keen ideas." He is, I think, in his fog tragically and pusillanimously influenced by grimly determined antiamerican leftists who his kumbayaa mind simply cannot believe harbor the firm intent to destroy America that they plainly do demonstrate.