jbg Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Nixon was not a conservative. He was a President that had no ideology. Nixon did what was good for Nixon. There are some that say that Nixon wasn't a demon; that he was just a small, petty, paranoid man. I beg to differ. In his partial defense, the eras of Kennedy (dead people voting), and Johnson (most of what Nixon did, but on a somewhat lesser scale), led a crescendo of result-oriented, disgusting and immoral conduct. Wrongdoing was more or less the order of the day. In the case of dealing with the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and the like this was and is defensible. Those groups were not adhering to the forms of the law. The Ellsberg matter and the creation of the Plumbers is a grayer area. Ellsberg committed a crime. He was arrested. In my view, there were legal ways for the FBI or Washington police to gain entry to those records, or similar records at the Brookings Institute. I cannot fathom a judge refusing to sign a search warrant under those conditions. It was only the projected use of the information with which a Court would have difficulty. Notwithstanding that Woodward and Bernsteein have been coasting on the 1972-4 (including their gratuitous 1976 book) for the last 40 years, the fact is that what happened is horrific. While no one expects the government to be "Boy Scouts" no one expects comments like Haldemann's classic "once the toothpaste gets out of the tube, it's mighty hard to get it back in". Or the infamous remark on the Italian lira, "how many votes are there from the lira"? Woodward and Bernstein did nail it: not a word or thought about what was good for the country. I would afford a lot more leeway if a legitimate government objective, such as aiding the Nicaraguan contras, that cannot be accomplished legally, because of visionary and utopian legislation. I consider and have always considered the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional. The difference here is that Nixon did not even try to find a legal way to accomplish his objectives. As for winning the election, he had that in the bag, especially since his opponents were either sad sacks or losers (i.e. Muskie), people after their best-before dates (Humphrey, Jackson) or wierd extremists (Chisolm, McGovern). He did not need to jimmy the election results further. In short, we have Nixon to thank for the War Powers Act, Congressional "control" over budgeting (i.e. no impoundment) and other, similarly impractical and counterproductive legislation. We also have Nixon (and Johnson and Carter) to thank for the lack of majesty and dignity in Washington. Most seriously, we have Nixon to thank for appeasing Mao by throwing the Kuomintang under the bus, and for appeasing Moscow. If it weren't for aid (disguised as below-market grain sales) the slavery of the Eastern bloc would ended a lot sooner. In short, his record wasn't bad; it was appalling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Woodward and Bernstein did nail it: not a word or thought about what was good for the country.Mark Felt, a frustrated Democrat/bureaucrat, nailed it - or plunged in the sword.With time, I realize that Nixon was correct about America. Dan Rather "got" Nixon, but Rather couldn't "get" Bush Jnr. ---- jbg, do you really think that Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson is/was any less ambitious than Richard Nixon was? ----------- With all that said, I am in America now and I spent part of the day wandering around Faneuil Hall in Boston with an eastern European. As I explained to her in French, Americans are loud, fat and uncouth. But Americans are truly remarkable because they understand that they are responsible for themselves. Quebecers and Russians (for example) believe/suspect/trust that someone else (a deus ex machina, the State) will protect them. Americans know that there is no one else. They're alone to make their life. As we walked the streets of Boston and talked about this, I looked/listened at the ordinary Americans around us and I wondered whether they understood all this. Unlike Quebecers, English-Canadians, Russians, I reckon that ordinary Americans do. Edited June 12, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Mark Felt, a frustrated Democrat/bureaucrat, nailed it - or plunged in the sword. With time, I realize that Nixon was correct about America. Dan Rather "got" Nixon, but Rather couldn't "get" Bush Jnr. Bush was not the vile type that Nixon was. jbg, do you really think that Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson is/was any less ambitious than Richard Nixon was? At least, so far, Barack and Jimmy adhered to legal forms. As I said in my post, LBJ, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Nixon was not a conservative. what do you mean by conservative? are you talking about social conservatism or economic conservatism? i like to get this off my chest whenever presidents and conservatism is discussed. because if you are talking about economic conservatism, then which so-called conservative president do you think has actually been conservative? when you compare the presidents from nixon to gwb and government size, both ford and carter did a better job than saint ronald, the demi-god of those who consider themselves conservatives. under ford and carter, government grew by 1.4% while under saint ronald, it increased by 3%. also, saint ronald, raised taxes 7 out of the 8 years while he was in office. how about government spending and national debt under saint ronald? under carter, 27.9% of the national income was spent by the government. the 'conservatives' assaulted carter for his free spending and saint ronald came to power. at the end of saint ronald's presidency, 28.7% of the national income was being spent by the government. there is some true conservatism for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I would afford a lot more leeway if a legitimate government objective, such as aiding the Nicaraguan contras, that cannot be accomplished legally, because of visionary and utopian legislation. The Contras. Ye gods. At any rate, you don't mention Cambodia, which was worse than Watergate by any stretch of the imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The Contras. Ye gods. At any rate, you don't mention Cambodia, which was worse than Watergate by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah. The Khmer Rouge's killing fields were not picnic grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) del Edited June 12, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) del Edited June 12, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Yeah. The Khmer Rouge's killing fields were not picnic grounds. The place was an American-caused bloodbath quite before the Khmer Rouge took control. "Anything that flies on anything that moves," as Kissinger relayed Nixon's order--he was ordering war crimes, incidentally. (Well, incidentally to those two gangsters, not so incidentally to the hundreds of thousands murdered...which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge). Heckuva job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The place was an American-caused bloodbath quite before the Khmer Rouge took control. The North Vietnamese didn't have a role in this somehow?Do you mean to say that the U.S. had to permit Laos and Cambodia to traverse its territory and provide a safe haven for attacks into South Vietnam? Why are the U.S. and other Western democracies the only countries that are to be left helpless against insurgencies and invasions? It seems to me that a real double-standard is at work here. "Anything that flies on anything that moves," as Kissinger relayed Nixon's order--he was ordering war crimes, incidentally. (Well, incidentally to those two gangsters, not so incidentally to the hundreds of thousands murdered...which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge). Heckuva job. Prior to Lon Nol's coup, under Norodom Sihanouk Cambodia had been complicit in North Vietnamese transit through its territories. Was the U.S. and South Vietnam to just sit there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) The North Vietnamese didn't have a role in this somehow? It's a pretty rare conflcit in which there are zero complicating factors...for everybody, including enemies. Do you mean to say that the U.S. had to permit Laos and Cambodia to traverse its territory and provide a safe haven for attacks into South Vietnam? Why are the U.S. and other Western democracies the only countries that are to be left helpless against insurgencies and invasions? Holdy crap! the United States were invaders! It seems to me that a real double-standard is at work here. I'll say. Prior to Lon Nol's coup, under Norodom Sihanouk Cambodia had been complicit in North Vietnamese transit through its territories. Was the U.S. and South Vietnam to just sit there? The attack on Cambodia was fully illegal--that's not only recognized in retrospect, it was recognized at the time. OK, so that's an attack of aggression. A serious crime in itself: the worst, according to the Nuremberg principles. And of course they had reasons, just as Saddam didn't invade Kuwait for no purposes whatsoever. (A bad comparison, as the US situation in Southeast Asia was far worse than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait). Second--and more to my point--Nixon/kissinger were explciitly calling for mass murder of innocent people...no doubt deemed "collateral damage," falsely, by any number of trembling moral cowards. The tremendous violence viusited upon the poeple of Cambodia was a strong contributing factor to Khmer Rouge power...so unintentional complciity in mass murder can be added to the more serious issue of intentional mass murder. How can you even defend this? Patriotism? Edited June 12, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 ....How can you even defend this? How about....Canada needed the arms sales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 How about....Canada needed the arms sales? I somehow doubt that would be his defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I somehow doubt that would be his defense. He didn't need a defense...still doesn't. Nixon dropped bombs where bombs needed droppin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Watergate is a weird scandal. Compared to so many other controversies involving the President throughout the last several decades, conspiring a break-in seems pretty minor to bring a presidency to its knees. But that's what happens I guess when you have a Republican President spying on a Democratic Party that controlled majority in both chambers of Congress and were likely to then impeach the guy. All the b.s. of Vietnam and Iraq etc. is fine, but hit Congressmen/Senators where it hurts (or get a blowjob from an intern) and all hell breaks loose. Odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 .... But that's what happens I guess when you have a Republican President spying on a Democratic Party that controlled majority in both chambers of Congress and were likely to then impeach the guy. Which led to the mocking joke about President Clinton's impeachment....."At Least Nixon Resigned!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Watergate is a weird scandal. Compared to so many other controversies involving the President throughout the last several decades, conspiring a break-in seems pretty minor to bring a presidency to its knees. But that's what happens I guess when you have a Republican President spying on a Democratic Party that controlled majority in both chambers of Congress and were likely to then impeach the guy.We are not a parliamentary country so that's not how it works in this country. The Senate must convict for removal by a 2/3 vote, which was most unlikely to happen with most of the Southern Democrats being pro-Nixon. What forced the situation to unravel was when highly educated younger member of his administration, who had a future, feared going to jail. John Dean in particular.He could see that the demands of the Watergate burglars for "hush money" were becoming uncontrollable. One thing led to another and between mid-March 1973 and early May 1973 it was effectively all over. The machinery of impeachment (really the indictment stage) and removal (conviction) left him hanging on, by a thread, through August 9, 1974. All the b.s. of Vietnam and Iraq etc. is fine, but hit Congressmen/Senators where it hurts (or get a blowjob from an intern) and all hell breaks loose. Odd. Why odd?In the U.S. legislators' votes are not whipped so they have real power. And a real chance of being blackmailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Why odd? In the U.S. legislators' votes are not whipped so they have real power. And a real chance of being blackmailed. I know this. My point is that the reasons for impeachment for presidents like Nixon and Clinton were ridiculously minor IMO compared to so many other things every President since WWII has done. Lying about blowjobs, seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I know this. My point is that the reasons for impeachment for presidents like Nixon and Clinton were ridiculously minor IMO compared to so many other things every President since WWII has done. Lying about blowjobs, seriously? I wouldn't put Nixon and Clinton in the same sentence. What Nixon did went to the very core of what the U.S. did as a country. Clinton's offense was perjury. That's serious but doesn't invade the core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I know this. My point is that the reasons for impeachment for presidents like Nixon and Clinton were ridiculously minor IMO compared to so many other things every President since WWII has done. Lying about blowjobs, seriously? No, the "plumber's" burglary was not the main crime...'twas the ensuing cover up and obstruction of justice. Presidents will not be impeached for policy issues perceived as wrong or illegal by domestic or foreign audiences. Lying about blowjobs in federal court is a felony....even for presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) He didn't need a defense...still doesn't. Nixon dropped bombs where bombs needed droppin'. Yeah, I've heard this fascinating hypothesis. The best thing about this view is its utility: if Nixon had done less, that would be "needed"; if he had done worse, that would be "needed." A win-win! lol Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Watergate is a weird scandal. Compared to so many other controversies involving the President throughout the last several decades, conspiring a break-in seems pretty minor to bring a presidency to its knees. But that's what happens I guess when you have a Republican President spying on a Democratic Party that controlled majority in both chambers of Congress and were likely to then impeach the guy. All the b.s. of Vietnam and Iraq etc. is fine, but hit Congressmen/Senators where it hurts (or get a blowjob from an intern) and all hell breaks loose. Odd. Just so. Commit all the horrors you like...but do something wrong to your co-equal in the realms of Power...and you've really gone too far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.