Friends, there's nothing quite like being a Democrat. Being a Democrat means never having to doubt yourself. Never having to answer uncomfortable questions. Never having to face accountability for your misdeeds, no matter how egregious. Most of all, it means you can pour scorn and contempt on your enemies all day long -- safe in the knowledge that every institution that exists is working tirelessly to obliterate them and exalt you! Long story short: being a Democrat means being on the winning side, since you're quite literally on the side -- the only side -- that gets to pick winners and losers in the first place. MUST BE NICE!!!
Alas, I'm not a Democrat, but Kamala Harris is, and, boy, is she rubbing our noses in her privileged position every chance she gets! On this week's Newsmaker Show, Brian and I reflect on Kamala's remarkably easy time of it as the new and improved, if totally unelected, presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Brian and I also ponder the evolution of the neoconservatives and whether hawkish foreign policy views are now a feature of one party or the other, or possibly both. We also ask whether Trump, if reelected, will spurn the neocons and the warmongers and make common cause with RFK, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and other anti-establishment, anti-war types. We consider, furthermore, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's about-face on collaborating with the Biden Administration on the issue of censorship, the mysterious dearth of polling in the wake of the DNC, as well as whether or not a debate between Trump and Harris will ever transpire on ABC.
What a show! It might even give you a few reasons to cling to hope, and a little hope goes a long way, wouldn't you agree?
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-august-28-2024-dr-nick-waddy/
***
In other news, Kam-Kam is set to break her streak of self-isolation and sit down and talk with CNN tomorrow night. Wow! Color me shocked. A Democrat who actually feels obliged to answer questions??? What will we see next in this crazy race, huh? Personally, I don't expect CNN to push Harris very hard, and nor do I expect her to fall flat on her face. Frankly, I don't know why it took her this long to throw the Fourth Estate a bone...
Dr. Waddy from Jack : It pains me to say this, because Bush I was a great guy and criminal apologist Dukakis had to be stopped. But he made a very convincing shift during the campaign to an apparently solid conservativism with which he was never comfortable . . Harris's doctrinal epiphany shift is breathlessly shameless and reflects a withering contempt for America which would be embodied in the imposition of policy which could never pass legislative muster.
ReplyDeleteAnd Clinton of course stands detestably exemplary for Harris. He is fundamentally amoral and disreputable.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast: Its taken me awhile to realize that the customary meaning of the term neocon is no longer that of liberals who have quit the left and become conservatives because of disgust with the left's extremes. One neocon , the essential one I think, David Horowitz, remains a traditional neocon as far as I know. But these latter day "neo cons" may simply have lost their anti left resolve when hombre Trump, who is a happy warrior against the antiamerican left, took that left on in the trenches.
ReplyDeleteDems are more hawkish; apparently so. But I've always thought that a "front" on their part. When the military despising Clintons took over they quickly realized "gee, we can command these guys now, all of them. We can use them for all sorts of keen things like social experimentation and they can't do a dang thing about it!" And so they did and Obama/Biden have retained that attitude; perhaps its now a reflex. So when they have seen political advantage for themselves, they have sent the military into combat, because "after all, our forces are our thing to play with". "If we fluff, oh no big loss ; maybe we can get them all into a reprised post Vietnam funk ehh?"
Our present involvements, in Ukraine and in the Middle East, present two very different rationales, I think. A civilized nation supports the high civilization of Israel, especially when Israel is fighting for its life. I hold that to be sacred. Though many influential dems side with the Hamas savages and would abandon Israel, even they know that to be unthinkable and dare not venture to advance their convictions, some of which are baldly antisemitic. Aid to Ukraine was originally motivated by sympathy for a small nation attacked by a brutal massive country. But it also manifested much ignorant hubris on our part: "heck the Russ have become pussies; they've let us push them right to their border". But now the hard reality, that we risk an utterly unnecessary war with a nuclear armed Russia the patience of which is not endless, is an important theme for DJT and may become policy if he wins. That this view may be advancing to very wide public acceptance may first eventually defuse the appalling risk we face now AND provide an object lesson in the folly of misusing our military for badly conceived, inappropriate domestic or foreign objectives.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Another factor keeping antiIsrael, even antisemitic Dems from going to the wall against Israel is the risk that they would be deservedly associated with the vicious brats who have shamed themselves and their elite campuses beyond all measure with their hellish enthusiasm for the actual physical eradication of Israel. Nobody can afford to be connected to them in the public eye. Apparently these nazi punks are gearing up for fresh round of academic Holocaust celebration this fall; they've even started recruiting at freshman orientation.
ReplyDeleteJack, if Kamala can change her spots as readily as Slick Willy, she might just have a future in American politics!
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm not so sure the Left is anti-military anymore. They may now believe that they've taken ownership of the armed forces, ideologically speaking, and they may even be right.
Speaking of those "vicious brats", we should be seeing a renaissance of riotousness on college campuses very soon. I say: bring it on! It would almost certainly accrue to Trump's advantage.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Years ago when Robert Bork , an eminently qualified nominee for Scotus ,was savaged by Ted Kennedy and other ironic character assassins, their main theme was "here is what Bork's America would look like). Lurid predictions of a return to the 19th century were freely bruited about and massively publicized and Bork was unjustly denied a seat he would have graced.
ReplyDeleteOk, I hope DJT's campaign follows this theme (among others): "San Francisco!" This would be followed by extended depiction of the shameful anarchic conditions in which San Francisco languishes today. This would be reality, not lurid speculation as with Bork.
Scenes of human effluent decoration , excused and enabled criminality, drug and druggie infestion, occupation by an officially welcomed invasion of both illegal immigrants and domestic lowlifes attracted by the squalor ; this lawless investment , this catastrophic degradation of a city once lauded, this confirmation of the inevitable consequences of liberal rule, should be accompanied by this vital reminder" This is the city of Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi and KAMALA HARRIS. Kamala Harris IS San Francisco through and through and she wants to bring it to your doorstep, wherever you live. She lies
to us about her sudden transformation to a common sense which contradicts even the far left positions"( examples shown throughout) "she enthusiastically supported while a Presidential candidate in 2020 and as Vice President. DENY HER the PRESIDENCY and keep hopeless San Francisco , which is KAMALA HARRIS'S AMERICA ,out of our lives!." Let such advertisement be utilized without apology or restraint.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: A military officer's career is often an ordeal. Its reward is ,most often, satisfaction by duty done and promotion. High rank is the only place where opposition to woke imposition can be manifested in action. But to achieve high rank requires "going along to get along" and if woke decrees originate anywhere higher they must be complied with. What it will take is for DJT and Defense Secretary Gabbard to openly denounce the woke infrastructure and order its dismantling. Then, I think, the conservative majority in the military will reassert itself.
ReplyDeleteJack, that is a damn good suggestion! Give the Dems a "brand", and that could sink them. San Francisco is, whether they like it or not, a place where they've gotten everything they've ever wanted -- and the results are abysmal.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that simply ordering the dismantling of wokeness will do the trick. By now, it will have seeped into the bones of the military-industrial complex. The lefties are good at biding their time, as we know!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The military has unique sanctions available to it to discourage dissent. It is a hard, hard thing to put a laboriously built military career at hazard to champion an eccentric cause, often no matter its objective timeliness or merit. Billy Mitchell was a good example.If denunciation of wokeness is officially promulgated, especially since wokeness has demonstrated so much bad will in our services, it will be cheerfully complied with and opposition will be futile, at least within the military. Given leadership from above , I think our forces are ripe for reformation ,restoration of common sense and centuries proven rewards for meritable performance. In China the commies tried to redefine being Chinese and as soon as the Marxist boot was lifted, essential China bounced back. Our military's way of life would too, I think, if it is released from presumptuous frivolous leftist dreaming.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Your assumption is that there is something essentially conservative about the military. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect people used to say that about the church and about the public schools as well. How'd that work out?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I can't imagine our military being able to function or attract recruits without a fundamentally conservative mien.Wokeness is superimposed on it from without. It could be used to support a leftist regime but would be inoperable without adherence to conservative principles like strict deference to authority and established structure.The Soviets tried early on to abolish military rank and Stalin thought it productive to purge most of his high command. Russia suffered consequently in WWII.
ReplyDeleteJack, no EFFECTIVE military could dispense with respect for authority, but a ramshackle one certainly could. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people in the military aren't in a fighting role, and they signed up for the free college and the three square meals a day, not martial glory and high adventure. The more bureaucratized, corporate, and domesticated the military becomes, the more wokeness can thrive there, I'd say. But you may be right that the pointy end of the stick is still wielded by men who you and I would recognize as warriors.
ReplyDelete