Skip to comments.Deep Throat and Genocide
Posted on 06/01/2005 5:55:15 AM PDT by veronica
click here to read article
We agree on the main point: that Nixon's activities could not be construed as 'picking' the eventual Democrat nominee. I appreciate the vote tallies from the '72 Democratic Convention, but I would make a couple of observations.
1. Muskie was already out of it. Any votes that he received were purely out of loyalty. His candidacy was dead.
2. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, IIRC, was actually strengthened as the campaign dragged on. He was a lot of peoples' "second-choice", but he was never a threat to actually gain the nomination. His politics were not a good match for his party's leftward shift.
3. Wallace was largely a regional candidate, although he did have enough strength among old-line democrats in my state (Pennsylvania), to throw a monkey wrench into the works for the Democrats.
4. Terry Sanford. Whoah, don't remember him being a factor. Seems like another favorite son type vote tally.
5. Hubert Humphrey. Probably never had a chance, in retrospect. He started the trend -- which I think continues to this day in the Democrat Party -- whereby you only get 1 shot at it. Take note Al Gore & John Kerry. You've both been tagged as 'losers'.
Please cite the sources for that assertion, i.e., they tried to have influence in that process.
Some at FR have argued that Mr. Wallace nearly cost Mr. Nixon the election, that Mr. Wallace hurt Mr. Nixon more than Mr. Humphrey.
I am not one of those. Wallace was a Southern Democrat. In 1968, Wallace won AK, LA, Miss, Alabama, and Georgia. Nixon won SC with 38% of the vote( Wallace came in 2nd), North Carolina with 39% of the vote(Wallace 2nd),and Tenn with 38% of the vote (Wallace 2nd). These were all historically Dem states.
In other Nixon won states Wallace received 18% of the vote in Kentucky, 24% in Virginia, 29% in Florida, 11% in Missouri, 8% in Illinois.
I have a hard time accepting the assertion that an avowed rascist Southern Democrat would siphon more votes from the Rep candidate than the Dem. The figures say something else. Nixon defeated Humphrey in the popular vote by about 500,000 votes (43.4% to 42.7%). Wallace received almost 10 million votes (13.5% of the total vote).
"I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents."
So, ergo, all previous presidents were engaged in felonious activities.
<True, but neither is Mr. Clinton. Yet, it doesn't prevent us from recognizing the truth that he (and Mr. Nixon) committed felonies. In the case of Mr. Nixon, the Republican leadership told him he'd have to go. In the case of Mr. Clinton, the Dammocrap leadership defended him till their dying breath.
Sorry, but Clinton was found guilty in a court of law for lying under oath and obstructing justice. He had to pay a fine and his law license was suspended. Although he was pardoned by Ford, Nixon never went to trial so he is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice.
My point was that there was no real consensus Dem candidate except McGovern. Muskie self-destructed. McGovern represented the mainstream thought of the Dem party at the time. He was not a creation of the GOP nor was CREEP surreptitiously pushing his candidacy.
I love Ben Stein too!
"Please cite the sources for that assertion, i.e., they tried to have influence in that process."
Here's a "reprint" from the WashPost, asserting that a White House official wrote a letter to the editor to the Manchester Union Leader in February, 1972, which put Sen. Muskie in a bad light.
As well, the article discusses other "dirty tricks" operations from the CREEP.
Of course, it was Mr. Muskie's reaction to the Manchester Union Leader's attack on his wife that led to the famous "crying" episode that all but destroyed his campaign. It's tough to decide how much the previous efforts by the White House influenced Mr. Muskie.
But it wasn't for lack of trying.
The article also goes on at some length about other activities by the Republicans to influence the Democrat nomination.
Here's another link with a little chronology of events around that time, including that the CREEP had decided to "gather intelligence" on the Dems, eventually defined in part to include illegal bugging of opponents.
"I am not one of those. Wallace was a Southern Democrat. In 1968, Wallace won AK, LA, Miss, Alabama, and Georgia."
In the past, I thought that Mr. Wallace harmed Mr. Humphrey more, but a poster here challenged that view a while back. In looking at the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential results, here's what I find:
In 1964, Sen. Goldwater won:
In 1968, Mr. Wallace won:
Of course, Mr. Nixon won all the South in 1972.
One can argue that the four states that both Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Wallace won would have reverted to the Dems in 1968, but I think that it's persuasive to make the opposite argument: that it is likely that Mr. Nixon would have taken those four states in 1968. They were Republican in 1964 (during the worst shellacking of a Republican ever) and were again Republican in 1972. Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).
Mr. Nixon did take South Carolina in 1968, but so did Mr. Goldwater in 1964.
As for Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, Mr. Goldwater ran much stronger in these states than in the country as a whole. Had the national race not been as lopsided as it was, it is quite possible that Mr. Goldwater would have taken these states. In Florida, he took nearly 49% of the vote against President Johnson.
Even in North Carolina, Mr. Goldwater ran about 4% ahead of his national numbers. In a close race in 1968, it isn't at all a stretch that Mr. Nixon may have won a two-man race against Mr. Humphrey in these states.
Thus, even without Mr. Wallace in the race, in a close race, it's possible that Mr. Nixon would have taken these states.
Like I said, I used to think that Mr. Wallace hurt Mr. Humphrey much more than Mr. Nixon. But in looking at the state-by-state results, I think there's a strong argument that Mr. Nixon may have actually won a clear majority of the vote in 1968 without Mr. Wallace, and would have had a modestly larger victory in the Electoral College.
"So, ergo, all previous presidents were engaged in felonious activities."
All? I don't know. More than one previous president? I think so. I've read more than once that in some sense, Mr. Nixon got caught in the middle of a change in what was and wasn't acceptable. Or maybe, he just got caught, period.
"Sorry, but Clinton was found guilty in a court of law for lying under oath and obstructing justice."
Mr. Clinton, I believe, was cited for contempt of court for his actions, and agreed to the penalties imposed by the judge, and requested by the Independent Counsel. He wasn't (regrettably) convicted of any felonies. In fact, his agreement to to pay a fine and surrender his law license was specifically in a deal to avoid indictment for felony offenses, just as Mr. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached by the House and likely convicted by the Senate. Remember that Mr. Nixon had decided to hang tough until the delegation went to the White House and even Sen. Goldwater told him he didn't have 34 votes in the Senate.
Each man avoided being convicted of felonies, yet each man received some punishment for his actions.
The difference is that Mr. Clinton was not forced from office for his illegal activities. In my view, the punishment received by Mr. Clinton - pay a fine, lose the law license - was less than what Mr. Nixon received - forced to resign the presidency. Others may differ.
"Although he was pardoned by Ford, Nixon never went to trial so he is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice."
In a legal sense, you're right. That is the same argument all my pro-Clinton friends cite. He wasn't convicted of a felony, or even indicted. He denied, and still denies, doing anything felonious, although he has admitted that his efforts to conceal the truth may have verged into technical falsehood.
But what was proved legally is different from what we all saw with our own eyes, in each case.
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
IMHO, it is not a stretch to connect the loss of Indochina, courtesy of the dems and the MSM, to the current Global War On Terror.
Thanks for the ping!
And the lefties celebrate this as the beginning of their short-lived Liberal Golden Age.
Score one for Ben Stein.
Please ping this great oped to your ping lists and friends.
Those of us who were adults during Watergate and the slaughter of innocents after we left Nam, know about that genocide.
Millions of younger Americans have no idea of what happened.
Pingin' my General Interest and Texas lists here. :)
This sounds like the article Rush read from on his show today.
Deep Throat and Genocide
Re: The "news" that former FBI agent Mark Felt broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's articles that helped depose Richard Nixon, a few thoughts.
Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
It is the article read by Rush. Where do you think he gets a lot of his reference material? ")
Wage and price controls. Ultimate bad karma.
Rush said that Ben Stein was the son of a man that worked
for Nixon in some capacity back during Nixon's administration.
Ben was one of Nixon's speechwriters.
Thanks for the ping.
Interesting, but I'm old enough to have watched the sorry Watergate scandal unfold. What Nixon did was MUCH more than lie. The corruption inside that administration was massive, and I'm still offended and betrayed by men whom I thought to be honorable.
Anyone who didn't live through that era should go back and read. Amazing.
As for other administrations: two wrongs don't make a right. Using Kennedy or Clinton to justify Nixon is silly.
Not taking up for Felts here. Frankly, "Deep Throat" wasn't that important to the investigation. He only confirmed or denied info that Woodward had collected from other sources. His clandestine persona made for a good mystery, but it all would have come out anyway. Nixon's downfall was Nixon himself and the thugs he kept around him.
A couple of sites with comprehensive links:
Pres. Nixon was my hero. I have a framed pic hanging in my office. When he fulfilled his ONE campaign promise for re-election in '72, and that was to bring our troops home with honor from a screwed up political war, he became my hero and has always been my hero. I also remember reading that Pres. Nixon could have tied up the 1960 election in court for a long time due to the massive fraud and other illegal activities by Kennedy & his minions, but he didn't. Instead, he let the moral reject Kennedy have it because he felt the country needed to get on with doing business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.