Posted on 07/03/2015 11:48:29 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
It's become almost clich in American politics to call a politician Nixonian or "like Nixon" -- and it's rarely a positive to compare an officeholder or candidate to the only U.S. president to resign from office.
Yet to Evan Thomas, the author of a new Nixon biography who also covered the Clinton White House, comparing Hillary Clinton to Nixon works -- to an extent.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc7.com ...
It’s become almost clich in American politics....
***
“Clich”? This was written by three people and, then, possibly reviewed by an editor, yet nobody noticed “clich”?
He was shown to be a normal man of his generation, warts and all, through the tapes. But the “gap” (along with a weasel working to save his own worthless a$$ named Howard Dean) sealed his fate.
+1
I agree.
Then when the Clinton’s had the equivalent of months of gaps, nobody said a thing.
Yep.
It’s in the original. And no doubt everyone involved has journalism degrees from prestigious universities.
Watergate was the most overblown, media created bullshit story. This was Nixon going toe to toe with the media....they hated him,and he knew it and he really fought back. He got Alger Hiss...but they paid him back. Cant beieve he resigned over nonsense really.
The Watergate coverup I thought was due to Nixon not wanting to divulge things about the Kennedy Assassination (”...bring up the whole Cuban thing...”)
After I had come up with that idea, I read where Haldeman also thought that. Not that Nixon had anything to do with the assassination, but covering for the CIA, etc. Can you imagine what would have happened in the early seventies if it was discovered the CIA killed Kennedy?
I thought this serial criminal loser had “bent attributes”.
I believe that Patrick Kennedy helped his son get elected by tapping the mob in Chicago. It’s pretty much a given that Kennedy was probably elected in no small part to election fraud in Chicago. Nixon was aware of it, but couldn’t stand to see the nation ripped apart by a lengthy investigation. He conceded.
When Bobby was appointed to be the Attorney General, he went after the mob with vengeance. I don’t think the mob chose to stand still for that, and ultimately I think they sanctioned a hit on Kennedy. I honestly can’t say if Oswald was a wing-nut or not. He may have been the trigger man. He may or may not have been a part of it.
Ruby was a known contact for the mob in Dallas, even if he was a bit player. I think there was more to him taking out Oswald than meets the eye, but who knows.
Did the CIA have a hand in it? I wouldn’t rule anything out. After the Bay of Pigs, I’m sure the CIA was not too fond of him.
We could as easily be dealing with a copy of loose cannons Oswald and Ruby, but it is just too much coincidence for me that Oswald had gone to Russia in those days and returned to do what he did.
When Jim Garrison (admittedly at least in part a flake) ran his investigations in Texas, people he wanted to interview died under mysterious circumstances. I remember from that time frame at least four of them falling down stairs or having other freak accidents.
Interesting subject. I think Carter took on the CIA in the mid 70s because of his thought that they may have been involved. This left us wide open in Iran when the hostage crisis struck.
It is all tied together, clear on down to today IMO.
I thought he was playing spearcatcher for Team Clinton back during the impeachment wars.
Nixon was a piker compared to the she-devil.
It’s true that Watergate was overblown BS but it was made possible by Nixon suffering fools to work for him and then stupidly participating in their foolishness himself.
The whole breakin was an incredibly stupid and pointless idea and to risk and lose his Presidency to cover up the stupidity of his extremely stupid subordinates shows some very poor judgement indeed.
The bottom line is, Nixon grossly over-estimated the talents of his friends and vastly under-estimated the powers of his enemies. He was really in over his head against the media, especially with the people he chose for his own team.
And BTW, off-topic but can’t help myself: Wage and price controls? Really?
But proofreading is just so...like...hard...and stuff.
agree 100%...he handed the media exactly what they needed, i really think he got so caught up in this media battle, almost like a tunnel vision type thing, he didnt see what he was actually doing. I still say the whole resignation thing was wrong...the main charge, “obstruction of justice”..was simply private conversations that i dont recall was ever actually carried thru. Daniel Ellsberg stole classifed documents, gave them to the NYT....and got off scott free. Donald Segretti did 16 months in a federal prison, for calling up and cancelling Democrat campaign rallys....geez. But to weaken an American President that badly ..especially at that time, was very dangerous. But Nixon was fascinating...both good and bad.
You are absolutely correct. The disparity in sanctions between dems and repubs is amazing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.