Dear kabar,
"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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/101072-1.htm
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.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WatergateChronology.htm
"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:
Arizona
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
In 1968, Mr. Wallace won:
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Georgia
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.
sitetest
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.