Does anyone remember what it was like when Richard Nixon

[...of J.Temperance]

Was in the WH. What it was like at the beginning of Watergate, in the middle of Watergate and at the end of Watergate, when Nixon had to resign?

What the initial mood of the country was, and how and when that mood intensified, as people started to realize what had taken place and what was still taking place...the lies and the cover-up's and the lies about the lies and the cover-up's to cover-up the cover-up's?

My Mother told me that Nixon went to China, and he was walking along The Great Wall or something, and there were journalists in tow following him. Nixon wanted to talk about China, and all the journalists wanted to talk about was Watergate...and Nixon got very angry and nearly had a punch-up with a few of the journalists.

My Mother said that she knew it was over for Nixon then.

I wasn't born until 1978, so I missed all of the Watergate stuff.

So I was just wondering if what's happening today...as in RIGHT NOW, with Junior on 36%, does this feel similar to the Watergate period when the end was near for Nixon?

I'm not talking about Impeachment, because Impeachment is highly unlikely UNLESS we can take the House next year...I'd like Junior and ALL of them Impeached immediately if I had my way.

What I'm talking about is, is the public mood over Junior pretty much the same as it was over Nixon? Is the public mood WORSE than it was over Nixon, is it about the same or does the public mood STILL have to shift downward a little bit.

I've got an excellant book "Watergate" by Fred Emery, I think I'm going to re-read it, that's after I've finished "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII" by John Cornwell.

[flowomo]

1. if you're going to read a Watergate book....

be sure to pick up Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days" -- the sequel to "All the President's Men."

[...of J.Temperance]

2. Oh

Okay, thanks :) I'll put that on my book list then.

[CTyankee]

3. I remember it pretty well

There was a lot of excitement and there were lots of surprises. "All the President's Men" gives a great depiction from the reporters and Washingtonians' points of view. Worth re-reading.

I am hoping for some surprises with *. Watergate came apart at the seams, too many people involved to keep it secret. It was an accident, for instance, that we found out about the WH tapes. One o the lower level aides, giving testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee, slipped and told the committee that Nixon taped the Oval Office. That set off a firestorm. It took a trip to the Supreme Court to get the WH to give up the tapes. And that, I think, was it. Finito Nixon.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. That Watergate moment

I was watching when Alexander Butterfield revealed the existance of the tapes. Interesting expressions on the faces of all the Senators.

[wryter2000]

9. Oh, God, I remember it, too

Back in the old days before cell phones and laptops. All the reporters rushed out of the room to find pay phones.

The question was something like, "Mr. Butterfield, how can you be sure of what was said in the Oval Office that day?"

"Because everything that happened in the Oval Office was taped."

I also remember Daniel Schorr in the anteroom with Nixon's enemies list in his hand, and he was #3 or 4.

[Zensea]

17. It was classic, I remember watching it also

I was sitting there watching the hearings in the afternoon.
I remember the commentators saying before Butterfield testified that they had no idea why he was being called to testify and that they didn't really expect his testimony to be that much.
Then their jaws hit the floor.

[tulsakatz]

15. tapes

that's true.....another thing were the missing minutes from the tapes. They said that Nixon's secretary (I think her name was Rosemary Woods) accidentally erased the tape. But I don't really think anyone believed the tape was accidentally erased.

[wryter2000]

42. The transcripts were published

I still have my copy. One of the smaller revelations was that Nixon had a potty mouth. One of his more endearing qualities.

[Carni]

56. Fat chance of that with THIS SCOTUS

Can you picture our wonderful supreme court siding with anyone but the chimp? It ain't happening.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. This whole time reminds me of Watergate

I was just able to vote in the '72 election (for McGovern,natch), and was closely following politics. I knew from the getgo that Nixon was involved with the Watergate break-in, and I was sick thinking of how he used dirty tricks, etc, to manipulate the election. There were many many times that I thought he'd get away scot free and nothing would be done about it. Even after the Senate Committee started holding hearings, I thought it could happen. But it didn't.

My only concern now is the attitude of the repukes-very different from the Republicans of old. They were really interested in saving our democracy-but then they were the minority party, and maintaining the democracy where they could still have a say was very important to them. Now that they are in power, they are acting irresponsibly because they want to maintain power at whatever cost. And yet, just as it was in1974, it is the GOP that must bring down this presidency. Otherwise, it is too easy to say it's just the Dems and sour grapes. I'm wondering if any repukes now will have the courage of Barry Goldwater to go to the WH and tell bush "like it is".

[EFerrari]

26. Bill Frist is no Barry Goldwater, that's for sure.n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

58. They probably won't though

The only republican that might have that type of courage is Walter Jones or Ron Paul (even though he's not a real republican). I've read enough about the whole Nixon/Watergate era and it's amazing how things are similiar. No wonder I feel dejavu a lot.

[RazzleDazzle]

76. Barry Goldwater??? You mean Senator Baker, from Tennessee

I think. Was Goldwater even in the Congress somewhere? I don't think so.

[David Briggs]

6. The difference today is better communication.

The Republicans have really gotten their act together to spin bad news. Talk radio, the christian community, and the blogosphere are able to keep spirits up. Back in the day, you were pretty much toast if the three major networks turned against you, because of the greater influence they had over public opinion.

I must say, however, that it has become noticeably unfashionable to support Bush. Thank goodness for the continuing influence of comedy writers.

[EFerrari]

28. Thank you, on behalf of circus people everywhere.

:)

[FreedomAngel82]

60. And another sad thing is

neither side believes the major networks anymore. The conservatives believe it's "liberal" (*snort*) and we know they are in Bush's back pocket.

[catmother]

7. yes. i remember. i voted for McGovern in 72 -- we were also

in viet nam at the time. i never liked nixon. when the watergate scandal came out i watched the hearings (fortunately i was unemployed at the time).

now on the other hand my father in law who was a staunch republican kept saying to wait that nixon would lay his cards on the table and prove his innocence. after the truth came out my father in law's political spirit was broken. his words were "show me a politician and i'll show you a crook".

i remember people had bumper stickers that said "don't blame me i voted for McGovern".

and yes the republicans were also very active in watergate i.e., howard baker, lowell weicker. they were not going to let nixon off the hook.

i'm trying to refresh my memory more. basically aside from my in laws just about every one i knew was a democrat -- so i can't speak about the the average republican felt.

your mom's memory might be better than mine.

[EFerrari]

29. They defended him as blindly as the KA drinkers are now.

But it was exactly the same irrevocable wave of knowledge that swept over the country. If anything, it should happen faster this time because of the internets.

:toast:

[Rose Siding]

8. Here's a timeline- Even after indictments, less than 1/2 the public knew

anything about Watergate. And the burglars were carrying papers that told just what they were doing!

snip>
June 17: At the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., five men are arrested during a pathetically bungled break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The men are all carrying cash and documents that show them to be employed by the Committee to Re-elect the President, and the purpose of the burglary is to plant listening devices in the phones of the Democratic leaders and obtain political documents regarding the Democrats' campaign strategy. The men arrested include a former FBI agent and four anti-Castro Cubans who have been told that they are looking for material linking Castro to the Democratic Party. Two former White House aides working for CREEP, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, are also arrested. Hunt, it will be learned, was one of the CIA agents responsible for planning the Bay of Pigs invasion and some of the Cubans arrested also took part in the invasion. The seven men are indicted on September 15. Even though their relationship to the election committee is established, none of the seven men connects the committee or the White House to the break-in.
....
September 15: A federal grand jury indicts the five Watergate burglars and E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.
....
November 7: After an October Gallup poll shows that less than half of the American people have even heard of the break-in, President Nixon defeats his Democratic challenger, Senator George McGovern, in a landslide, capturing 60.8 percent of the popular vote and 520 or the 537 electoral votes. McGovern carries only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
...
1973
January: Gallup Poll reveals 68 percent approve of Nixon's "handling his job as President."

http://cas.memphis.edu/~sherman/chronowatergate.htm

It was August 8, 1974, two YEARS after the first indictments, and after assorted guilty pleas, before 65% support impeachment.

[RazzleDazzle]

77. That's what I remember -- the glacial pace of the investigation

Somehow I think I was a little more aware than those who hadn't heard about it, perhaps because I loathed Nixon so, surprising otherwise since I wasn't politically attuned really.

the other things I remember is first that we actually had investigative journalim back then -- Woodward and Bernstein actually weren't the only ones who wrote about this, tho I think they were the primary ones and others may have worked off their leads, etc., and second that Republican politicians weren't totally and completely amoral and corrupt as they almost universally are these days. Some of them even had consciences! Imagine.

[Robert Cooper]

10. Hate to burst a bubble but...

it's too soon for that comparison.

'74 was about the WH. '05 is about the WH, Senate and Congress.

'74 you had a draft, no draft now.

'74 you had a youth movement, music and marches and the riots and recent memories of JFK, RFK, MLK.

'05 you got ??

'74 you had senate and congressional hearings with teeth. '05 you got Hastert/Frist

'74 you had a RW that still had some ethics. '05 you got neocons (they don't call them -neo- cons for nothing)

'74 you had low-level boobs who could be turned. Lowest level boob in '05 is VP Chief of Staff, not nearly as easily turned.

I wouldn't break out the party hats just yet.

[EFerrari]

30. Mine's on. They've jumped the shark. n/t

[WinkyDink]

31. Draft ended in 1973.

So by '74 the "youth movement" was fairly quiescent.
I went on a cross-country vacation in that summer; no riots (well, aside from the Boston busing/race ones).
The hearings were daily TV fare. Riveting. Like a Sherlock Holmes serialized story.
Of course, in real time there was no "All the President's Men"!

[Robert Cooper]

52. events led up to '74

in '74 there were still a lot of drafted soldiers who didn't want to be there.

All of the events I listed created a very different mind-set amongst the president's opposition. The RW was easier to shock and less tolerant of this sort of thing.

It's very different now.

[wryter2000]

11. The main difference between then and now

For ages now, I've felt like I'm living in deja vu. The crucial difference is that the Dems controlled the Congerss and had real hearings. This is why I feel that 2006 is probably more important than 2008. If we can have real hearings where people have to testify under oath, we have a chance that the country will hear the truth. If that happens, 2008 will take care of itself.

A while back, I would have said that back then, Repugs had some decency. Now that *'s stranglehold on the party seems to be dissolving, I'm hoping the decent Repugs will separate themselves from the true horrors.

There were real horrors back then. Robert Bork was chief among them.

[EFerrari]

32. I didn't and don't know much about Bork. Could you elaborate? nt

[wryter2000]

39. The Saturday night masssacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

This is kinder to Bork than I remember. I don't remember that he was so reluctant. He was unrepentant during his confirmation hearings. On edit: Richardson is Attorney General Elliot Richardson

Cox was appointed by the Richardson after Richardson gave assurances to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would appoint an independent counsel to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972. Cox had earlier issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations which Nixon had made in the Oval Office as evidence. Nixon initially refused to comply with the subpoena, but on October 19, 1973, he offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise – asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office.

Cox refused the compromise that same evening, and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend. However, President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night – a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he, too, refused and resigned.

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Bork considered resigning as well, but was persuaded by Richardson that this would leave the Department in chaos. Bork then complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox

[EFerrari]

45. Geezus Louey Delano! That was BORK!

Thank you.

:wow:

[wryter2000]

71. Sure was

I remember at his confirmation hearings, he and his supporters kept repeating the mantra, "None of that was illegal." That wasn't the effing question.

[EFerrari]

73. It makes me think, the world is tiny.

It could fit into your wallet.

Astonished -- and, that doesn't happen very often.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

12. I remember the 18 minutes

When that came out, everybody was talking about it. I think that's when it became crystal clear to Susie Homemaker that Nixon was definitely involved. It was still almost a year before Nixon resigned. At this point, I think it could all go either way, except for the fact that Bush is such a mega fuckup. Something will break, sadly, it won't stop the suffering that so many will have to endure in the mean time.

[wryter2000]

40. Remember the picture of Rosemary Woods?

His secretary claimed she'd erased the 18 minutes by mistake. She posed for a picture of how she'd had her foot on the transcriber pedal while she answered the phone. She had to be a contortionist.

I was a Watergate junkie, and I want this to be even better.

[annabanana]

57. here it is...

Doin the "18 minute waltz"...

[wryter2000]

70. rofl

Poor lady.

[tulsakatz]

13. I remember Watergate......

...actually the part that really got my attention was when there were the hearings in Congress. One official after another had to testify about what they knew about it.

They cancelled normal TV programming to air the hearings on TV. That's the part I remember most clearly. I was just a stupid kid and I really wanted to see the normal shows on TV but we had to watch the hearings if you were watching TV.

Like I said I was just a dumb kid and when the hearings began I thought they were boring but the longer I watched, the more interesting they became. And the longer they continued, the more we began to realize what a serious problem this was becoming for the administration.

And at least Nixon did have some talent in International affairs. I also remember when he finally resigned, many Republicans still defended Nixon and they continued to defend him for years after that. At the time, I think Nixon felt ashamed that such a thing could happen to him. Keep in mind that this was the first time a modern President came close to impeachment. And I think Nixon was especially ashamed of that.

I don't really remember what his poll numbers were but there was a large part of the country who believed the charges against him and his administration were justified.

[wryter2000]

43. Remember Barbara Jordan?

How elegant and eloquent. She also testified in Bork's hearings, but on civil rights issues. I wish we had a Barbara Jordan now.

[Neil Lisst]

14. I think your mom may be mistaken about the China trip.

My recollection is that Nixon went to China BEFORE the Watergate burglary in the summer of 1972.

NOTHING happened in Watergate until 1973, well after the '72 election. The pieces began to come together in 1973, but it was 1974 before the thing really blew up.

OMG, it was so dramatic! I remember when the White House Transcripts came out, there were almost overnight publications of them. Everyone was sitting around campus reading them everywhere you went. It consumed the nation for the better part of a year.

[skooooo]

18. I think he went in '68 or '69?

[EFerrari]

We read them in the library and were shushed by the librarian

for laughing out loud at the clumsy attempts at obfuscation.

The poster is right in general, though. This is what it felt like the last time the Republicans jumped the shark.

[Neil Lisst]

21. remember how Nixon had cherry-picked phrases to spin?!

"And I told him (John Dean) 'it would be wrong, John, that's for sure!'"
--- Nixon at press conference

Then we saw the actual context and it showed that Nixon was saying it would a political mistake, not that it was morally or legally wrong. Nixon, like Bush I suspect, was in the middle of it.

[EFerrari]

25. Yep. And to think we'd live to see something worse than that. nt

[Innoma]

24. Ellsberg, Sept. '71 - China Trip, Feb. '72 - Watergate, June '72

At least that's how I remember the dates (The Daniel Ellsberg break-in thrown in just to show that Nixon and pals were up to no good well before Watergate).

[Neil Lisst]

59. yeah, that's how I remember it

I was still in the military when Nixon went to China, and I got out in May of 72, and the burglary was in June '72. Then the whole story got swept under the media rug until after the election.

The thing didn't break until one of the burglars who had been sentenced wrote to the judge and told him something about the thing going deeper. THAT is when the manure hit the air circulator, and that was '73.

[lumpy]

35. We still have a newsprint

edition of the WH transcrips from the Seattle Times. Made for interesting reading. I remember being taken aback by 'old candy ass Nixon' and his propensity for using swear words, but that was back in the days when we all didn't use so much profanity.

[...of J.Temperance]

38. Maybe she confused the two incidents then

I'll ask her again.

[lpbk2713]

16. He was my boss for a while.

I was in the Navy from 1965 - 69. Milhouse took office Jan 69.

I was pretty much apolitical then but I do remember wanting LBJ to run for another term.

[Neil Lisst]

19. he and LBJ were my CICs, too.

I told someone this in another thread. When he came to give our unit a presidential citation in fall, 1969, I was one of those proud soldiers we see now days in the background of a presidential photo op.

But in 1972, I was working to retire Nixon. When I see these soldiers being used by Bush as props, I wonder how many will come to despise him as THEY become more enlightened.

People don't talk about it because we have a sacrosanct attitude about those in combat, but most soldiers don't understand the wars they are fighting. If ever, they understand them years later. Some things take years to soak in. For example, I think having a family helps a man understand the guy who was living in that little third world hut, who, after all, was just another dad trying to do what he felt was right for his family.

When you realize that man's humanity, you never think of war the same again.

[lpbk2713]

22. I learned something very valuable from that era that still

serves me well today. Don't ever trust authority.

Their agenda doesn't always involve your wellbeing. And sometimes if you aren't paying attention, you find that out too late.

I'm glad you made it through that time and lived to tell about it.


:thumbsup:

[Neil Lisst]

61. Yeah, me too.

By the time you can really understand the event, you're miles down road from it. I shake my head at the gung-ho soldiers of today, so full of the crap they have been told by their career types, who are about 75% to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

This all volunteer military coupled with wars that tax them are producing a military that lacks an understanding of democratic ideals and proper respect for civilian authority.

The career military has never been so openly contemptuous of the Democratic party. It's appalling that they act with such arrogance towards the civilians to whom they must answer.

When we see Generals selling Bush talking points, we are seeing a misuse of the US military. When a Democrat wins in 2008, the first thing he or she needs to do in 2009 is purge all the top political types in the military who have goose stepped for Bush. Purge them all, retire them, and bring in younger, smarter, less fascist officers to run things.

[Zensea]

20. For "fun" read HST's Fear and Loathiing on the Campaign Trail also

Hunter S. Thompson was all over Watergate right from the beginning.
The whole book is a great yarn also.

[JNelson6563]

23. haha I saw a button recently

on a very good Dem that said: I never thought I would miss Nixon.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

33. Oh man, I've thought that a brazillion times! n/t

[Alexodin]

27. This is a big question

The answer could be a book in its own right. Yes I see many parallels to Nixon but today's condition is worse.

We had the My Lai massacre, Viet Nam and deep cultural divisions along generational lines as an undercurrent to Watergate. Just as we have Abu Ghraib , Gitmo, and other gulags, the WOT and Iraq, and cultural divisions between secular and non secular Americans today. A mirror on the past in many respects.

Today's crises are worse in many ways but in others we are better equipped to do battle.

Worse:
We now have massive vote fraud. That's not the same as dirty tricks though Nixon's dirty trick legacy lives on in Rove. The Supreme Court didn't perform like a trained poodle and decide an election illegally in Nixon's day.

Better:
Unlike the 70's today we have the power of the internet and the ability to transmit digital images widely; these and the truth are our greatest weapons. Back in the 70’s we had to start underground newspapers in people's garages and distribute them on the street. I remember endlessly handing out leaflets and attending meetings where government agents sometimes posed as pacifists to infiltrate and disrupt our ability to perform our civic duty. The phones were tapped, we had great difficulty communicating. Now we can meet right here.

Worse:
The devastation of our civil rights was also not in play in the Nixon era, with the glaring exception of Cointelpro, but that wasn't quite the same as the wholesale shredding of the Bill Of Rights we are now experiencing. We still had habeas corpus for gods sake.

I believe that at least Nixon actually cared about right and wrong W** does not.

Watergate was also about the illegal bombing of Cambodia not just a break in at a hotel.

You may hear people tell you that the major media stopped the Viet Nam war. Hardly, though they were eventually brought around kicking and screaming.(Like today) For crying out loud we couldn't get any media we had to be the media. (Like today) All we had from the war was a photo of a little girl running from a napalm attack and a general executing a man in the street. Like today’s torture photos how many are seared into the public consciousness? 5? 6?

That's pretty much it. And just like back then the major media cheered endlessly for the pointless and shameful slaughter only in the end did they start to dog pile on Nixon. So yes many parallels to the Nixon era but W**'s offenses are worse. It wasn't easy to bring down Nixon and it won't be any easier to bring down these crooks…..but we will.

[EFerrari]

34. I'd say the difference between Nixon and B* is that Nixon once

worked for a living. It's a little harder to f8ck people over when you used to be a regular Joe, maybe.

[...of J.Temperance]

51. What does

"f8ck" mean, 'eh?

:popcorn:

:hide:

:popcorn:

[EFerrari]

54. Recovering Catholic here.

LOL!

[...of J.Temperance]

63. Oh heck

I'm a lapsed Catholic :bounce:

[EFerrari]

65. Lol. May we both be forgiven. n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

69. There's a lot to forgive too...'um...Ahem :) n/t

[Innoma]

50. Maybe I'm wrong here, but...

Three things come to my mind:

1) Unlike Nixon, the current misadministration controls both the House and the Senate - it seems to me if we controlled at least one, we'd have a much better chance at uncovering all the deception.

2) We haven't seen any new 'Deep Throats' emerge. Sure, we have our Sibel Edmonds, Scott Ritters, and Joseph Wilsons, but nobody on the inside like Felt who is pointing journalists in the right direction.

3) Journalists aren't what they used to be, and the media has more or less (usually more) become nothing but a mouthpiece for government policies.

It seems to me that, while Dems have a good chance at regaining control in the next election, we face a steep uphill battle at holding Bush and his minions accountable before then.

On the other hand, a year ago I would not have imagined we would be where we are today; we've made surprising progress these last few months and I can only hope it continues.

[EFerrari]

55. You know, they own the media AND the voting machines

AND we just watched them jump the shark.

You have to keep up at least an appearance of consesus. They just lost that.

:toast:

[Time for change]

36. One big difference IMO

is that in Nixon's days the MSM was not totally sold out to corporate America, so that we could count on getting at least some pressure from that corner. Today I think that any critical coverage we get of the Bush Administration is either because the media itself feels pressured to provide at least some semblance of balance, or because some brave reporter is willing to risk his or her job in order to show some integrity. I believe that if we had the same MSM that we had in Nixon's day, Bush would be dead meat by now, if not out of office (of course he could never have gotten enough votes to steal the election in the first place.)

[woofless]

37. The big difference.

It still felt like America. There was no sense that we were going to lose our freedom, our ability to work and prosper or our ability to defend ourselves. Yeah, Nixon sucked, but the Bushistas are evil fascists. Nixon grossed me out. These pukes scare the shit out of me.

Woof

[EFerrari]

46. Agree. These are not Republicans. I remember Republicans.

This is a multinational criminal cabal.

Hmm. I can probably be arrested for saying that.

[...of J.Temperance]

41. I'm reading everyone's comments and I'm learning a lot of stuff

I'm learning that there are many similarities, but that we're not quite at the Nixon tipping point as of yet.

I know that tipping point for Junior is coming, because I can feel it now. Despite basically having the ENTIRE media against us and whoring for Junior 24/7 since pretty much August 2000...the truth is coming out about him and his Regime and he finds himself down to 36%.

Several people have pointed out, the difference between Watergate and now, is that there was a more unbiased media back then. I don't think that even the EXTREMELY biased media now can pull Junior back from the brink.

[wryter2000]

44. I dunno

I think we might be at the tipping point or past it. It's only the repugs controlling the Congress and the complicity of the corporate media that are obscuring the true state of affairs.

One thing that really struck me about Murtha the other day (one of many things) was when he said the American people are ahead of the Congress.

I could sure be wrong about that, but I'd really like to see what happens if we get the Congress.

[...of J.Temperance]

47. If we get the Congress

Then I'd like them all Impeached, they've committed at LEAST 30 Impeachable offenses and I'd like all of their heads:

Junior, Dickhead, Rummy, Rice, Gonzalez for starters.

I think Congressman Murtha is right, the people are ahead of Congress and the people are also onto the mediawhores lying and propping up game. I think the people would support Impeachment if we gained control of Congress.

Then we'd also need to REVERSE EVERY piece of legislation that Junior and the Repukes have brought in.

On Edit: The majority of people NEVER supported the Impeachment proceedings of President Clinton, they saw it for what it was a witch hunt that cost $80 million. They saw how absurd and outrageous it was, to think that getting some blow-jobs in the WH was an Impeachable offense.

President Clinton's approval rating was 71%, so that was a pro-blow-job vote of approval. And nobody died because President Clinton was getting blow-job's.

But the same people I think would sure support the Impeachment of Bush Inc.

[EFerrari]

48. Two things. My gut says they jumped the shark yesterday.

But, (thing #1) our elections had more integrity in 1974. WE MUST STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. Visit the Elections forum. They need help.

On the other hand (thing #2) We own the internets. And this is a very, very powerful tool, as we have seen over and over.

On edit: They can fake popular support -- as Jim Robinson does at that other place. But, the fakery can only be carried on so long.

High five, DU. :)

[blue neen]

49. The hearings were fascinating.

Watching the House on C-Span last night was a taste of what it was like.
Their was no such thing as C-Span. The major networks actually provided the coverage. Imagine that!

Other than Watergate, the main imprint on my mind of Nixon's presidency was the killings at Kent State. I was just a kid, but the significance of that was enormous. Like a previous poster said, you just didn't trust authority anymore.

[EFerrari]

53. I watched them all summer, until my first was born in July.

I was just a kid myself and not at all politically savvy. It was riveting.

[Floogeldy]

62. One difference is . . .

. . . From the beginning, the neocons have been organized and acting in concert and with solidarity with their propaganda, disinformation, and their mouthpieces on Faux and all over talk radio. They seized power and have been on the offensive since day one.

Of course, Nixon's problems were not related to a war policy shoved down our throats. For Nixon, it was like a criminal being caught on videotape engaging in illegal activities. Most of Nixon's supporters pretty much just had to eventually say, "Oops! We got caught and we are fucked." Also, as you know, Democrats controlled Congress back then and wielded the impeachment sword.

The hubris and continuous lying that is the neocon agenda will never let up as long as they are in power. There was a tremendous amount of pressure on Nixon. It is going to take a lot of pressure from a lot of the media, and a lot of kool-aid drinkers are going to have to have a change of heart before it ever gets to Nixon levels.

But Nixon's problems did begin with the same kind of rumblings that we have now.

[...of J.Temperance]

72. You

Make a good point there, regarding the neo-cons and their media. Of course they actually started this control of the media mission just after Watergate. The point where they're at now, with the propaganda media echo chamber was planned 30 years ago.

This is something we need to counter. It doesn't matter when there's a Democratic President, they'll go after him just like they did President Clinton, because they'll still own the media.

I've read that nearly all the GOP turned on Nixon and told him he had to go. I know that a handful of Repukes now have turned on Junior, but I often think WHAT is it going to take for them to turn en masse.

I'm glad you've come over to GD Floogeldy :)

Hey that Nut Check icon, it's very cute! However, I'm giving you one of these regardless...here ya go.

:spank:

[Floogeldy]

74. Go ahead and spank me.

I deserve it.

Harder.

HARDER.

:evilgrin:

[...of J.Temperance]

75. Sure

Here ya go...

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

I'd better leave it there, or I might break my paddle, which would be a disaster of astronomical proportions...and anyhow, you should always leave them just a bit short...then they'll come back wanting more.

:evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. It gets more and more similar all the time

Especially what your mom said about the press. I don't remember them being so caught up in a presidential story again until Monicagate. Now they seem to be all over bush, but only time will tell. Our press does seem to have a short attention span.

[EFerrari]

66. Shorter, depending on who signs the check.

And I say this as a member of the SPJ with not a few pals in the profession. :(

[POAS]

67. But "In the Beginning"

Before the election when the break-in was first hitting the news I remember that many thought that this was the end for Nixon. No way would the American people NOT see the corruption and vote the bum out.

Imagine my amazement that the people largely ignored the issue and reelected Nixon.

Now imagine my amazement in 2004 to see it all happen again.

Deja vu all over again.

[EFerrari]

68. dominos are spaced a bit. they're thru. watch.

:)

/damn English