If Watergate happened today Nixon would not be impeached

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Although this article is sort of tongue and cheek I feel that it would be true due to the sad state of american politics. Sort of reminds me of the lies that the Bush Administration has told and how they cover them up.


June 13 issue - From a distance, Watergate seems like a partisan affair. But that's because we tend to look at it nowadays through red- and blue-tinted glasses. In truth, President Nixon was forced to resign in 1974 by Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, who realized from the so-called smoking-gun tape that he was a crook. This was after the Supreme Court?led by a Nixon appointee?unanimously ruled against him in the tapes case.

advertisement


But imagine if Nixon were president in this era. After he completed his successful second term, I'd have to write a retrospective column like this:

President Nixon left office in 2005 having proved me and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism" wrong. We thought that his administration was sleazy but we were never able to nail him. Those of us who hoped it would end differently knew we were in trouble when former Nixon media adviser Roger Ailes banned the word "Watergate" from Fox News's coverage and went with the logo "Assault on the Presidency" instead. By that time, the American people figured both sides were just spinning, and a tie always goes to the incumbent.

The big reason Nixon didn't have to resign: the rise of Conservative Media, which features Fox, talk radio and a bunch of noisy partisans on the Internet and best-sellers list who almost never admit their side does anything wrong. (Liberals, bycontrast, are always eating their own.) This solidarity came in handy when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post began snooping around after the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Once they scored a few scoops with the help of anonymous sources, Sean Hannity et al. went on a rampage. When the young reporters printed an article about grand jury testimony that turned out to be wrong, Drudge and the bloggers had a field day, even though none of them had lifted a finger to try to advance the story. After that, the Silent Majority wouldn't shut up.

Some argue the Watergate story died right there, but Nixon's attorney general wasn't taking any chances. Just as in the Valerie Plame case, the Justice Department subpoenaed Woodward and Bernstein to testify before the grand jury about their sources. When they declined, they were jailed for 18 months on contempt charges. Talkingpointsmemo.com and a few other liberal bloggers complained that it was hypocritical?top White House aides were suspected of shredding documents, suborning perjury and paying hush money to burglars?but to no avail. Public support for the media had hit rock bottom.

advertisement

Whistle-blowers didn't fare much better. With Woodward and Bernstein out of business, the No. 2 man at the FBI, W. Mark Felt, held a press conference to air complaints that the White House and his own boss were impeding the FBI probe. Of course it was only a one-day story, with Ann Coulter predictably screaming that Felt was a "traitor." Rush Limbaugh dubbed Felt "Special Agent Sour Grapes" because he'd been passed over for the top FBI job. Within hours, the media had moved on to the tale of a runaway bride. And because both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP, there were no "Watergate" hearings to keep the probe going. John Dean and other disgruntled former aides had no place to go.

For a while, I hoped that the Nixon tapes might bring some justice. But soon the tapes just became more fodder for those legal shows on cable. The Supreme Court split 5-4, along largely partisan lines, as it did in Bush vs. Gore. That allowed Nixon to keep control of the tapes. When he burned them, the bipartisan outcry you would have heard in the old days over destruction of evidence was muffled by a ferocious counterattack from the GOP's legion of spinners. A group calling itself "Watergate Burglars for Truth" set up a 527 to argue that Bill Clinton and other Democratic presidents had ordered more black-bag jobs than Nixon. There was nothing to prove them wrong. Reports of a tape showing that Nixon directly ordered the cover-up were just rumors, not anything that could be posted on smokinggun.com.

Nixon gave a TV interview to the British journalist David Frost in which he said, "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." This explained why he felt comfortable approving the break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Ken Duberstein and a few other principled Republicans weighed in that Nixon was bad news, but they were drowned out by former aides like Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy, who wanted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. When "Firebombing Brookings: Good Idea or Not?" became the "Question of the Day" on MSNBC, Liddy's radio show got a nice ratings boost. After Ralph Reed disclosed that Nixon and Henry Kissinger had been on their knees praying in the Oval Office, Nixon went up 15 points in the Gallup, double among "people of faith." Our long national nightmare was just beginning.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
I think he woud probably be impeached but might still stay in office if not resigning as he had good chance to do back then.
After all if I'm not mistaken Watergate was about spying on other party with illegal breakins--correct?--How does that differ from stealing records from National Archives--and what happened there?

Takes a lot more to drive one out of office than it does to impeach a person --Nixon was quilty --he knew it--and resigned.
Which he figured was only respectable thing to do, I assume he would have nads to do samething if it were today.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
the big difference between then and now is that our leaders still had ethics and integrity and they were not bought and owned by special interest groups.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
The thing is that the Republicans also wanted Nixon out. We had a free press back then and anyone with ties to Nixon and that group of creeps he surrounded himself, guys like Colson and Liddy who made normal peoples skin crawl. Today, if someone attacks the President they face a personal Shock and Awe campaign. Thanks to Clinton and Gingrich we have so few controling the media the Free Press no longer is alive in America.
 

TonyTT

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2002
353
1
0
71
Ohio
MasterCapper,

You say the difference is that .."Back then our leaders had ethics and integrity"...and "weren't bought by special interest"?
Folks forget that just before they ousted tricky dick that "THEY" got rid of his vice president first...
SPIRAL AGNEW on tax charges, then ushered in G Ford of Warren Comm fame. The same G Ford who was reported to have been HOOVER'S snitch on the Warren Comm. The title of a book that Agnew later wrote told that whole story...GO QUIETLY OR ELSE!
HALE BOGGS (rep from La and reported bought and paid for politician of CARLOS MARCELLO himself), was also on the Warren Comm and later told an aid..'HOOVER lied his ass off to the Comm, he lied about the gun, he lied about Oswald." Of course we all know what later became of Boggs.
Bottom line is that then, as it is now. it's simply "business as usual".......with the public left out in the dark as to what's really going on.
Watergate began in June of 72....anyone know what happened the preceeding month, MAY of 72....to me THAT was the REAL story of WATERGATE!
TT
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Tony,

I dont know what happened in May, but if the same thing happened today any Republican that sided with impeachment of Bush would be attacked by the religious right.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I still don't know why O North didn't do at least a couple years. That was years after Nixon.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
"they were not bought and owned by special interest groups."

I think both are influenced by special interest groups (if you are reffering to big business) and quilty of illegal campaighn finance--I know I could post several pages on dems and am sure you could do the same--

However have yet to see anyone admittedly bought and owned by convicted felons--on 10 most wanted list at that.

As far as special interest groups in the true sense--

How many conservative special interest groups do you see picketing and protesting--which is daily way of life for liberals.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
The conservatives don't have to picket. Who would they picket, themselves? They are in control of both houses of congress and the White House. Why would they picket? I do see them protest abortion though.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
StevieD said:
Who would they picket, themselves? They are in control of both houses of congress and the White House. Why would they picket?.



ahhhhh.....the crux of the matter...

the republicans took over by coup?....

no,they were elected by the people despite all the" lies and deceit"....

the people are so stupid...(that is,if you are an arrogant,condescending,pompous little liberal).....

how about some cheese with that "whine"?

carry on,gents....

lol
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Anybody. Was he impeached? I thought he quit. Had he been elected in 1960 like he should have been, everything would have been different. And let's not forget the poor schmuck had nothing to do with the breakin, only the cover-up. People were more tolerant in the early 60's. Just a thought
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
GW, where in my post do you see any whine? I simply stated a fact that they control the House and the Senate and the White House. DTB stated that we dont see conservatives pickiting and I asked who would they picket? I do see them protesting abortions. There is not a whine to be found in that post my friend. Oh G Dubya...how is your boys approval rating these days? Those same people who voted him in, you know the ones you were defending in your last post, don't seem too thrilled with him now. Why do you think that is so? Now, now, I don't expect any whining out of you about the "Liberal Press."
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
In addition to clinics there might have also been a few demonstrations for NRA also--and your right Stevie they have little to protest about--most are working and going about their life--to get million to take off work and protest would be unheard of.

Best anology of the makeup of the 2 party's protestors is when we had our thread on behavior of both groups at each others political conventions--remember those results??
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Wayne,

You always bring that up, but never respond to the common sense answer.

Somebody who had been president for four years is naturally going to draw more protesters than some senator.

I don't remember any protesters in 2000. Do you?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
it`s just very funny...actually laugh out loud funny...that you guys are such haters....such extremists(and i now believe that to be true),
that you are actually using fictional scenarios to justify your bush,republican and conservative bashing....

yeah...lets just make up some garbage,throw it against the wall, and see if it sticks...

graduates of the the "dan rather school of objectivity"...

sorry i barged into your little hatefest...

it won`t happen again...

i`ll try and stick to commenting on actual issues and leave the supposition to you guys....

my bad....hope i didn`t upset anybody....

i still enjoy your reality-based posts... :mj14:
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'm lucky to remember what happened last week, Matt. :)

To be honest I never followed politics that closely back then--I think this forum has had a lot to do with me digging in on it now. That could be good as we get views from both sides and makes us do research which can't be all bad--however it is time consuming and at times I wonder if the time won't be more productive if spent on other things--but it is fun and quite unusul that you can have forum of such a diverse topic and opinions being carried on for such a long time without any major personal attacks. I seen threads have more attacks on subject elsewhere than whole forums has. Kinda of nice to know a group of people can agree to disagree without major flair ups. With opposite views in every topic don't think one has yet to get out of hand and get closed.Thats pretty commedable by all.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Very true, Wayne. Have you been to the political areas of pre or maj? My Fuc*ing God. Whatever differences we have, i'd like to think that we act like gentlemen.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Scotty,

If you've ever been to the political area of other forums, gambling and otherwise, you'd know what I mean.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top