Again, Curtis LeMay, keep your cites from Wikipedia and elsewhere to a reasonable length. A six paragraph, 900-plus word excerpt is too long. Use a couple of paragraphs or less.
BTW: A lot of Americans seem to think Watergate was just an instance of political “espionage” and a clumsy attempt to cover up same. It wasn’t. The break-in at the Watergate Hotel was just a small side operation in a vast criminal conspiracy of political sabotage that went on for most of Nixon’s first term. The goal of CREEP was to scuttle the candidacy of every potential Democratic nominee for 1972, except for McGovern, because McGovern was judged easiest to beat. (In that, CREEP was entirely successful.) And if Nixon was not directly responsible or entirely knowledgeable, he certainly did communicate to his staff his persecution-mania and his determination – common to every first-year president, but in Nixon’s case completely unprecedented in depth of obsession – to win a second term at any cost. Again, you can read the details in Nixonland.
That being said, your citation does not prove what you want it to. You’ve tried raising this ‘JFK stole the election’ thing over and over again and it does not stand up to scrutiny. From the same entry:
Nixon’s political skills were considerable and some of his achievements are impressive. His flaws on the other hand his flaws are enormous, and despite the extensive attempts at historical revisionism by people like Pat Buchanan (who used to work for Nixon), Watergate remains an enormous scandal. The president spied on his opponents and successfully fixed an election. How can you downplay that and expect to be taken seriously?
On a related note, it is with deep regret that we announce the suicide of our lead hamster, Speedo, who preferred to be called Mr. Earl. He will be remembered for his dedication, spirit, and prodigious capacity for methamphetamine.
Even if it does not change the election it doesn’t matter: if votes were stolen that is far worse than Watergate ever was. Also Nixon has chivalrously not ordered investigations into electoral fraud.
See post #102. And read Nixonland, it’s very enlightening. (Big, thick doorstopper of a book, but it repays the time invested; fascinating insight into not only Nixon but the Zeitgeist of the period.)
Well if some of the irregularities were in areas where the errors wound up being in Nixon’s favor, he might have been concerned with protecting something other than the innocent naiveté of the American electorate.
Nixon was really a tragically flawed character. He was highly intelligent, truly patriotic, and had a kind of sincere integrity and dedication to public service; but his integrity did not include honesty in any sense or form. He seems never at any time in his career to have had any sense at all that a politician or official is under any obligation to tell the people the truth; his attitude always was that the insiders know best and “The public will be told what the public needs to be told.” He was also afflicted all his life with a deep sense of social inferiority, outsiderness, and persecution. That kind of paranoia in a public figure is, of course, usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the reasons Nixon decided not to challenge the results of the 1960 election was because he knew an investigation would show the Republicans had been as busy stealing votes as the Democrats had. It’s doubful the resulting back-and-forth on who stole what votes would have given Nixon the win. So he decided to play for the long-term. By saying he would not challenge the election, he was able to look like a man of principle and make Kennedy look bad in comparison. And he was able to preserve the Republican vote-stealing machine for future elections.
While the Republicans too may have committed fraud it seems to me that they were not ordered by Nixon or the RNC personally but committed by local organizers. Also the Democrats fraud was on a larger scale. For instance in Texas Kennedy received in some counties far more votes than there were registered voters as seen in the Wiki cite.
Quick question to those older than I then (12 years old and only just then becoming politically aware): were there large segments of the punditocracy (and the general public of course) who gave Tricky Dick a free pass on all that he did? Demonstrations of streetcorners proclaiming his innocence and decrying the Democratic-led witchhunt? My memory is that the country was pretty well united against him and his shenanigans. I shudder to think about the excuses that would be put forth nowadays to absolve him of all his sins (rather, “What crimes?”). Yes I know all about Dubya, natch.
No.
Only the fringe gave Nixon a free pass back then, and there weren’t all that many of them.
And you figure Kennedy went down to Texas and personally stuffed ballot boxes? Personally, I doubt Nixon or Kennedy had any direct role in the frauds that were carried out in support of them. But of the two, Nixon was the likelier suspect - the crimes he was subsequently convicted of shows that he did sometimes take a hands-on approach. Kennedy, on the other hand, prefered to delegate his crimes.
For a long time, Nixon said that he wasn’t involved in the break-in or the cover-up. For a lot of his followers, his word was good enough - they believed he was innocent because he said he was. That’s one reason the “smoking gun” tape was such a shock - it was proof from Nixon’s own mouth on tape that he had been lying all along.
Texas was LBJ’s home state while JFK had good connections with Mayor Daley. Plus JFK had ties to organised crime like the Mafia.
Nixon was a Deep One! My cite is Beyond Time And Space by Lee Hsung-Wang
“The leader of men, he of the middle mill house,
He shall fall by the Watergate.
But yea, the proof that he is the son of Dagon and Mother Hydra
That shall be missing from the iron thread.
The masses shall not know that the blood of Yha N’thlei flows in his veins.”
Epic Win! 
Curtis, you can’t just decide to believe whatever rumors fit your preconceptions and then treat them like they were facts. Well, obviously you can do that but nobody will take you seriously outside of your circle of fellow believers. You’ll end up being grouped in with the people who believe Nixon faked the moon landings and George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
I can’t see how those are equivalent anymore than saying that Bush helped steal the election in Florida is equivalent to saying the Roman Catholic Church is behind Nazism and Communism (a la Jack Chick).
Take a couple freshmen engineering classes at the local university. The problem solving skills you develop in them will help you distinguish between what is real, and what it is merely convenient for you to believe.
You’ve had too many fairy tales stuffed into your head, and are in danger of becoming a slave to magical thinking.