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

Skip to comments.

Forty years after Watergate, we need Woodward and Bernstein
BizPac Review ^ | November 15, 2012 | Michael Dorstewitz

Posted on 11/15/2012 9:10:12 AM PST by cap10mike

In June, the Washington Post celebrated the 40th anniversary of the biggest scoop in journalistic history — Watergate. Looking back on it, the Post has every right to crow. The story was so huge that every political scandal since has been labeled with the word “gate” tagged onto the end of it. However, the Post should also consider the adage, “You’re only as good as your last story,” because there’s a bigger one out there for the taking, if it only had the courage to pursue it. That story is, of course, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: compliantmedia; obama; pressconference; watergate
It's long past time to replace the lapdog media with a new crop of investigative journalists who aren't afraid to ask real questions.
1 posted on 11/15/2012 9:10:25 AM PST by cap10mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

I’d prefer Mitch Rapp.


2 posted on 11/15/2012 9:11:16 AM PST by crosshairs (America: Once the land of the free. Still the home of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

They’d be vilified by the left FOR LIFE. Death threats against them if they took down Obama. Likely a career killer for anyone not wanting to work at Fox.

Fortunately there’s now a sex scandal. So the drive by media will have to pay attention.


3 posted on 11/15/2012 9:12:48 AM PST by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

The problem with the media to day is their judgement and outrage isn’t based on right and wrong, but on what party the person belongs to... If the New York Times shills find a Republican jay walking they reach down and discover a pair...


4 posted on 11/15/2012 9:15:06 AM PST by GOPJ (Petraeus confession: like something from a 'Soviet purge trial'....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

We do like hell! They kept deep throat’s identity a secret until Mark Felt’s death because they didn’t want it to be known that their “informant” was a disgruntled, jealous, and vengeful government employee who was pissed that Nixon passed him over for head of the FBI after Hoover’s death.

Bob Woodward’s books are worthless tripe.


5 posted on 11/15/2012 9:15:08 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

The media is doing nothing different than it did during the Watergate era. Their job is to take down Republicans and protect Democrats. Woodward and Bernstein are still around, and defended to the death every charge against Obama and Clinton before. To expect the MSM to investigate Obama in the same way they would Nixon, Reagan, or W is a pipe dream. They will even move the goalposts while a story develops. I remember when the whole Monica thing hit. Sam Donaldson was speaking with Cokey Roberts on ABC prior to the blue dress. Both said that if the charges were true Clinton was done and would have to resign, After the blue dress both changed their tune on the dime and defended Slick to the death.


6 posted on 11/15/2012 9:19:54 AM PST by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

The media is doing nothing different than it did during the Watergate era. Their job is to take down Republicans and protect Democrats. Woodward and Bernstein are still around, and defended to the death every charge against Obama and Clinton before. To expect the MSM to investigate Obama in the same way they would Nixon, Reagan, or W is a pipe dream. They will even move the goalposts while a story develops. I remember when the whole Monica thing hit. Sam Donaldson was speaking with Cokey Roberts on ABC prior to the blue dress. Both said that if the charges were true Clinton was done and would have to resign, After the blue dress both changed their tune on the dime and defended Slick to the death.


7 posted on 11/15/2012 9:19:54 AM PST by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike
Forty years after Watergate, we need Woodward and Bernstein

An interesting concept. At the same time, we realize that even the real Woodward and Bernstein weren't "Woodward and Bernstein." Their primary cause didn't appear to be the truth, patriotism, or even good journalism. They seem to have invented a lot of what they wrote (remember "factoids"?), and were following what Joe Sobran called The Hive in targeting Nixon because the Left never forgave him for nailing St. Alger Hissssss in 1948.

What we need is a group of truth-tellers to help take down our own little Mussolini.

8 posted on 11/15/2012 9:21:05 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Woodward might....forget Bernstein!!!


9 posted on 11/15/2012 9:22:03 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Please! You have to be joking W&B are a couple of the biggest hyped-up excuses for what one calls what passes for journalism that have ever existed. Woodward is a simp that trades on his notariety, and Bernstein - well, God knows what the hell he’s up to now....

They took a mole hill and blew it up into a mountain along with a bunch of colluding MSM ideologues. They are actually lightweight compared to the machinations of the Democrat Tyranny Regime now days.


10 posted on 11/15/2012 9:22:32 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
"They’d be vilified by the left FOR LIFE. Death threats against them if they took down Obama."

RIGHT ON! If anyone in the media herd dared to go hard at Obama they would be putting not just their career, but their social world on the line.

11 posted on 11/15/2012 9:23:19 AM PST by Baynative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Bob Woodward’s books are worthless tripe.

And yet he has the gratitude of the New Left (plus fame and fortune) for forever branding Republicans as corrupt.

Nixon, like so many other politicians, became convinced that his re-election was somehow necessary for the survival of the free world.

The New Left simply capitalized rather completely on his mistake.
12 posted on 11/15/2012 9:24:33 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike
Another Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee, and Katharine Graham? In the MSM? Hahaha!!

They admired and loved the campus radicals who today dominate the Establishment.

The likes of Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee, and Graham today are the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats and their ideological issue whom the real Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee, and Graham admired.

I remember.

The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats were celebrated in the establishment MSM as the most intelligent generation ever!. They are now arguably that very establishment that praised them and they hold themselves and their ideological issue in even higher regard.

You are not going to find a Woodward and Bernstein in the MSM among the skid marks on Journalism's shorts.

BTW.. on Watergate, can anyone name one thing that Nixon did that JFK and LBJ did not do?

I can name one thing that the MSM did in Nixon's administration that they did not do in JFK's and LBJ's administrations.. they asked questions!

13 posted on 11/15/2012 9:42:40 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

And the left also, after Nixon’s horrific (to them) 49 state landlide, became determined that any repulican nominee going forward was to be repudiated, despised and destroyed. Only Reagan beat them, because he had the people behind him and they were horrified again in both 1980 and 1984. 1988 was a landslide too but Bush was a go-along moderate who could be duped, then detroyed in four years (and was).

And since, the pressure has been on republican nominees to never, ever run as a conservative or all hell and damnation will be brought down upon you. What the moderate nominees since Reagan haven’t realized is that, hell and damnation will be brought anyway, no matter what, so you might as well stand for something. But moderates don’t stand for anything. And conservatives have been convinced that running as conservatives leads to political oblivion, the examples of ‘80, ‘84, 00, and ‘04 notwithstanding. Yet they’re more than happy to follow the examples of ‘76, ‘92, ‘96, and ‘08.


14 posted on 11/15/2012 9:44:29 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Does anyone here believe Woodward and Bernstein told the truth?


15 posted on 11/15/2012 9:55:06 AM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
And since, the pressure has been on republican nominees to never, ever run as a conservative or all hell and damnation will be brought down upon you.

Then, how did GWB get away with running as a conservative and still winning? Twice?

I'll grant you that GWB may not have been the conservative he claimed to be, but there were many conservative aspects to his administration. Respect for the military, respect for life, etc.

Indeed, during the 2000 campaign, I was convinced that GWB was the 3rd most conservative candidate to run for the Presidency in my lifetime -- after Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Not my idea of "conservative", to be sure, but still "more conservative" than his dad -- or Bob Dole or Richard Nixon, e.g.

16 posted on 11/15/2012 10:11:07 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Fat chance..they are libs.


17 posted on 11/15/2012 10:12:48 AM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
They kept deep throat’s identity a secret until Mark Felt’s death because they didn’t want it to be known that their “informant” was a disgruntled, jealous, and vengeful government employee who was pissed that Nixon passed him over for head of the FBI after Hoover’s death.

Do you really think a content Nixon loyalist would have "blown the whistle"? Enablers are rarely a good source of incriminating evidence.

18 posted on 11/15/2012 10:18:44 AM PST by varon (11-06-2012 dob United Socialist Ghettos of America (USGA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Bush was from Texas and knew how republicans thought, even though he didn’t think the same way (although he was more with the conservatives than his father was). He also solidly had the evangelicals behind him, who he heard from in spades, which probably blunted the more moderate to liberal advice that Romney and McCain probably got.

Bush first term was very conservative. Once he was safely re-elected, he started to screw us all. Harriet Myers, Alberto Gonzalez, Katrina, capitulating to the Colin Powell view of the war on terror, talking about clmate change, going along with Tarp, etc. The moderates and liberals wore him down. People like Reagan and Gingrich and Delay (and even Nixon) relished the political fight and went charging in, instead of retreating.


19 posted on 11/15/2012 10:57:08 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

We don’t lack for reporters with integrity!

It’s just that the MSM won’t hire any of them, so 75% of the public never hears them!


20 posted on 11/15/2012 11:04:04 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
We don’t lack for reporters with integrity!

Right.

I suppose they work right down the road from Santa's workshop, in the same building as the Easter Bunny.

.....don't mind my bad attitude. Once upon a time, I was considering majoring in Journalism, but lost any fine illusions I ever had about that deal after the '60 elections.

Oh, yeah.....then there was always the 'Nam and the "marvelous" journalism practiced on that subject....

(I don't even need to bother with the /sarc, do I?)

21 posted on 11/15/2012 11:35:24 AM PST by Unrepentant VN Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Unrepentant VN Vet

Why did you ignore my explanitory line?

“It’s just that the MSM won’t hire any of them, so 75% of the public never hears them!”

Fox, NY Post, Wash. Times, Several conservative magazines and on-line publications hire them.

The issue is exposure and consumption.


22 posted on 11/15/2012 12:07:45 PM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Good luck wid dat!!!The guys Woodward and Bernstein were working for are in the White House!!!!


23 posted on 11/15/2012 12:11:33 PM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

They killed Andrew Breitbart.


24 posted on 11/15/2012 12:14:51 PM PST by TheConservativeParty ( Laissez les mal temps rouler! 1454 days until Nov.8,2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

Anyone but the lapdogs we have.


25 posted on 11/15/2012 12:42:20 PM PST by cap10mike (Free market)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Ain’t that the truth. Allow four good Americans to get murdered through the White House’s disinterest and they aren’t interested. Throw in a couple of steamy nights of illicit sex and all at once they want more. They should all be working at the National Inquirer.


26 posted on 11/15/2012 12:46:10 PM PST by cap10mike (Free market)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Yep. “All the News that’s fit to print” has become “All the news that fits.”


27 posted on 11/15/2012 12:48:42 PM PST by cap10mike (Free market)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

By “we need Woodward and Bernstein,” the author didn’t mean them per se, but rather what they represent — dogged determination to find the truth. There’s no question but that the WaPo has always been a liberal newspaper. But we need that same dedication no matter who it favors or incriminates.


28 posted on 11/15/2012 12:54:44 PM PST by cap10mike (Free market)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

1972, Democrats lost and they sought to overturn the election by impeaching the Republican president.
1980, Democrats lost and they sought to overturn the elections (also 1984) with investigations into the Iranian hostage release and Iran-Contra.
1988, Democrats lost and they sought to overturn the election with “Brought to Light” investigations into Bush’s CIA activities.
2000, Democrats lost and the sought to overturn the election first with crackpot “Bush knew” conspiracy theories (even Hillary made the claim from the floor of the Senate) and then with talk of “war crimes” and “torture”.

PUSH BACK AT THE RATS

It was not the GOP who created this era of hostility in American politics.


29 posted on 11/15/2012 12:55:02 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

We need journalists dedicated to finding and disclosing the truth, let the chips fall where they may.


30 posted on 11/15/2012 12:57:52 PM PST by cap10mike (Free market)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

“By “we need Woodward and Bernstein,” the author didn’t mean them per se, but rather what they represent — dogged determination to find the truth.”

Oh, I’m well aware of what they meant. And Woodward and Bernstein were not virtuous reporters out for the truth. They were ambitious reporters working for a liberal paper who wanted to take down Nixon because they were liberals. And they coverered for their asses and their sources, not out of their belief in the freedom of the press, but to keep their own power and influence.


31 posted on 11/15/2012 1:03:44 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

There would be dead people already instead of “hearings”.


32 posted on 11/15/2012 2:28:35 PM PST by MissMagnolia ("It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains" - Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Forget Woodward and Bernstein. We need Judge Sirica.

Threatening miscreants and traitors with iron bars in their face has a way of getting the truth out.


33 posted on 11/15/2012 3:54:54 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Yeah, but there was a time when we thought the media was more like a knight in shining armor - defending what was right and just against what was wrong and corrupt.

Now we know the truth - the MSM is a Chicago Street gang - fifty of them at a time - kicking one person in the groin... and that one person is some hapless conservative American.


34 posted on 11/15/2012 4:06:40 PM PST by GOPJ (Petraeus confession: like something from a 'Soviet purge trial'....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike
Yep. “All the News that’s fit to print” has become “All the news that fits.”

You're right - all the news that fits the liberal elite agenda...

35 posted on 11/15/2012 4:08:16 PM PST by GOPJ (Petraeus confession: like something from a 'Soviet purge trial'....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; cotton1706; cap10mike
One example of the 1960's - 1980's, and who initiates what regarding "Democrats" and "Republicans"...

A study published in 1966 by the Council on Foreign Relations concluded that American citizens were more open to talks with China than their elected leaders. In 1971, Kissinger (a member of the Council) took a secret trip to Beijing to approach Chinese leaders, which led to Nixon's trip to China in 1972. Diplomatic relations were normalized by Carter's Secretary of State, another Council member, Cyrus Vance. Most people are under the impression that "Nixon" "opened up China", when, in effect, the true origins of the policy were outside of the U.S. government - who knows exactly where and how - and then the policy was officially adopted by the U.S. government from then until now.

The effects of "experts" employed outside the government are far greater than those of elected politicians. That's not to say every elected politician doesn't put his own "personality" on policies, but that major policy and strategic directions originate in the minds of various elites that are not elected. Mind you, these "elites" are not all working in the same direction as "conspiracy theorists" propose, and they certainly don't "control" every little minute event or every single person, but they do represent planning and coordination amongst a few influential events here and there (like revolutions, the introduction of popular ideas, etc.) as well as a small percentage of the population that is very influential. It is also very easy for investors on this "inside track" to make tremendous amounts of profit if they so choose, of course, since they frequently know extremely valuable "insider" information, however, in general, this policy generation, IMHO, has all the earmarks of simple arrogance.

Of course, the Woodwards of the world, etc., as well as their employers, are just a piece of the puzzle.

What throws a good kink in the works nowadays, of course, is that almost anyone can place information into the worldwide public square, in essence, having 1/2 the capability of an investigative reporter. The other 1/2, of course, is having access to non-public information as a result of investigation. Ergo, the O'Keefe's of the world...
36 posted on 11/15/2012 4:41:29 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

“Most people are under the impression that “Nixon” “opened up China”, when, in effect, the true origins of the policy were outside of the U.S. government - who knows exactly where and how”

Well, I believe our China policy did origniate with Nixon. He did have a brilliant mind. Keep in mind we were at war with Vietnam at the time and had a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Communists don’t trust each other so Nixon started talks with the Communist Chinese to scare the hell out of the Soviets, who then eased up their support of Vietnam to shore up their support against China. And Nixon had an admiration for the Chinese. He’d met Chiang Kai Shek when he was either in Congress or as VP. Nixon’s foreign policy was brilliant (except for Taiwan and the Panama Canal in my opinion). He saved Israel during the Yom Kippur war. He told his generals to “send everything that flies, dammit!”


37 posted on 11/15/2012 5:16:19 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Thank you for the information. My feeling at the time was that anything we could do to disturb the U.S.S.R. was fine with me. I was no fan of Red China however. Every crime of the "agrarian reformers" against the Chinese people was a contemporaneous event for me.

I recall the MSM Watergate frenzy.. it seemed to me that employees of the MSM including the famous duo spent their days throwing stuff against the wall caring not if it stuck but delighting in the acts themselves. If some stuff stuck.. well great! the important thing to them was the attacks on Nixon. Period.

I would like to be able to ask them to name one thing that Nixon did -- or was merely accused of doing -- that JFK and LBJ did not in fact do.

I know the differences vis-a-vis the Nixon press vs. the JFK and LBJ press: the Nixon press asked tons of questions; the JFK and LBJ press asked none --

with the possible exception of LBJ and Bobby Baker. But after JFK was assassinated, there was no longer a JFK and RFK to pursue LBJ and Bobby Baker, the press lost interest, and LBJ was the president; by a strange coincidence -- golly gee -- there was no longer any MSM interest in the scandal and LBJ's close association with Bobby Baker. I think Baker wound up serving a short time in prison and everything was forgotten.

38 posted on 11/15/2012 7:44:25 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Nixon, like so many other politicians, became convinced that his re-election was somehow necessary for the survival of the free world. The New Left simply capitalized rather completely on his mistake.

And in the process, the Left's successes have tended to prove Nixon right, haven't they?

People forget how close we came to tempting the Soviets to attack West Germany with our weakness in the 70's. Fortunately, SecDef Harold Brown and Jimmuh himself saw the danger and started turning (some) things around .... although Jimmuh did stupidly cancel the B-1 bomber program, that Bob Dornan and Ronald Reagan had to go out and rescue from the junkheap.

But considering the way things have gone, we'd be infinitely better off today if Nixon had completed both terms and been succeeded immediately by Ronald Reagan.

39 posted on 11/15/2012 10:16:30 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
It was not the GOP who created this era of hostility in American politics.

Exactly right. Newt Gingrich wasn't in Congress yet in 1974 (I think he got elected in 1976 iirc -- I should know, since he ran in my old Ga. congressional 3rd district before I moved away in 1975), but he placed the blame with the Democratic "Watergate Class" of 1974 and 1976, who came into office with hidebound liberal moral and intellectual smugness and promptly began to break down the old collegiality by e.g. reducing the number of GOP seats on congressional committees and changing procedures to limit Republican comments and amendments.

Gingrich knew what he was talking about, and his willingness to buck marshmallowy RiNO's like House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois who just took all the guff and abuse is what got him the Speaker's chair, that and the Contract with America.

40 posted on 11/15/2012 10:26:06 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
I would like to be able to ask them to name one thing that Nixon did -- or was merely accused of doing -- that JFK and LBJ did not in fact do.

Exactly. The "Imperial Presidency" was a whomped-up recreation of FDR's wartime powers intended for peacetime use, confected by liberal intellectuals like James MacGregor Burns and Arthur Schlesinger. The "Imperial Presidency" was prepared for The Good Prince, a liberal hyper-president like FDR who would use all manner of unconstitutional powers to Do Good Liberalism.

Nixon took all those powers and rammed them up their ass. God, how they hated him! For being an anticommunist, for exposing real lying, traitorous Communists, for beating Hubert Humphrey the Good, for humiliating the Prairie Populist (Stalinist, actually), George McGovern, who'd been a delegate to Stalin's rump Prog convention in 1948. They hated him for all those reasons. But he taught them to fear their own creation, and they've been crazy with double-vision ever since.

41 posted on 11/15/2012 10:32:56 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All

Remember when the Dems wanted Impeach Reagan for the “Appearance of Impropriety?”

Yet Clinton lies under oath, lies to a Grand Jury, pressures others to commit perjury and the Dems and the media say it was all about “getting a BJ” and nothing more.

FTMSM
FUBO


42 posted on 11/16/2012 1:02:24 AM PST by Rodney Dangerfield ("Hate standing in line at the Post Office?, wait until ObamaCare is implemented.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cap10mike

Sure, we could have a conservative Woodward, or Bernstein. That would work. Like Breitbart. Nothing happened to HIM...


43 posted on 11/16/2012 1:30:49 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
But considering the way things have gone, we'd be infinitely better off today if Nixon had completed both terms and been succeeded immediately by Ronald Reagan.

Possible Presidential actions can be considered in three classes, those that are clearly legal, those that are clearly illegal and those that are somewhere in the gray area in between.

We can also divide possible actions a President takes into two basic categories: those that are a means to the end of his getting re-elected, supporting his party or other candidates, etc., i.e., political maneuvers, and those that are primarily about the nation, i.e., foreign policy, the economy, etc., which, while they will reflect on him in history, at the time they are made they should be made without regard to his legacy but only out of an intention to do the right thing for the nation. These would be called his "job" per se, or his duty as President, as defined by the Constitution correctly interpreted.

Now, if a President is going to push into the gray area towards illegality, it should only be for his duty regarding the good of the nation - not for decisions or actions that have to do with elections and his own political fortunes. Ensuring that the better man is elected is not one of the enumerated Constitutional duties of the President. This is where President Washington set a standard that has not been fully met to this day. Certainly Congressman have the duty to do political wrangling - voting on legislation is what they do, and having an effect on whether or not laws or passed is the most important part of their job. But the Presidency is defined to be focused primarily on the nation as a whole, not the party of the President. Such independence has eroded over time, and Presidential partisanship started increasing in earnest with the advent of Presidential campaigning.

While I can agree with your Nixon hypothetical on very simplistic or general terms (one can only imagine all the what-ifs), I'm sure you can agree that if the "bad guys" are operating a massive grassroots campaign to corrupt hearts and minds throughout all of American society, the only possible solution to that is to meet them on that battlefield with appropriate tactics as opposed to trying to elect a few people to govern an immoral, deceived population into morality, though clearly there needs to be a simultaneous effort to keep electing people who represent better morals.

The Democrats have taken on the mantle of the party of immorality. It defines their party. Everyone, both those for and against, can instantly identify everything and anything as being either a "Democrat" thing or a "Republican" thing. Anything deceptively labeled as a "freedom" which is actually selfishness, or faux selflessness which is actually self adulation, is intuitively associated with what Democrats offer. Left wingism and false populism always consists of material things offered, whereas true freedom offers nothing material - it offers the opportunity for the self to earn and then to keep for oneself. Democrats paint the keeping as "greed", but of course it is decidely not because of the earning. And of course the freedom to commit immoral acts is no freedom at all, since one becomes enslaved to the immorality; sin is not a servant but a master.

With the Democrats having already claimed the ensign of immorality, Republicans can not claim it as well even if they wanted to - because they could always be labeled as liars who are promising things merely for votes, as opposed to the Democrats who had these "ideas" first.

Republicans today argue not for removing the regulatory and big business cabal that shackles the poor and thereby greatly increaseing their opportunity to gain wealth, instead they argue for "less welfare". Trying to keep conservatives happy with the "less" and centrists happy with "welfare" ? It's the same on moral issues. Not no abortions, but fewer abortions. Not no gun laws, but fewer gun laws. Not no immorality, but less immorality.

The true stance is not to say that in reality a law "eliminates" something evil. It simply establishes the benchmark for punishment. We know that people are not perfect, so the law may broken, in which case there should be prosecution. But to say the answer to people's imperfection is to remove the law is an age-old mistake which simply produces an excrutiating existence. This is why I think it's time to retire the GOP - to purge it's leadership, to de-GOPify. Their theory of government, that if the other party is 100% wrong that we should make the party's platform 50% wrong makes them not a party of opposition but simply a watered-down also-ran party.
44 posted on 11/16/2012 7:47:55 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
This is why I think it's time to retire the GOP - to purge it's leadership, to de-GOPify. Their theory of government, that if the other party is 100% wrong that we should make the party's platform 50% wrong makes them not a party of opposition but simply a watered-down also-ran party.

I agree with you, although I don't think you needed the long prefatory essay on good and bad policy to establish your premise. People around here pretty well know that in their bones. They also know that, in contrast to RiNOs' horror of, and repulsion by, social issues, the Democrats appealed to social prejudice vigorously and whorishly ("lady parts", "racist Republicans"), ad nauseam, during their GOTV drive. They flogged their orcs to the polls with cries of "red meat" and "kill the gringos!", and the Republicans refused to address those appeals.

45 posted on 11/16/2012 8:24:52 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

“We don’t lack for reporters with integrity! It’s just that the MSM won’t hire any of them, so 75% of the public never hears them!”

do we have any conservative investigative reporters who can snoop into the hidden secrets of the MSM talking heads? i think we need to take the fight for objectivity to the MSM liberal propagandists.


46 posted on 11/16/2012 1:47:43 PM PST by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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