It's the usual crazy talk, stupid talk that is purveyed not just by the media but by the individual who gobbles up all the misinformation coming from both sides of the political spectrum. Not that all of it is misinformation nor slanted towards a political ideology but enough of it is to promote this latest incredible blind man's bluff on Nixon. As far as Nixon, one of the principals in the administration was a close friend in the 70's and 80's -- Watergate and the other constitutional and illegal operations that the public was exposed to was a symptom of an administration which subscribed to the OC businessman "ultralegal" manipulations of the law. The OC was the haven for so many scams in the 70's and especially the 80's that it culminated in the county filing bankruptcy.
I'm not up on the history of Orange County LW. I'm not sure how you are relating that to the Watergate scandal.
I guess it was only a matter of time before we saw revisionist apologists for Nixon. After all, hasn't Ann Coulter already come to the defense of another great American, Joseph McCarthy?
I look for a renewed appreciation for Spiro Agnew any time now. He, too, was hounded out of office by the liberal media!
Maybe if you read more slowly D, you'll see that the thread is in no way an apology for Richard Nixon.
Well, I was more thinking of your post (at the top) than Buchanan's column, F...
But please think of my penultimate post as more a gentle poke than a mean-spirited slap!
LOL D, you and I have crossed swords a time or two, but I've never put you anywhere close to the meanspirited camp.
Me either, Foxy. D'Art is always so willing to see both sides and first to admit when he misunderstands a statement. Gotta like that.
And I pay you same the compliment, Foxfyre!
Thanks, too, Just Wonders!
Nearly all of Nixon's cronies running the White House were from Orange County. Sorry the knowledge of such revelations is so meager.
(Nixon was from Orange County and the Western Whitehouse was in Orange County -- in fact it nearly ended up two blocks from my house in Laguna Beach, CA).
I never added up to see if more of Nixon's associates or Clinton's associates wound up convicted and/or in jail for something. Probably Nixon has the edge.
I will never forget what a kick in the stomach it was the day Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before he had been formally charged with anything. It cost Ford the next election of course--he wound up being I believe the only President who was never elected to be either vice president or president--but that left a really bad taste in everybody's mouth.
I defend Nixon as I defend Clinton when either are falsely charged and both have been.
I am going to read up on the Orange County link though LW. That part of history I am woefully ignorant on and I find it interesting. I know that during the Reagan years, Orange County was one of the most conservative areas in the country. I think that has changed now though.
For once, Foxfyre, I agree with you totally. Both Clinton and Nixon got a bad rap. This says nothing about either one's character or job performance, of course. Merely that they were both railroaded. (In the case of Clinton, of course, it was partly the GOP's revenge for the Nixon affair.)
Nixon's associates who didn't get caught adds up as trumping Clinton. For one thing, Nixon's were actually installed in our government. Including my friend who even though I knew some bad things about him was still my friend. He was quite candid about what illegal and extralegal machinations were going on in Washington during that time. True, that is probably true of all administrations but Nixon got caught. The way he was caught revealed a kind of stupidity that is almost unprecedented. He should have destroyed the tapes? He shouldn't have ordered the wiring in the first place, taping people who did not know they were bugged.
It could be said that Nixon's bad rap was as much guilty by association than anything else and Clinton's was a blind spot in his social intelligence (not seeming to give a thought about a young girl gossiping to her relatives or friends about any of the details of their relationship). I think it's more complex than that and, as I've said, Nixon's transgressions go deeper than knowing about a burglary and helping to cover it up which was the real crime. They couldn't actually prove that Clinton did actively cover it up or he would have been impeached. This was an overwhelming opinion of jurist throughout the world.
Fox, the OC is still very rightwing conservative in the upper societal worlds of Newport Beach, Irvine, Huntington Beach and many other communities but, as always, these people need services that are provided by the lower classes and as they've moved into the OC, they've brought more liberalism to the county.
Don't forget Web Hubbell and whathisface, the Commerce secretary etc. both of whom were indicted, tried, and convicted LW, and there were others. Clinton, like Nixon, recruited old friends and associates for his administration and some were crooks. There is a long long laundry list of questionable people, questionable practices, questionable circumstances, some legitimate, some not.
Nevertheless, to George W. Bush's credit, he has run one of the most scandal free adminsitrations in my memory. We Americans tend to become a bit jaded about misconduct from those we elect to represent us at all levels, and we tolerate much much more than previous generations would have tolerated.
The media, however, joins with politicians in a politics of personal destruction for political ends. There is no way anyone can convince we they are doing it 'to inform' or 'for the benefit of the country.'
Having gone to journalism school myself in a kinder and gentler era, I strongly disagree that it is the responsibility of the press to be a 'watchdog' over Congress or the President or anybody.
It is the duty of the press to inform with the more verifiable, accurate, and honest information that can be gathered. If the media would limit itself to that, we would have better government and a better country in my never to be considered humble opinion.
Comparing what the Nixon crew was up to and what Clinton's cronies did is like comparing apples and oranges.
Watergate was about subverting the electoral process. Whitewater was what? A real estate deal?
Hardly comparable acts of mischief...
Again, those convicted aside from the Commerce Secretary were not in the Clinton administration. In this administration, they've got Tom Delay to deal with. Don't worry, the dirt under the rug is slowly but surely coming to the surface -- it's nearly impossible for it not to. I've had dealings in the past with persons who were eventually caught and convicted of white color crimes (it's almost unavoidable in the OC, what seems to be a center of such activity) but I was unaware at the time what they were up to. For those who lead sheltered lives and are naive about such business practices, I believe they are igonoring one particular fact that permeates American government. The lower down one goes in governmental organizations, the more crooks you find. City governments are rife with graft and favoritism. The press has not spent enough time with investigative reporting on local governments, in some cases because they may have been paid off to lay off, in others because they aren't the best journalists. It's happened with a consistency in the bastion of conservatism, the OC, that it's scary. To call for investigative journalists to lay off is naive to a fault.
The Watergate burglary, while indefensible and in no way could be condoned for any reason, was just one incident. Subvert the electoral process? That's a little strong for a bunch of inept burglars who were rather wanting to determine strategy. Do you think that an isolated incident? If so, you simply haven't been paying attention of the last 30 or 40 years.
I'm not wanting to pay the 'your kettle or pot is blackest' here, but rather hoping the focus will be on the fact that all pots are mudged here and there.
The thread is how our free press deals with the smudges, how well they portray them accurately, and how well they keep them in perspective.
Merry Andrew wrote:(In the case of Clinton, of course, it was partly the GOP's revenge for the Nixon affair.)
Heh ... Whitewater and Lewinsky was what I assumed this thread was about when I saw the headline.
It does seem odd to me that people can say that the press gave Clinton an easy time given just how much air time was spent on those two scandals and how little was spent on Clinton's policy initiatives. Rather might not like Bush, but neither, then, does Buchanan, and CBS and all the major news networks are major corporations that pretty much never attack their real interests which are solidly conservative.
Lyndon B Johnson/ Richard M Nixon. pretty much equals when it comes to scoundrels. Bottom line is Lyndon was a slick politican (as was Nixon) but Nixon was also psychotic/paranoid.
