I could not agree more. Nixon was loyal to his subordinates. I compared Nixon to what Ike did when his chief of staff, Sherman Adams, took the gift of a Vicuña coat from a South American nation. Vicuña is just the wool of a sheep that is raised in South America. The south American nation (Argentina?) wanted to sell coats in the USA and gave Ike's Chief of Staff a free wool coat.
Of course the media always called it a Vicuña coat instead of a wool coat. and the public believed that it must be worth more than Mink. It was just a coat made from wool cut from a sheep.
Ike responded by firing his chief of staff. What was Adams supposed to do when given the coat at a public gathering. Tick the Argentine government off by refusing to take it? And at that time it was not even against the law to take the coat. But Ike feared the media and canned a loyal employee.
Many presidents expect upward loyalty but offer none down. Nixon tried to protect his own people. It cost him his presidency. Remember that in 1973 there were many abitious liberals and ambitious conservatives in the Republican party. Lots of them wanted to be president.
When the media went after Nixon, men like Howard Baker were happy to appease the media by offering Nixon's scalp in return for great coverage. Barry Goldwater, still smarting from losing control of the party to Nixon, was also after Nixon's scalp.
Howard Baker, the minority leader, thought that he could use his media created hero status to make a run at the presidency. He ran in New Hampshire. He ended up getting very few votes. I once calculated that Baker spent well over $1,000 for each vote he got in New Hampshire.
By the way Nixon's job approval rating on the day he resigned was higher than Harry Truman's on the day Harry left office.
I have done some thinking about our need for a national police force. And the reasons we have limited ourselves local police forces.
I have put on my metal helmet.
Again, nice history lesson.
I'll take a look at your thoughts about nat'l police force later on... let me say before I do, that I believe we ought to restructure the military in such a way that we have some type of force that I speculate you are espousing. I phoned thw WH about the concept a bit ago, but foolishly didn't follow up on their requests.
Such a force would have responsibility for borders. In addition, they would be deployed to Bosnia-like situations, and after-battle actions such as much of the need in Iraq now, and other "peace-keeping" operations. They would have specialized equipment like riot control gear and weapons, and would definitely not need or be trained in such heavy weaponry such as tanks or helicopter gunships, etc. they would call in the army or AF if that need arose. Where the line is drawn in weaponry they have inherent in their unit would be interesting discussions. They may even be able to serve for perimeter security for bases, etc... but that may be defining their responsibility too broadly.
Such a dedicated force would be good for our borders and internal security in times they aren't needed overseas. In addition, it would put into the Pentagon a powerful advocate for some "weaponry" and training that does not exist now. City and state police forces would benefit.
...
There's the outline
Now --- I'll take a look at what you wrote...