You’re a man born out of time and place, Starving Artist. Soviet Russia could have used such a skilled historical revisionist as you.
I really think you should have been paying more attention at the time. Nixon received far more endorsements from the newspapers (which were still a political force at the time) than either Humphrey or McCarthy. The scandal that broke out within the media after the congressional hearings began, revealing the enemies list and the illegal use of the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS to persecute citizens that Nixon did not like, was that most of the information had been available to reporters, in one form or another, since 1970 and 1971, yet only the Washington post ran any of it and only after the 1972 break-in, and even they did not make an issue of it, letting Woodward and Bernstein pretty much handle it by themselves.
Nixon was not beloved as a person by the media, but he was not hounded by them, either, and they tended to support his policies throughout his tenure until the summer of 1973.
If anything, there was far more scrutiny of the Clintons than there ever had been of Nixon. Most of the private revelations about Nixon’s misdeeds only came to light in the press following his resignation. (And Nixon never had to face the internet dissemination of the silly “look at all the people Clinton has murdered” list that was publicly endorsed by Falwell, Robertson, and other spokesperson for various agendas.)
It should also be noted that, while the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, there was far more bi-partisan interaction in those days. The notion that a “Democratic” Congress could steamroll the president at a time when Scoop Jackson or Sam Nunn were serving is absurd. The wholly partisan Congress is a creation of Newt Gingrich and his followers in the last ten years. Even during Reagan’s terms there was far less single party grandstanding.
I was rather young at the time, but I’m guessing that people were more trusting of the government at the time. I think it’s because of Nixon that the President is subjected to such intense public scrutiny, and mistrust and cynicism.
More trusting? Not really. Some people were very paranoid about the government. It was the “sixties era”. Some people thought the time of Big Brother was at hand. It wasn’t all hearts and flowers.
Not sure I see what you’re getting at here. How could he have “four active scandals” *before * being elected if two of them didn’t become public until *after * the election?
Also are you saying that the “I didn’t inhale” thing was a scandal? I wouldn’t call it a scandal, as much as proof that the “you smoked pot” defense only works against arch-conservatives who are supposed to be against that sort of thing. (Apparently the you were once a hopeless drunk, and might even be a cokehead defense is entirely ineffectual).
What about Clinton’s pardons?
Actually, you are completely delusional. I don’t see why anyone should take seriously anything said by someone so utterly ignorant of history.
I would go along more with Johnny on this one. There were a lot of people who argued that “the president knows better” or that “the president has more information” during the rising protests against the Vietnam War (which is why I happened to find similar claims to be silly and infuriating during the run up to the Iraq War). There was certainly a rising number of people, generally boomers, who grew increasingly distrustful from, say, 1966 through 1972*, but the country as a whole was still in the mode of trusting our government until the late spring and early summer of 1973. Even then, there were a lot of people who shared Starving Artist’s views after the resignation, although their number began to dwindle, first with the pardon, then with the release of the sanitized White House tapes. It was only as more Adminstration lies and failures were dug up through the mid 70s (and as the Ford and Carter administrations kept stumbling over different issues) that a general feeling of “we can’t ever trust these people” began to make its way across the country as a whole.
*Clearly, some boomers developed paranoia; I can remember classmates pondering whether they had earned themselves a place on an FBI roster by marking a standardized test question regarding the U.S. action in the Philipines after the Spanish American War an “act of empire building” over “freeing a people.” And the news about the FBI, CIA, and IRS was supportive of a paranoid attitude. However, I do not think that most people in the country shared that view prior to 1973.
I said those those two I knew not to be of the four, and there aren’t enough remaining minus those two–so there must be more beyond that list.
Well 1, “But I didn’t inhale” is stupid. I mean either take the fifth or cop to it. 2, marijuana is illegal. Not a big deal perhaps–but still given the two images of:
- When I was young and foolish, I used my influence to get out of military duty so I could stay home and smoke pot.
- When I was young and foolish, I joined the military–but sneaked off towards the end so I could go to Harvard.
Usually, #2 will sound better.
?
I’m not sure what you are referring to (indeed I might entirely not know having spent the greater part of the last decade in Japan.)
Personally I thought that Clinton was a lot more Presidential and I truly dislike Bush. But to be honest with all y’all who are into a particular party–in recent history Democrats giving Democrats a free pass has been more prevalent than Republicans. If we’re all going to find out for a fact that there was no WMD in Iraw, I would expect to know for a fact whether or not Clinton was trading military iinformation with China for election money and such. But that that story just disappeared worries me about how honest everyone is being with themselves over there.
That’s right, and that’s why I underlined the word some. It wasn’t universal, but it was there to some extent. Personally, I tended to cut some slack for Nixon - he didn’t start the war, he inherited it. He got us out of the war. He started dialogue with China. If he was a crook, my feeling was that he was only a little bit “larcenous”, extremely intelligent, competent in most areas, and that he would not deliberately do any harm. As far as “his” FBI looking for Commies under my bed, even at that age I believed the government knew they better things to do.
Agreed. But my take on it was his answer really meant that the question was stupid. Before I heard the Q&A, I would have assumed Clinton smoked dope. The “Just Say No” campaign was over. What pissed me off was that we needed to continue the “war on drugs,” even though we had a stoner in office.
Here is some background.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/clinton.pardon/&e=9797 (Clinton pardons 140 on his way out the door)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/clinton.pardon.03/&e=9797 (Clinton’s brother represented two of the pardonees)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1171710.stm (BBC’s Q&A on the subject).
Agreed. To me, Clinton was just more of a real guy, too. I didn’t agree with some of his decisions, but I wanted to like him.
I guess it depends on what ya mean by free pass and prevalent. But I see your point, and I don’t disagree.
:eek:
“Brother” should be “brother-in-law.”
Funny thing is, I remember thinking “make sure you type MKL and not MLK” as I was posting that. Mind over matter… 
You know, Reagan started the transfer of computer technology to China, way back in the 1980’s. It’s continued since then, pretty much up to the present day:
High-tech transfers to China continue; on the Bush administration’s watch, highly sensitive U.S. technology still is being exported to the People’s Republic, where it is being used to build better weapons
You whooshing us? It wasn’t so much Commies he was looking for as illicit lovers he could use to damage reputations.
Have you ever seen his enemies list? The purpose was to get revenge by using tax audits, litigation, denial of federal contracts, etc. (Some of Colson’s notes are included. Amazing.)
Paul Newman said that he considered making that list to be one of his greatest accomplishments.
BTW, your quotations have been right on the money!
SA, have you read or listened to any of the Watergate Oval Office tapes? I think you would be able to see that no one made him commit the crime that he did. He did not respect his Oath of Office and he abused his power. Truly, it’s very clear.
Nearing the end, the press had a lot to cover. At that time, Walter Cronkite was known as “the most trusted man in America.” The media covered the story, but it was mostly once a day on the evening news and in the daily paper. Not only was there not the internet, but also there were no talk shows except late night entertainment. No cable TV. No 'round the clock news. And the media was much more deversified back then.
Other than that, I’m surviving nicely, thank you! 
I was describing my personal perception at that time. I make no claims whatsoever for its accuracy, and probably shouldn’t. Again, I don’t claim to have been right.
I think that people’s perceptions of the 60s were directly proportional to the degree to which they had dropped out. For me, the 60s ended on May 4, 1970.
Lib, to me The Sixties were more a mindset or “cultural” situation. You know, hippies, Woodstock, Nam, muscle cars, loud rock music, “the Establishment” and the “sex drugs and rock n roll” mentality.
It wasn’t as rampant as it now seems but the pockets of it here and there, were sort of fun to watch.
They’re kidding themselves. The current administration’s drunken-sailor spending and excessive kow-towing to the religious right faction may not have completely repelled a large part of the traditional Republican base, but it’s weakened the ties badly. Oh, they’ll still vote Republican… if the lines at the polls aren’t too long… and if there’s nothing good on TV… and if it isn’t raining on Election Day…
Puh-leeze. You’re too smart to expect that elementary logical fallacy to fly here. :rolleyes:
Enlighten me, Steve. You must know something I do not. I don’t want to put words in your mouth…but are you saying that the only reason that there hasn’t been a domestic terrorist attack is because they haven’t felt like it? That the policy changes, the military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, the new focus on domestic terrorism by the FBI and CIA, the more stringent airport and flight security…none of that enters the equation at all?