Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show includes a reflection on the fate of Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon's Vice-President, who, like Nixon, won reelection in an unprecedented landslide, but was then ruined by a craftily executed campaign of what amounted to a 70s version of lawfare. The lesson: when the Deep State wants you "out", you're out! Possibly that was truer in the 70s than it is now, though? The survival of DJT suggests as much. Brian and I also consider France's exit from Vietnam in 1954, and the bombing of St. Paul's Cathedral in October 1940.
When we turn to current events, Brian and I ponder the turnaround in the betting markets, with Trump regaining the advantage over Kamala Harris, Harris's massive spending edge over Trump and what it portends, the prospect that Google could be broken up as part of the government's anti-trust case against it, Trump's latest Butler rally, Liz Cheney's nothingburger endorsement of Kamala Harris, as well as the political fallout from Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
Bottom line: this week's show is bearing down on you like the Category 5 radio hurricane that it is!!! Batten down the hatches and enjoy.
***
In other news, the latest polls, and the updated betting market odds, show continued movement towards Trump, and you're starting to see glimmers of panic on the Left. I'm not saying Trump has anything in the bag, but, if you're a Trumper, hope springs eternal, and you're decidedly NOT grasping at straws!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Last night on Fox, Doug Schoen, who I believe to be a Clinton intimate, who yet dares to speak to Fox (courteously and objectively I might add) said Dems are getting very nervous. Obama was quoted as saying that Harris is not popular with young black males. Cracks are there in her effort and they may be spreading. Maybe someday dems will learn that in their doctrinal desperation to seat "a" woman (any woman) President they would be well advised to consider some less off-putting women. Men still unforgiveably vote and except for the gelding faction among them, well, they just don't willingly subjugate themselves to man haters. Tulsi could have done well for the Dems but they managed to alienate her. Perhaps, just perhaps, Dems are starting to give up on Harris and are concentrating on the Congressional races (?)
ReplyDeleteKeep up the heat America! Give her a one way back to lala land on the Bay.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Above I forgot to mention the myriad women who do not condemn men simply for being men. To Kamala and her ilk they are apostates and heretics who would , in time , be "suppressed" as "counter-revolutionaries".
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast:
ReplyDeleteLast evening we held a Trump rally at the main intersection of our little upstate city of Olean NY ( which does have a small university) and the reaction of drivers by was overwhelmingly and enthusiastically pro DJT. OK, our area is very red state but that was an encouraging sign that his base is unrelenting in turning up the heat and will do so throughout this monumental election!
Some of them may be unsavory types but professional bettors have to know what they are doing. If they are off, the consequences could be all the more unpleasant for some of them. So if they are betting on Trump, albeit by a small margin, that has to be an ominous thing for the far left. I'm sure they are planning their anarchic onslaught if America wins.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Dems are really good at driving significant erstwhile supporters to stand firm against them. Musk's disgust with them and his consequent courageous activism against them is huge. So also is that of Tulsi Gabbard. Both are very influential people who might otherwise have supported a loyal and common sense oriented Dem party. It's a testament to the unapologetic antiamerican stance of the far left and the relentlessness of their amoral drive for totalitarian power that America finds them ever increasingly unendurable.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack : What a ludicrous parable MAYBE is to be had in stories of housing shortages in the devastated areas due in part to FEMA hogging the hotels. Is this the ponderous machinery of BIG government wallowing into action? I suppose each of the 357 regional Deputy Assistant Adjutant Facilitating Promulgators must have their retinue. If it was NY state that could be taken for granted.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Your views on Agnew are very interesting and different. They give me pause:
ReplyDeleteAs I remember (and I followed Watergate almost day to day): I never connected Agnew's downfall with Watergate. I just thought it coinincidental. I thought he was a workaday crook who got caught. I was a Dem then and strongly disliked him for his hostility to liberals. He was an original; nobody, perhaps except McCarthy, had been as unapologetical in rawly excoriating the left. It never until now occurred to me that he may have been "gotten" just as Nixon was and as the neo savages of today's antiamerican left seek to do to DJT.
Agnew's imprecation of leftists as "effete snobs" rings very true after 50 more years of their presumptuousness and emperiousness. And his "nattering nabobs of negativism ": well! I can't say I ever pictured the even then incipiently disgraced bigots of the MSM as garrulous Ottoman potentates; dismissive prerevolutionary French grandees perhaps.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: No doubt Ho intended to honor the "agreement" to hold elections in 1956 only at his pleasure; the vote in the North would surely have been 99.99% for Ho, with plastic bags in store for any who dissented. Of course the commies would have much infiltrated the South to a great extent and even the hundreds of thousands of well warned 1954 refugees from the North there might have been "persuaded" to "vote" for the typical Marxist dictator as beloved leader of of a "unified" Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic it is that the frantically youthful , naive and terribly upset radical faction of the "60s freshly intellectualized American boomers used this monster's name as a motivating chant.Its a telling condemnation of support for Marxists by today's "effete snobs" like the San Francisco coterie. Like Mao, had he ascended unto East Asian Valhalla directly after his victory over the hapless French, he might otherwise have been viewed as a justified revolutionary. President Ike was very firm in his opposition to renewed colonialism so massive American intervention didn't occur on his watch. But by the '60s it was obvious that commies were engaged in international nickel and diming which nonetheless reminded the WWII generation of Hitler's far more directly managed adventurism. They were right in that it all amounted to the same thing.
Dr. Waddy from Jack : Is today's national "sturm und drang" comparable to that of 73-74's Watergate dominated era? From my experience of both times here is what I think:
ReplyDeleteThen: The antiamerican left was nowhere near as firmly esconsed in vital institutions of American civilization as it is today. It was still getting used to the astonishing influence it had gained by being empowered by such a huge faction of such a astronomically prolific generation counterintuitively and cynically used by murderous
cynical old line marxists celebrating the great fortune they had reaped in this serendipitously granted generational windfall. You were right; after theNixon/Agnew landslide nobody could have anticipated a NIxon disgrace especially as it worked out. Agnew's fall appeared to me to be a tawdry sideshow which Nixon mitigated by bringing on good 'ol Jerry Ford (the eventual ascension of whom Nixon apparently thought absurdly unlikely). The '60s Aquarians had resolved after their well deserved blowout in '72 that they must deceptively join the detested "establishment" and corrupt it from within. That wasn't easy; for awhile no "progress was to be seen and the emotionally captured boomers were is no paragons of patience. But Watergate convinced them that they were on the right path; they had used the hated "system " to bring down a President! (Eg, Hillary lurking on the House Judiciary Committee as a "Counsel").
That inspired a now seasoned two generations of lawyers, journalists, entertainers, politicians, academics, secondary public educators, government bureaucrats, union stalwarts and "community organizers" (including two inhabitants of our White House) to keep the
counterintuitive far leftist faith which so pollutes our civilization now.
Now: the antiamerican left of which they are the occupying force in America plausibly sees victory as at hand perhaps as soon as Nov. It had no such prospect in '76. Its final push for complete, final total control has come perhaps earlier than the far left had expected but it has been necessitated by the unanticipated, insolent and astonishing Trumpian heresy. "Why, these deplorables actually think they have a case; they think they can stop US, of all things!"
Sorry for the Harris style "word salad" to be found in part above
ReplyDeleteBad editing. Jack
Dr. Waddy from Jack: St. Paul's. A few years ago I walked across the Thames River bridge which leads to the mount upon which it sits. As its incipiently dominating aspect expanded and its angelic bells sang I thought "my God, that's St. PAUL'S itself". Perhaps no expression is adequate to encompass its physical magnificence and its glorious recent history. The thought of it being bombed is appalling beyond measure.
ReplyDeleteYes, it does look as though the Dems are getting awfully nervous, but give up? I doubt they'll do that. I mean, technically, in the national polls, they're still ahead. Hardly time to rush to the exits, but maybe time to locate the nearest exit, just in case...
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the Trump rally was a great success! Was it just the usual suspects, or did you meet some new Trumpers?
I'm not sure that Tulsi Gabbard is "very influential". One could argue that Liz Cheney is more influential, or at least that she gets more airtime, for obvious reasons. I suspect few people will matter when all is said and done except for Trump, Biden, and Harris.
Jack, you have to give Agnew credit for alliteration, if nothing else. And if I had been a dyed-in-the-wool Dem in those days, I suspect I might have wanted to pick off Agnew first and Nixon second, for exactly the reasons you suggest.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Ho Chi Minh and American flower children had virtually nothing in common, except maybe an aversion to Nixon and American capitalism, and yet they managed to see eye to eye for a few crucial years...
Hmm. Did the Left capture the establishment, or did the establishment capture the Left? The scary thing is...we may be about to find out.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: At the rally It was the same people who have made such a success of conservative organization in the Olean, NY area. The public reaction was very gratifying.
ReplyDeleteThe Blitz on London 1940-41: One account has it that one night during the Battle of Britain some German bomber pilots got off the course intended to take them over the military targets which Hitler had strictly enjoined them to attack rather than cities. (How little he understood Churchill).They dumped their bombs over London in order to escape Brit fighters. The Brits bombed Berlin in retaliation and newly christened Herr Meyer (Goering, who had said, "if the British ever appear over Berlin you may call me 'Meyer' ") obeyed the thus infuriated monster's order to switch to terror bombing of London and other cities, like then ravaged Coventry. It further holds that "Meyer "failed to realize (and timorously advise Hitler) that the Luftwaffe was on the very cusp of overpowering the RAF, which victory had been expected to clear the way for an invasion of Britain.
No, for some reason the Germans never developed a massive force of heavy bombers. But of course can there be any doubt that had they had it they too would have directed it to murderous destruction? The Nazis did as much to Guernica, Spain in their budding days and the London blitz was appalling in its relentlessness. Hitler vainly hoped his V-1s and V-2s would be so intimidating that the allies would relent and leave him be. Given some luck he might have tipped some of them with nuclear warheads.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I wasn't a very sincere Dem in the Agnew days. All it really took was a good shot of common sense to make me a Con servative. I voted for Reagan in '84 and that was that for me.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I suspect that a man like Ho could have withered most of those '60s college leftist punks with just a glance. My guess is that Ho had nothing but contempt, born of a savagery they could not have comprehended, for those naive things.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Jack -- the fact that the Germans visited less destruction on London than Britain visited on Berlin was...not for lack of trying! The Germans just didn't have the physical capacity. Possibly they never could have achieved it, minus the atomic bomb, of course.
ReplyDeleteAh, so who did you vote for in 1980? There's the rub!
Since you remember those halcyon days, Jack, did Ho play any role in Vietnam's propaganda or diplomacy in the West? Did he ever mount a "charm offensive"?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Ho was little known and seldom mentioned as I remember. Yeah, the campus traitors, intellectual giants as they were, knew enuff to use his name as a mesmerizing chant, a mantra if you will. I think he was beginning to realize that the "antiwar" movement in the US was doing his cause much benefit, as astonishing as that was. Lots of aid and comfort coming his way from his comrade oppressed classes in America as they flocked to the American Academy after childhoods scarred by unprecedented prosperity. I think he decided to depend on that and refrain from personal advocacy. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
ReplyDeleteIronic isn't it? Germany and Japan willingly fought us thinking we were soft and would give up eventually. It took the radical faction of the immense baby boom generation to actually fulfill that perception (just that once).
Germany and Japan weren't wrong about our "softness", although they may have been a bit premature...
ReplyDelete