Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The difference between Bush's low numbers and Nixon's.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:13 PM
Original message
The difference between Bush's low numbers and Nixon's.
When Nixon got himself in trouble, it was the executive branch only that was the problem.

Republican Congress members were ready to vote to impeach him, and IIRC, Howard Baker was on the right side of the issue as were Conservative Southern Democrats.

The Supreme Court wasn't being attacked by Congressmen, nor were there pictures of a Justice flipping off his detractors, nor endorsing sexual orgies.

This time, the White House is riddled with corruption on several fronts - - not just the Watergate and Ellsburg issues. Currently, there's Sefavian, Libby, that fellow who got caught shoplifting at Target, Rove, Cheney and Bush himself. These aren't small time "plumbers", these are the big names at the White House.

In Congress, there is one Republican crook after another: Cunningham, DeLay, Noe, Doolittle, Weldon, Harris, Frist, Burns, and all the others yet to be connected to Abramoff or to be indicted. As for our side? Jefferson of Louisiana, who appears to have been on the take like a Republican.

And the Supreme Court! We have nominees who dissemble, feint, avoid and mislead during their confirmation hearings. We have members who won't recuse themselves when anyone could see they should. We have a member who seems to have an appetite for porn and dining with Rush Limbaugh.

And shall we look at the states? The crooks just keep on coming. Blackwell, Taft, Reed, Schwarzenegger, and many more that I won't list here. You can fill in your own state's miscreant Republicans here.

I'm trying to say that comparing Bush's trouble to Nixon's doesn't even begin to describe the criminality of this current Republican party. It permeates every branch of government and every level of government.

The stench is overwhelming, and it's up to us to remind each other and our neighbors - - from now until November - - how thoroughgoing the criminal corruption is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. There are also very few real journalists. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Bingo! That makes Bush's numbers FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT!
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 02:22 PM by BattyDem
During the Nixon years, there were real journalists who kept Americans informed about Nixon's dirty deeds. Today, the MSM has done everything they possibly can to shield Americans from the truth about Bush* ... yet his numbers are in the toilet! Can you imagine how low they would be if the MSM was doing it's job??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sable302 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. but at this moment there is a very real
prosecuter pursuing a very real criminal case, and I believe in my heart that the process now is nicely insulated from all the crazy journalistic spin.

The MSM could argue that Bush's low numbers are evidence that the people love the job he's doing and that he should be allowed to break the law whenever just 'cause, but I firmly believe that Fitz don't give a shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Because there are so few independent media companies.
Can't really expect a journalist to get the message out when his company, which is in total control over their media access, doesn't want it to be told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's the entire republican party..... they're all corrupt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And that is the difference between 1974 and now.
Back then they weren't all crooks. Just the administration.

Now, they are all crooks. Throughout the Federal Government and up and down through the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. That, of course, was their plan.
They believed that Nixon's downfall was because the base deserted him in his hour of need. So they immediately set about creating a base that is just as crazy and corrupt as the leaders, so that next time it would come out differently.

You know, deep in their hearts, despite their denials and bluster, every criminal believes that will one day be caught. That includes these criminals, and they've prepared for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. But now their base is shrinking, and we never were suckered in, so
Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 02:56 PM by janeaustin
we can spread the news of this criminality from top to bottom and get rid of these corrupters.

You are right that they planned for this - - more than they planned for the aftermath of Iraq, to be sure - - but they just aren't as smart as they think they are.


(Edited to correct homonym.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. And those that are less corrupt, are going along...
and failing to do their Constitutional duty (and therefore are just as guilty as the more active offenders).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. If I only had a choice today between Nixon and Bush
I would choose Nixon in a heartbeat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Thank you,
to whomever recommended this thread. :)

It took me a while to think it out and I am grateful that you thought it was worth more reading. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Millhouse had a little bit of finesse



And he seemed to be aware and concerned about his public image.


Boosh, on the other hand, is just plain stupid.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC