Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deep Throat and Genocide
The American Spectator ^ | 6-1-05 | Ben Stein

Posted on 06/01/2005 5:55:15 AM PDT by veronica

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: Sybeck1

Ben was right under Patrick Buchanan (the chief speechwriter for Nixon), basically proofreading and polishing, and also was primarily responsible for domestic policy speeches and for polishing prepared answers for news conferences. I know someone who knows a guy who knows Doug Wead, who was a White House staffer from 1972 to just a few years ago.


151 posted on 06/01/2005 12:06:46 PM PDT by Schwaeky (Attention Liberal Catholics---The Caffeteria is officially and permanently CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

While we are at it, may John Dean rot in HELL!!


152 posted on 06/01/2005 12:06:58 PM PDT by international american (Tagline now flameproof....purchased from "Conspiracy Guy Custom Taglines"LLC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Morally and principally, it is one and the same.


153 posted on 06/01/2005 12:20:24 PM PDT by chudogg (www.chudogg.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: bejaykay
He wasn't framed. He deserved a forced resignation and infamy. And would Nixon have prevented the killing fields? I tend to doubt it


Do you know any history other then what you were taugh by the main stream media?

Were you alive during this time?

Do you remember the total control the main stream media had on "the news"?

Do you know Proportionality?

The press weakened the President at at time we still had a lot of enemies. By the time he resigned, the United States was a paper tiger on the world stage. From President Nixon, we got President Ford and then the Mayaguez incident where we could not even perform a simple military operation against some pirates at sea. Following President Ford we had four years of President Carter. If it was not for Watergate we would not have had Carter and I doubt if Iran would have took over our Embassy.

We are all still too close to make good judgement about Watergate, and the role of the media in bringing down a President, and so I will leave it up to history to decide if the punishment inflicted on Nixon for the crimes Nixon was accused of (and which could have been condemed by a censure from Congress) was worth the price this nation paid.

154 posted on 06/01/2005 12:20:51 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: veronica
He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying conniving seducer like Clinton

Fantastic line! Isn't it fitting that everything the Dims try to accuse prominent GOP'ers of, their sacred cows have actually done!!

Scum, thy name is the Democratic party!

155 posted on 06/01/2005 12:29:31 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (With a QB named Kerry, is it any wonder the Raiders finished 5-11 last year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I see that Dana Milbank is having a hissy fit because President Bush used the word 'hop' yesterday. He said he would take two more questions and then had to 'hop'.

Huh???

What is that about?

156 posted on 06/01/2005 12:30:04 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

bttt


157 posted on 06/01/2005 12:30:54 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
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.

I am always leery of using the WP as a source for anything especially anything to do with Watergate. I read the article and nowhere does it state that CREEP influenced the selection of the Dem nominee nor does it mention McGovern. What is does say is that,

During their Watergate investigation, federal agents established that hundreds of thousands of dollars in Nixon campaign contributions had been set aside to pay for an extensive undercover campaign aimed at discrediting individual Democratic presidential candidates and disrupting their campaigns.

"Intelligence work" is normal during a campaign and is said to be carried out by both political parties. But federal investigators said what they uncovered being done by the Nixon forces is unprecedented in scope and intensity.

All this article proves is that the GOP engaged in operations research against possible Dem opponents, the same way they do against Rep candidates. Informed of the general contents of this article, The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, "The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities."

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:

You decide to use these three elections for analysis, but why not add 1976 to the mix to establish a longer term trend. Except for the 1948 election, Goldwater was an aberration as far as the South was concerned. With few exceptsions, the Solid South was a political reality for the Dems from 1876 to 1964. The 1964 civil rights act had an impact. It is problematic to extrapolate that impact to 1968.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter swept the South except for Virginia and added border states like Missouri and Kentucky. In 1980 Carter lost the south except for GA.

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.

You can't view Wallace's impact just on the South. He did well in certain key states outside the South that usually went Dem up to that point. Nixon won in Illinois (a state that could go either way) by 3%(Wallace 8.5% of the vote); Missouri by 1% (Wallace had 11.3% of the vote); and New Jersey by 2% (Wallace had 9.1% of the vote). Nixon won California with 3% margin and almost 7% of the vote went to Wallace. Humphrey won NY by only 5% of the vote and didn't get over 50%. I strongly believe that Humphrey would have won SC, NC, and Tenn without Wallace being in the race.

Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).

Not really. ALA, Miss, GA, AK and LA went for Stevenson in 1952 and again for Stevenson in 1956 (except for LA). They went for JFK in 1960 except for Miss (uncommited electors) and partially ALA. In 1996 Dole took AL, Miss, GA, SC, NC, and VA against a Southern Democrat. In 1992 Bush 41 won Miss, ALA, SC, NC, and VA over Clinton.

Mr. Nixon did take South Carolina in 1968, but so did Mr. Goldwater in 1964.

Nixon took SC with 38% of the vote against 32% for Wallace and 29.6% for Humphrey. In 1964 Goldwater won 59% to Johnson's 41%, which was payback for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1976 Carter received 56%. In 1980 Carter received only 41%. In 1992 Bush beat Clinton 48% to 40%. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton. There are plenty of variables, but a pattern for SC only starts to emerge in 1980.

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.

That is pure speculation. What we do know is that Johnson won nationally with 61% of the popular vote and a winning electoral college majority of 434. It was a landslide by any measure. FLA went Dem in 1976 and 1996 and came within a wisker of going Dem in 2000.

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.

Goldwater lost NC 56% to 44%. It wasn't close. In 1968, Nixon had 39.5%, Wallace 31%, and Humphrey 29%. May is the operative word.

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.

We will agree to disagree. Nixon won a national election in 1968 by 500,000 votes. A Southern Democrat, George Wallace, formed a third party and ran strongly in the South. He pulled almost 14% of the total vote nationally and had significant support outside the South. I compare Wallace to Perot in terms of his impact on the election. In Perot's case, Clinton was helped by his participation in the race.

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.

I was just referring to your statement, ""I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents."

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.

The difference is that Clinton received judicial punishment. Bill Clinton was charged with lying under oath about his affair with Lewinsky to gain advantage in a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones, a case he later settled by paying Paula Jones $850,000. A Federal judge found Clinton also to be in contempt of court for lying in a deposition and ordered him to pay a $90,000 fine. This contempt citation led to disbarment proceedings to remove his law license. To avoid these Clinton surrendered his law license and is no longer allowed to practice law.

Nixon resigned under pressure, the first to do so in our history. Clinton was impeached, the first time for an elected President. He was impeached for: Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury; Article 2; Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case; Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case; and Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

But what was proved legally is different from what we all saw with our own eyes, in each case.

What we saw in the case of Nixon was a witch hunt and lynching with a disproportionate reaction and punishment for a President's loyalty to his subordinates. Clinton was not punished appropriately for his more serious crimes and has been rewarded and fawned over by the MSM ever since finishing his term of office. Nixon became a political pariah until he died. There is no moral equivalency between these two men. And certainly, Nixon's performance in office dwarfs Clinton's pitiful achievements as President.

158 posted on 06/01/2005 12:44:09 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Obstruction of justice is a crime, period.


159 posted on 06/01/2005 1:31:06 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica

BTT


160 posted on 06/01/2005 1:32:48 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Advertisments contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
It's about the extra e in potato.

I heard it discussed on CSPIN this morning. An irate caller chastised the media for it's nitpicking and brought up Milbank's comments in his article.

161 posted on 06/01/2005 1:32:53 PM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
I think Sissy Matthews actually had a wet-dream on camera while idolizing one of his lifetime heroes.

Remember how the Old Media treated leaker Linda Tripp?

I would thank Olds Media for making Watergate the center of national discussion, enabling conservatives to finally deconstruct the myth of Watergate, except Olds Media didn't have conservative's best interest in mind when they did it.


                                       Olds Media sits and spins when the wheels come off.

162 posted on 06/01/2005 1:34:13 PM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Dear kabar,

"I am always leery of using the WP as a source for anything especially anything to do with Watergate."

I don't blame you, but I've seen much of this reported elsewhere.

"I read the article and nowhere does it state that CREEP influenced the selection of the Dem nominee nor does it mention McGovern."

It certainly points to an attempt to influence the selection of the Democrat nominee:

"Law enforcement sources said that probably the best example of the sabotage was the fabrication by a White House aide -- of a celebrated letter to the editor alleging that Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) condoned a racial slur on Americans of French-Canadian descent as 'Canucks.'"

At the time, Mr. Muskie was the front-runner, and this clearly was an attempt to damage Mr. Muskie's candidacy. Did it have much of an effect? I don't know. Was it clearly an attempt to do so? Sure looks like it to me.

"All this article proves is that the GOP engaged in operations research against possible Dem opponents, the same way they do against Rep candidates."

Well, not quite. Even the part you cut and pasted, and then highlighted, belies that assertion:

"But federal investigators said what they uncovered being done by the Nixon forces is unprecedented in scope and intensity."

However, the assertion of the article is that it went beyond intelligence gathering:

"One federal investigative official said that Segretti played the role of 'just a small fish in a big pond.' According to FBI reports, at least 50 undercover Nixon operatives traveled throughout the country trying to disrupt and spy on Democratic campaigns.

"Both at the White House and within the President's re-election committee, the intelligence-sabotage operation was commonly called the 'offensive security' program of the Nixon forces, according to investigators."

Note, "DISRUPT and spy..." Disruption goes beyond intelligence-gathering.

And of course, we actually know that the CREEP resorted to illegal bugging for "intelligence-gathering" as well. If one wishes to say that others before did it, I won't disagree. Nonetheless, it is illegal, and it was part of a coordinated effort by the CREEP.

"You decide to use these three elections for analysis, but why not add 1976 to the mix to establish a longer term trend."

I chose 1964 and 1972 first because they were the closest to 1968, and thus would be most relevant to discussing trends. But also, 1964 showed great erosion in the "Solid South" for the Democrats, a trend that has continued to the present day, only interrupted by the Southern Democrat candidates - Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton. That's why I didn't use 1976, as I'd stated elsewhere that southern states tend to return to the Democrat ticket when a Southerner heads the ticket, although Mr. Carter's first term was so disastrous that he oculdn't do even that.

Regarding some of the election results, by state, that you cite, I'll generally say just a few things. First, it's quite possible that without the influence of Mr. Wallace, states may have tipped differently. However, in some of the states that you cite, Mr. Wallace's voters would have had to have come at a very high cost to Mr. Humphrey. Let's look at Illinois. To say that Mr. Humphrey would have won if Mr. Wallace hadn't run, one must assume that Mr. Humphrey would have received about 70% of the votes that Mr. Wallace actually received.

In California, Mr. Humphrey would have needed more than 70% of Mr. Wallace's votes. Although I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility of that, these weren't Southern states where Mr. Wallace was stealing traditional Southern Democrat votes, but rather Northern and Western states that had often gone Republican.

"The 1964 civil rights act had an impact. It is problematic to extrapolate that impact to 1968."

Yes, it did. But it isn't at all difficult to extrapolate the impact to 1968 and beyond. Even though Republicans voted for the civil rights bills in higher proportions than Democrats, at a national level, a lot of folks who opposed these bills in the South punished the national Democrats, not the Republicans.

The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

"Informed of the general contents of this article, The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, 'The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities.'"

Well, unfortunately, in light of all that eventually came to light, this has even less credibility than articles from the Washington Post.

"'Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).'

"Not really. ALA, Miss, GA, AK and LA went for Stevenson in 1952 and again for Stevenson in 1956..."

Excuse me. I should have made clear that the trend was one that largely got going in 1964, and has continued to the present day.

"'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.'

"That is pure speculation."

Certainly it's speculation. LOL. What is any of this?? ;-)

But the point is that Florida did run far ahead of the country in 1964 for the Republican candidate. It may be speculation, but it is an entirely reasonable, plausible speculation that should Mr. Goldwater have lost, let's say, 55% - 45%, instead of 61% - 39%, that he may have eaked out an extra couple of percent in Florida (After all, the additional votes would have had to come from somewhere, and certainly some number would have come from Florida.).

"We will agree to disagree."

Okay.

"Nixon won a national election in 1968 by 500,000 votes."

Actually, I think he won by over 800,000 votes. Mr. Wallace received around 9.5 million votes, or a little under 13%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1968-Large.png

Who he helped more is of course a debatable point. Like I said, I used to think it was Mr. Nixon, by taking votes from Mr. Humphrey. But I don't think that the evidence clearly points toward that conclusion, especially as the years have gone by, those places from which Mr. Wallace drew most heavily have mostly trended Republican.

"I was just referring to your statement, 'I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents.'"

Then I ask to amend my previous comment to, "I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than the minions of at least some previous presidents."

"What we saw in the case of Nixon was a witch hunt and lynching with a disproportionate reaction and punishment for a President's loyalty to his subordinates."

Well, my view is that it was certainly part witch-hunt, but it was also an adamant refusal by national Republicans to retain a felon as president.

"Clinton was not punished appropriately for his more serious crimes and has been rewarded and fawned over by the MSM ever since finishing his term of office."

I agree. But as I said, we Republicans evict our felons, the Dammocraps enshrine theirs.

"Nixon became a political pariah until he died."

I think that Mr. Nixon had achieved significant rehabilitation by the time he died, although he was certainly not without some stigma even to his dying day, or even since.

"There is no moral equivalency between these two men."

I agree. Mr. Nixon was, in the final analysis, a patriot who loved his country, however flawed he may have been. Mr. Clinton is a narcissist who loves only himself, in spite of whatever intellectual and political gifts he may have.

"And certainly, Nixon's performance in office dwarfs Clinton's pitiful achievements as President."

I don't know that I agree with that. Mr. Clinton took a lesson from the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, and significantly trimmed his sails thereafter. By abdication, in many ways, he governed almost as a centrist Republican, especially on economic issues.

Mr. Nixon, however, was a vigorous president, and in retrospect, I take issue with any number of the things he did, including wage and price controls, controls on oil pricing in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the EPA, affirmative action (started in the federal govt under Mr. Nixon), his handling of the Vietnam War, detente with the Soviet Union, the suggestion to provide every family with a guaranteed income (which some have pointed out eventually morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit), and his cavalier treatment of the Fourth Amendment (which ultimately what all this bugging & stuff gets down to).

I don't think these were particularly conservative, or particularly good for the United States.

But I give him credit for being imaginative, creative, and trying hard to do right by his country.


sitetest


163 posted on 06/01/2005 1:54:24 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: veronica

bttt


164 posted on 06/01/2005 2:00:04 PM PDT by TEXOKIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arasina
"Ben Stein says it best."

He certainly did in this case...

Nixon's communist and media antagonists set out to politically impugn, slander and assassinate him -- AND the country they hate in the process.

As has already been proven as a constant, Democrats Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were corrupt, inept, and sloppy with running the country into the ground with nary a peep from the media, but a Republican had been be picture perfect OR strong like Reagan to be unaffected.

That Republicans must seemingly walk on eggshells or yield on principle, OR be driven out has not changed, has it?

MORE of a reason the steamroll the Democrats AND RINOs at EVERY opportunity (Hello Senate Pubbies)

165 posted on 06/01/2005 2:16:37 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN

I agree with everything you say here. We were weakened as a nation. CArter came in and made it worse. Of course we can only blame ourselves because the republicans ran Jerry Ford and not Reagan.

I agree with some posts here that imply that Felt could hav been spying for Russia. I mean he effectively disposed of a president who was tough on the Russians and at the time was cozying up to China.

I think this should be looked into.

nav


166 posted on 06/01/2005 2:17:10 PM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I don't blame you, but I've seen much of this reported elsewhere.

You persist in using the WP article as gospel and accept their characterization as being correct. Why? In the article, I quoted you something rather important, i.e., Informed of the general contents of this article, "The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, "The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities."

The WP was pushing a political agenda. They hated Nixon for a host of reasons. The article you cited was written by Woodward and Bernstein for God's sake. Do you consider them objective observers? It was written about a month before the 1972 election. Could it be possible they were trying to pull a Dan Rather? Your citing of the loaded words proves my point. This was a hit piece against the GOP and Nixon.

I chose 1964 and 1972 first because they were the closest to 1968, and thus would be most relevant to discussing trends. But also, 1964 showed great erosion in the "Solid South" for the Democrats, ...although Mr. Carter's first term was so disastrous that he oculdn't do even that.

My point is that three election cycles is not sufficient to see a trend. Clinton and Carter may or may not be blips in the long run. There are a number of variables that affect an election including the candidates, issues, events, and demographics. Things change.

1964 was a critical year for the Dems and the South. As I mentioned, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a watershed event for the South. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson is said to have told aide Bill Moyers, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." In 1968 Richard Nixon pursued the famous "Southern strategy," and the region split its votes between him and segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running on the populist American Independent ticket. Hubert Humphrey carried only one Southern state, LBJ's Texas.

The narrative breaks down, however, in 1976. That year Jimmy Carter, a pro-civil rights former governor of Georgia, carried every Southern state but Virginia. Mr. Carter would have lost without the South; the rest of the country gave Gerald Ford 228 electoral votes, to just 170 for Mr. Carter.

By 1976 there was a strong national consensus in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Not only was there never a serious movement to repeal it, but President Nixon had signed an executive order in 1971 expanding the use of racial preferences to provide opportunities for minorities in federal contracting.

Regarding some of the election results, by state, that you cite, I'll generally say just a few things. First, it's quite possible that without the influence of Mr. Wallace, states may have tipped differently. However, in some of the states that you cite, Mr. Wallace's voters would have had to have come at a very high cost to Mr. Humphrey.

I haven't gone through a detailed state by state analysis of the vote and how Wallace influenced it. Obviously, those states, which were won by Nixon in a close race would be the ones worthy of review along with those states won by Wallace or where he came in second in the voting. Wallace was a Democrat, so I have to assume that he received a higher proportion of Dem and Independent voters rather than GOP voters.

Actually, I think he won by over 800,000 votes. Mr. Wallace received around 9.5 million votes, or a little under 13%:

My reference shows about 500,000

1968 Election

Well, my view is that it was certainly part witch-hunt, but it was also an adamant refusal by national Republicans to retain a felon as president.

Should Ford have given him a pardon? He was not a felon until a court proves it.

The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Does that hold true for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (the second time)? Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. It depends on what you call dominance and what constitutes the South. I find your exceptions meaningless.

I don't know that I agree with that. Mr. Clinton took a lesson from the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, and significantly trimmed his sails thereafter. By abdication, in many ways, he governed almost as a centrist Republican, especially on economic issues.

Clinton's few accomplishments: welfare reform (he vetoed it three times), and deficit reduction were really the product of a GOP controlled Congress. While Clinton was preoccupied with satisfying his sexual urges in the Oval Office, al-Qaeda was attacking US targets repeatedly without any real response from us (including the East Africa embassy bombings, which killed or wounded 5,000 people), the North Koreans were developing nuclear weapons, and our military and intelligence capabilities were going to hell in a handbasket. Clinton was a disaster as far as foreign policy was concerned and we are still reaping the results. His pardons at the end of his administration were a disgrace.

Mr. Nixon, however, was a vigorous president, and in retrospect, I take issue with any number of the things he did, including wage and price controls, controls on oil pricing in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the EPA, affirmative action (started in the federal govt under Mr. Nixon), his handling of the Vietnam War, detente with the Soviet Union, the suggestion to provide every family with a guaranteed income (which some have pointed out eventually morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit), and his cavalier treatment of the Fourth Amendment (which ultimately what all this bugging & stuff gets down to).

I don't think these were particularly conservative, or particularly good for the United States.

I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance. I think I understand where you are coming from. FWIW, I think Nixon was a far better President than Clinton, especially in foreign policy.

167 posted on 06/01/2005 3:16:21 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: astounded; veronica

<< Nixon was not a ..."lying conniving seducer like Clinton...".

I think the correct phrase here is not "seducer" but "serial rapist". Clinton is a common criminal, not a good 'ol boy politician, who was indicted (by impeachment) but not convicted by the good 'ol boy network of cronies and thieves who comprise the US Senate. So, too, his "wife" is a criminal, who has yet to be indicted, but that would be too much to expect given her tentacles into too many folks. >>

Spot on.

Thank you.


168 posted on 06/01/2005 3:22:22 PM PDT by Brian Allen (The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem -- Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Brilliant piece, V.

Thank you -- B A


169 posted on 06/01/2005 3:23:08 PM PDT by Brian Allen (The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem -- Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad; bejaykay

<< And would Nixon have prevented the killing fields? I tend to doubt it

Then your historical ignorance is the equal of your snarky arrogance.

EOM. >>

Well said -- B A


170 posted on 06/01/2005 3:24:42 PM PDT by Brian Allen (The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem -- Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
Does anyone remember a certain someone whose entire life was ruined because SHE DID THE RIGHT THING and spilled the beans when proded by a friend to commit a felony to protect criminal PRESIDENT?

Hmmm...L.T., Lawrence Taylor? ...Linda Tripp. :D

171 posted on 06/01/2005 4:09:07 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Wage and Price controls...'nuff said


172 posted on 06/01/2005 4:10:53 PM PDT by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
In 1972 Ted Kennedy was not even in the running for the Presidency. He had been in the Senate for 10 years and had no interest in running for President after having his two brothers assassinated. He was just 40 years old.

Agree...and he Sen. "Swimmer" (HIC!) Kennedy still had water in his ears, after "his little" swim off the (Chappaquiddick..7/18/69) Bridge in Martha VineYards.

173 posted on 06/01/2005 4:22:42 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
Good point. I forgot how close that occurred to 1972. It is amazing he ever tried to run given that incident. Like Clinton, Kennedy has no shame.
174 posted on 06/01/2005 5:05:32 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Uhhuh35

Nixon didn't have anything to do with the break-in. Just the cover-up.


175 posted on 06/01/2005 5:05:49 PM PDT by No Longer Free State (As the Arabic saying has it: The caravan will continue its journey even if the wolves howl along the)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Nixon campaigned on that same promise in 1968, saying that he had a "secret plan," but didn't get around to actually pulling troops out until the fall of '72. It was the October surprise of the 1972 election. That's four years of death in Vietnam under his watch.

May 14, 1969 - During his first TV speech on Vietnam, President Nixon presents a peace plan in which America and North Vietnam would simultaneously pull out of South Vietnam over the next year. The offer is rejected by Hanoi.

June 8, 1969 - President Nixon meets South Vietnam's President Nguyen Van Thieu at Midway Island and informs him U.S. troop levels are going to be sharply reduced. During a press briefing with Thieu, Nixon announces "Vietnamization" of the war and a U.S. troop withdrawal of 25,000 men.

June 27, 1969 - Life magazine displays portrait photos of all 242 Americans killed in Vietnam during the previous week, including the 46 killed at 'Hamburger Hill.' The photos have a stunning impact on Americans nationwide as they view the once smiling young faces of the dead.

July 1969 - President Nixon, through a French emissary, sends a secret letter to Ho Chi Minh urging him to settle the war, while at the same time threatening to resume bombing if peace talks remain stalled as of November 1. In August, Hanoi responds by repeating earlier demands for Viet Cong participation in a coalition government in South Vietnam.

July 8, 1969 - The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men from the 9th Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop withdrawal will occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972.

There were over 500,000 U.S. troops in and around South Vietnam in June 1969. Were we supposed to just pack up and leave, handing a victory to the communist after taking 30,000 dead for nothing? How would you have arranged a withdrawal from an ally in the South East Asia Treaty Organization during the Cold War? How old are you?

176 posted on 06/01/2005 5:13:55 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: astounded

Don't guess the MSM really pays attention to such crimes as BODY COUNTS, rape, and other crimes that the Clinton's have in their closets. "Crime" is open to loose interpretation by some.


177 posted on 06/01/2005 5:17:37 PM PDT by cynblogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cuteconservativechick

Read this thread and you'll get the gist of what the MSM won't tell you....as to "why now".....I heard the family wants MONEY......AND, as to whether he's taking the Fall for someone else....I doubt it, but that's just ME.


178 posted on 06/01/2005 5:25:07 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Our military......the world's HEROES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

What is wrong with the word "hop?"


179 posted on 06/01/2005 5:26:17 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Our military......the world's HEROES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Her heinous worked to deny Richard Nixon the right to have an attorney. This MUST become a major part of a 'Swift Boat Vets-type ad' if/when Hillary runs in 2008. It's a MAJOR item!

az

180 posted on 06/01/2005 5:29:08 PM PDT by Arizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Dear kabar,

I don't take the Washington Post as discredited a source as the Nixon White House commenting on its illegal activities. I could go and dig up other sources, but I've already spent more time on our conversation than I should. Ultimately, though, a large number of White House officials, even at the highest levels, were convicted of felonies, and many went to prison, including, but not limited to, HR Haldeman, John Mitchell, John Dean, G Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson, and a bunch of others.

To deny the illegalities that emanated from the Nixon White House, at the very highest levels (Remembering that Mr. Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator - spared the ignominy of indictment because Mr. Cox didn't think you could indict a sitting president.) is tendentious.

Remember that Mr. Nixon likely needed Mr. Ford's pardon to escape indictment.

Thus, the White House denials, in retrospect, ring hollow.

"My point is that three election cycles is not sufficient to see a trend."

Perhaps not. However, I think that subsequent election cycles have demonstrated that the South has mostly trended Republican from 1964. The exceptions occur when Southern Democrats lead the ticket (Although, as I pointed out, even that didn't avail Mr. Carter in 1980, and as you pointed out, it didn't help Mr. Gore in 2000. Maybe the larger point is that the South is becoming so Republican that even Southern Democrats can't win there? I don't know, although I'm not sure I'm willing to call Washington-raised Mr. Gore a "true son of the South.").

But I agree that we're on shaky ground in trying to read the tea leaves of "what if?"

Which was my point. There are folks who ably defend the argument that without Mr. Wallace, Mr. Nixon would have won by even more. As I've said in nearly every post to you, I'm not sure I buy that, but I think the folks who think it have a good argument.

However, even you give evidence of the argument when you say, "In 1968 Richard Nixon pursued the famous 'Southern strategy,' and the region split its votes between him and segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running on the populist American Independent ticket."

Without Mr. Wallace, he would not have split those votes, he'd have gotten them all (or a lot closer to all than he actually got). If he was, indeed, "split[ting] votes" with Mr. Wallace, then without Mr. Wallace's presence, it isn't likely that Mr. Humphrey would have gotten the majority (and large majority in some states) of Mr. Wallace's erstwhile votes.

"My reference shows about 500,000."

Hmmm, yours does. But mine doesn't. That's interesting. If I have time later, I may see if I can come up with something more definitive.

"Should Ford have given him a pardon?"

I don't know. I thought so at the time.

"He was not a felon until a court proves it."

If you see someone commit a crime, even if a court never adjudicates it, you know their guilt. We could all see Mr. Nixon's crimes in public. He is as innocent of his crimes as Mr. Clinton is of those felonies of which he was never convicted (Remember, he was never even indicted, no less convicted for any felony whatsoever.). But I don't hold Mr. Clinton as being innocent of felonies, no matter how well he weaseled out of indictment, and neither do I hold Mr. Nixon innocent, either.

"'The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.'

"Does that hold true for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (the second time)? Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. It depends on what you call dominance and what constitutes the South. I find your exceptions meaningless."

Well, certainly since 1964, the only times the Dems have won is with Southerners. Thus, it appears at this time to be a necessary condition. However, I didn't assert it as a sufficient condition. If you interpreted it that way, my apologies for not being clearer, although I thought that by pointing out that Mr. Carter lost in 1980 in spite of still being a Georgian, you would understand that.

"I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance."

Yes, certainly, since I was arguing against "how good a president Mr. Nixon was in comparison to Mr. Clinton." If you'd have come to Mr. Clinton's defense, I'd have told you more of why I believe such a defense to be incorrect.

As well, because I said that after 1994, he largely abdicated his office, and became passive, as you affirm in what you, yourself post:

"Clinton's few accomplishments: welfare reform (he vetoed it three times), and deficit reduction were really the product of a GOP controlled Congress."

Thank you for affirming what I said. To expand, I'd say that because Mr. Clinton was off being monicaed, and not really paying much attention to things, he did much less harm than if he'd have been a more activist liberal president.

There are fewer negative things to say about Mr. Clinton because he did less.

However, in some critical ways, he may have done more harm than Mr. Nixon, although it will be history to judge, and that determination still awaits. My own opinion is that Mr. Clinton's greatest harm as president came in that he persuaded the American people to buy off on a significant lowering of moral standards in the United States. Most teens now don't view oral sex as sex. But I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

Although as a child and a teenager I was an avid Republican supporter, and was quite enthusiastic about Mr. Nixon's elections in both 1968 and 1972 (It was in 1968 that I really became a political junkie), as I got older, I came to slowly conclude that he wasn't as good a president as I'd thought. I think others have mentioned (or maybe I read it elsewhere) that Mr. Nixon was quite adept at tactics, but not always so good at strategy, at the big picture.

When I compare Mr. Nixon's approach to foreign policy with Mr. Reagan's, Mr. Nixon's faults become clear. Whereas Mr. Reagan could imagine a world where totalitarian communism might run its course, and could think of strategies to hasten the day, Mr. Nixon (and Mr. Kissinger) could only envision "peaceful coexistence" and perhaps a slow and perhaps imperceptible convergence between the two systems. In 1972, detente seemed pretty cool, peaceful coexistence the best we could do, and perhaps convergence might not be so bad (hey, I was 12, whaddaya want??).

But in hindsight, where Mr. Nixon was a masterful player of the scenario given him, Mr. Reagan was masterful at forcing a new scenario.

As for domestic policy, I view Mr. Nixon as perhaps a little better than a disaster. He certainly wasn't as bad as Mr. Carter, although much of what happened on Mr. Ford's watch traces to decisions made during Mr. Nixon's term.

"I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance. I think I understand where you are coming from."

I'm not sure you do. I am only grateful that Mr. Clinton was such a self-pleasuring narcissistic hedonist, and such a cowardly, frightened little turd, that he never really seriously pursued a full-throated liberal agenda after 1994. Although I don't rate Mr. Nixon highly as president, Mr. Clinton was not half the man, half the patriot, or half as decent a human being as Mr. Nixon was.


sitetest


181 posted on 06/01/2005 5:36:55 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
I did not watch the presser so I have no idea.

The media is truly insane but evidently the president himself said, that wasn't dignified, so I'll change it to.....I have to leave.

The whole thing curls my hair.

182 posted on 06/01/2005 6:10:22 PM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: yoe
(from a link on Powerlineblog. this morning)

A must read.

Thank you. Epstein offers a very interesting take portraying Nixon as obsessed with an Olds Media, in turn obsessed with myth building. Epstein's most elucidating thoughts, IMHO:

What was the role of the press in all this? At best, during the unraveling of the cover-up, the press was able to leak the scheduled testimony a few days in advance of its appearance on television. ...

If instead of chastising the press, President Nixon and his staff had correctly identified the "signals" from the FBI, and had replaced Gray with an FBI executive, things might have turned out differently. ...

Perhaps the most perplexing mystery in Bernstein and Woodward's book is why they fail to understand the role of the institutions and investigators who were supplying them and other reporters with leaks. This blind spot, endemic to journalists, proceeds from an unwillingness to see the complexity of bureaucratic in-fighting and of politics within the government itself. If the government is considered monolithic, journalists can report its activities, in simply comprehended and coherent terms, as an adversary out of touch with popular sentiments. On the other hand, if governmental activity is viewed as the product of diverse and competing agencies, all with different bases of power and interests, journalism becomes a much more difficult affair.

In [any] event. the fact remains that it was not the press, which exposed Watergate; it was agencies of government itself. So long as journalists maintain their blind spot toward the inner conflicts and workings of the institution, of government, they will no doubt continue to peak of Watergate in terms of the David and Goliath myth, with Bernstein and Woodward as David and the government as Goliath.


183 posted on 06/01/2005 6:41:19 PM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cuteconservativechick
Also, what I don't understand is why is Felt coming out now?

A political agenda seems to motivate Felt. Perhaps he wants to take the spotlight off of the humiliation suffered by the Left in the aftermath of France's recent rejection of the EU.

184 posted on 06/01/2005 6:51:43 PM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Nothing betrays your indifference to conservatism like cheerleading for Nixon. I rank Nixon third, after Woodrow Wilson and FDR of all of the presidents who did the most damage to our nation.


185 posted on 06/01/2005 6:51:45 PM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Why else would you ask the SOD a question like that?

He was Assistant to the Pres. under Ford so I can only imagine that he was in the Nixon Whitehouse as well.

But what would I know?

186 posted on 06/01/2005 7:00:41 PM PDT by perfect stranger (I need new glasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger
He was Assistant to the Pres. under Ford so I can only imagine that he was in the Nixon Whitehouse as well.

But what would I know?

In 1969, Rumsfeld surprised colleagues by resigning from the House and joining the Nixon administration. His new job, running the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), seemed an odd fit. Robert Hartmann, then a Ford aide in Congress, recalled that conservatives thought Rumsfeld would work to abolish OEO, which had been established as part of Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty." Nixon's domestic agenda, however, was only slightly less liberal than Johnson's. Rumsfeld not only kept OEO afloat, he seemed to thrive there, and made new friends across the political spectrum, a trait that marked his entire government and corporate career. But his most important new friendship was with a young Republican named Dick Cheney. ...

Rumsfeld left OEO in December 1970 to take another big-government job: director of the Cost of Living Council. His job was to oversee the board that imposed Nixon's ill-conceived program to set wages and prices to control runaway inflation. "It was madness every day," recalls Judge Silberman, who as undersecretary of labor frequently attended council meetings. Rumsfeld tells the story that when Labor Secretary George Shultz offered him the job, he answered, "But I don't agree with that stuff." Replied Shultz, "That's why we're appointing you." The job came with the seemingly added bonus of being a counselor to President Nixon. At age thrity-eight, he shared power with H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and John Dean.

Rumsfeld's War


187 posted on 06/01/2005 7:22:57 PM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

I saw the movie too. I thought they said Castro was behind Kennedy. Someone told me once that Onassis had Kennedy assassinated because he wanted Jackie. After I quit laughing, I asked that person to repeat it so I could be sure I hadn't misheard.


188 posted on 06/01/2005 7:56:17 PM PDT by Jaded (Hell sometimes has fluorescent lighting and a trumpet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Milhous

Thanks. I'll have to get that book and then read it.


189 posted on 06/01/2005 8:08:58 PM PDT by perfect stranger (I need new glasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

I often wonder if Nixon signed domestic policy bills just to shut people up. The hippies were whining so he signed the EPA. The blacks were whining (big surprise!!) so he signed affirmative action. I doubt he thought of long-term ramifications of his domestic policies as he was busy fighting in Vietnam (where John Kerry was) and saving the world from nuclear holocaust.


190 posted on 06/01/2005 8:16:28 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

So, truth is out that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward weren't great journalist - they just sat there while a liberal "fed" them classified dirt on a conservative. And this is different, how?


191 posted on 06/01/2005 8:42:57 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping.


192 posted on 06/01/2005 8:43:32 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

You raise some excellent points.


193 posted on 06/01/2005 9:23:23 PM PDT by scott7278 (Before I give you the benefit of my reply, I'd like to know what we're talking about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: veronica

My mom supported Nixon all through Watergate ........until she found out he used the F-word more than once. That ended it. She dropped him in one minute. I didn't dare say "heck" at my house!


194 posted on 06/01/2005 9:28:31 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

I did watch the presser, and IMO, it was, um, well, cute, for lack of a better descriptor. He did think better of it and changed it to I have to leave and one other verb, I think. What was wrong with it? Why, Bush said it, of course. :)


195 posted on 06/01/2005 11:02:40 PM PDT by Kylie_04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
RE: "...started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?"

...Started the EPA?   Yeah,   I   remember 'something'.

...but I will readily agree that, if compared to John Kerry or the Clintons, none of whom were EVER held accountable, Nixon would have to be judged as merely incompetent, rather than traitorous or evil.


196 posted on 06/02/2005 12:12:06 AM PDT by Seadog Bytes (“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”—Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Ping.


197 posted on 06/02/2005 12:14:21 AM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
Yep. Now they're saying that Deep Throat wasn't really important. He was only confirming what they already knew.

Deep Throat pulled the rug out from under Woodward and Bernstein and the WP. They were waiting for Felts to kick the bucket so they could bring out the story. Felts upstaged them. :)


198 posted on 06/02/2005 1:45:32 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Kylie_04
The more ridiculous the media gets, the more the people see it for what it is.

I did cringe tho when I heard him use the word......dis-assemble when he meant dissemble.......

ouch

199 posted on 06/02/2005 3:27:20 AM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

I agree with you completely. I also think if Nixon had stayed we would have won that stupid war that ended up being run by politicians who did not know crap about tactics.


200 posted on 06/02/2005 5:43:52 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson