I am always leery of using the WP as a source for anything especially anything to do with Watergate. I read the article and nowhere does it state that CREEP influenced the selection of the Dem nominee nor does it mention McGovern. What is does say is that,
During their Watergate investigation, federal agents established that hundreds of thousands of dollars in Nixon campaign contributions had been set aside to pay for an extensive undercover campaign aimed at discrediting individual Democratic presidential candidates and disrupting their campaigns.
"Intelligence work" is normal during a campaign and is said to be carried out by both political parties. But federal investigators said what they uncovered being done by the Nixon forces is unprecedented in scope and intensity.
All this article proves is that the GOP engaged in operations research against possible Dem opponents, the same way they do against Rep candidates. Informed of the general contents of this article, The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, "The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities."
In the past, I thought that Mr. Wallace harmed Mr. Humphrey more, but a poster here challenged that view a while back. In looking at the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential results, here's what I find:
You decide to use these three elections for analysis, but why not add 1976 to the mix to establish a longer term trend. Except for the 1948 election, Goldwater was an aberration as far as the South was concerned. With few exceptsions, the Solid South was a political reality for the Dems from 1876 to 1964. The 1964 civil rights act had an impact. It is problematic to extrapolate that impact to 1968.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter swept the South except for Virginia and added border states like Missouri and Kentucky. In 1980 Carter lost the south except for GA.
One can argue that the four states that both Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Wallace won would have reverted to the Dems in 1968, but I think that it's persuasive to make the opposite argument: that it is likely that Mr. Nixon would have taken those four states in 1968. They were Republican in 1964 (during the worst shellacking of a Republican ever) and were again Republican in 1972.
You can't view Wallace's impact just on the South. He did well in certain key states outside the South that usually went Dem up to that point. Nixon won in Illinois (a state that could go either way) by 3%(Wallace 8.5% of the vote); Missouri by 1% (Wallace had 11.3% of the vote); and New Jersey by 2% (Wallace had 9.1% of the vote). Nixon won California with 3% margin and almost 7% of the vote went to Wallace. Humphrey won NY by only 5% of the vote and didn't get over 50%. I strongly believe that Humphrey would have won SC, NC, and Tenn without Wallace being in the race.
Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).
Not really. ALA, Miss, GA, AK and LA went for Stevenson in 1952 and again for Stevenson in 1956 (except for LA). They went for JFK in 1960 except for Miss (uncommited electors) and partially ALA. In 1996 Dole took AL, Miss, GA, SC, NC, and VA against a Southern Democrat. In 1992 Bush 41 won Miss, ALA, SC, NC, and VA over Clinton.
Mr. Nixon did take South Carolina in 1968, but so did Mr. Goldwater in 1964.
Nixon took SC with 38% of the vote against 32% for Wallace and 29.6% for Humphrey. In 1964 Goldwater won 59% to Johnson's 41%, which was payback for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1976 Carter received 56%. In 1980 Carter received only 41%. In 1992 Bush beat Clinton 48% to 40%. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton. There are plenty of variables, but a pattern for SC only starts to emerge in 1980.
As for Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, Mr. Goldwater ran much stronger in these states than in the country as a whole. Had the national race not been as lopsided as it was, it is quite possible that Mr. Goldwater would have taken these states. In Florida, he took nearly 49% of the vote against President Johnson.
That is pure speculation. What we do know is that Johnson won nationally with 61% of the popular vote and a winning electoral college majority of 434. It was a landslide by any measure. FLA went Dem in 1976 and 1996 and came within a wisker of going Dem in 2000.
Even in North Carolina, Mr. Goldwater ran about 4% ahead of his national numbers. In a close race in 1968, it isn't at all a stretch that Mr. Nixon may have won a two-man race against Mr. Humphrey in these states.
Goldwater lost NC 56% to 44%. It wasn't close. In 1968, Nixon had 39.5%, Wallace 31%, and Humphrey 29%. May is the operative word.
Like I said, I used to think that Mr. Wallace hurt Mr. Humphrey much more than Mr. Nixon. But in looking at the state-by-state results, I think there's a strong argument that Mr. Nixon may have actually won a clear majority of the vote in 1968 without Mr. Wallace, and would have had a modestly larger victory in the Electoral College.
We will agree to disagree. Nixon won a national election in 1968 by 500,000 votes. A Southern Democrat, George Wallace, formed a third party and ran strongly in the South. He pulled almost 14% of the total vote nationally and had significant support outside the South. I compare Wallace to Perot in terms of his impact on the election. In Perot's case, Clinton was helped by his participation in the race.
All? I don't know. More than one previous president? I think so. I've read more than once that in some sense, Mr. Nixon got caught in the middle of a change in what was and wasn't acceptable. Or maybe, he just got caught, period.
I was just referring to your statement, ""I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents."
Each man avoided being convicted of felonies, yet each man received some punishment for his actions. The difference is that Mr. Clinton was not forced from office for his illegal activities. In my view, the punishment received by Mr. Clinton - pay a fine, lose the law license - was less than what Mr. Nixon received - forced to resign the presidency. Others may differ.
The difference is that Clinton received judicial punishment. Bill Clinton was charged with lying under oath about his affair with Lewinsky to gain advantage in a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones, a case he later settled by paying Paula Jones $850,000. A Federal judge found Clinton also to be in contempt of court for lying in a deposition and ordered him to pay a $90,000 fine. This contempt citation led to disbarment proceedings to remove his law license. To avoid these Clinton surrendered his law license and is no longer allowed to practice law.
Nixon resigned under pressure, the first to do so in our history. Clinton was impeached, the first time for an elected President. He was impeached for: Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury; Article 2; Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case; Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case; and Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
But what was proved legally is different from what we all saw with our own eyes, in each case.
What we saw in the case of Nixon was a witch hunt and lynching with a disproportionate reaction and punishment for a President's loyalty to his subordinates. Clinton was not punished appropriately for his more serious crimes and has been rewarded and fawned over by the MSM ever since finishing his term of office. Nixon became a political pariah until he died. There is no moral equivalency between these two men. And certainly, Nixon's performance in office dwarfs Clinton's pitiful achievements as President.
Dear kabar,
"I am always leery of using the WP as a source for anything especially anything to do with Watergate."
I don't blame you, but I've seen much of this reported elsewhere.
"I read the article and nowhere does it state that CREEP influenced the selection of the Dem nominee nor does it mention McGovern."
It certainly points to an attempt to influence the selection of the Democrat nominee:
"Law enforcement sources said that probably the best example of the sabotage was the fabrication by a White House aide -- of a celebrated letter to the editor alleging that Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) condoned a racial slur on Americans of French-Canadian descent as 'Canucks.'"
At the time, Mr. Muskie was the front-runner, and this clearly was an attempt to damage Mr. Muskie's candidacy. Did it have much of an effect? I don't know. Was it clearly an attempt to do so? Sure looks like it to me.
"All this article proves is that the GOP engaged in operations research against possible Dem opponents, the same way they do against Rep candidates."
Well, not quite. Even the part you cut and pasted, and then highlighted, belies that assertion:
"But federal investigators said what they uncovered being done by the Nixon forces is unprecedented in scope and intensity."
However, the assertion of the article is that it went beyond intelligence gathering:
"One federal investigative official said that Segretti played the role of 'just a small fish in a big pond.' According to FBI reports, at least 50 undercover Nixon operatives traveled throughout the country trying to disrupt and spy on Democratic campaigns.
"Both at the White House and within the President's re-election committee, the intelligence-sabotage operation was commonly called the 'offensive security' program of the Nixon forces, according to investigators."
Note, "DISRUPT and spy..." Disruption goes beyond intelligence-gathering.
And of course, we actually know that the CREEP resorted to illegal bugging for "intelligence-gathering" as well. If one wishes to say that others before did it, I won't disagree. Nonetheless, it is illegal, and it was part of a coordinated effort by the CREEP.
"You decide to use these three elections for analysis, but why not add 1976 to the mix to establish a longer term trend."
I chose 1964 and 1972 first because they were the closest to 1968, and thus would be most relevant to discussing trends. But also, 1964 showed great erosion in the "Solid South" for the Democrats, a trend that has continued to the present day, only interrupted by the Southern Democrat candidates - Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton. That's why I didn't use 1976, as I'd stated elsewhere that southern states tend to return to the Democrat ticket when a Southerner heads the ticket, although Mr. Carter's first term was so disastrous that he oculdn't do even that.
Regarding some of the election results, by state, that you cite, I'll generally say just a few things. First, it's quite possible that without the influence of Mr. Wallace, states may have tipped differently. However, in some of the states that you cite, Mr. Wallace's voters would have had to have come at a very high cost to Mr. Humphrey. Let's look at Illinois. To say that Mr. Humphrey would have won if Mr. Wallace hadn't run, one must assume that Mr. Humphrey would have received about 70% of the votes that Mr. Wallace actually received.
In California, Mr. Humphrey would have needed more than 70% of Mr. Wallace's votes. Although I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility of that, these weren't Southern states where Mr. Wallace was stealing traditional Southern Democrat votes, but rather Northern and Western states that had often gone Republican.
"The 1964 civil rights act had an impact. It is problematic to extrapolate that impact to 1968."
Yes, it did. But it isn't at all difficult to extrapolate the impact to 1968 and beyond. Even though Republicans voted for the civil rights bills in higher proportions than Democrats, at a national level, a lot of folks who opposed these bills in the South punished the national Democrats, not the Republicans.
The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
"Informed of the general contents of this article, The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, 'The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities.'"
Well, unfortunately, in light of all that eventually came to light, this has even less credibility than articles from the Washington Post.
"'Their vote for Mr. Wallace may be seen as an aberration of that trend (accentuated since then, except when a Southern Democrat runs).'
"Not really. ALA, Miss, GA, AK and LA went for Stevenson in 1952 and again for Stevenson in 1956..."
Excuse me. I should have made clear that the trend was one that largely got going in 1964, and has continued to the present day.
"'As for Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, Mr. Goldwater ran much stronger in these states than in the country as a whole. Had the national race not been as lopsided as it was, it is quite possible that Mr. Goldwater would have taken these states. In Florida, he took nearly 49% of the vote against President Johnson.'
"That is pure speculation."
Certainly it's speculation. LOL. What is any of this?? ;-)
But the point is that Florida did run far ahead of the country in 1964 for the Republican candidate. It may be speculation, but it is an entirely reasonable, plausible speculation that should Mr. Goldwater have lost, let's say, 55% - 45%, instead of 61% - 39%, that he may have eaked out an extra couple of percent in Florida (After all, the additional votes would have had to come from somewhere, and certainly some number would have come from Florida.).
"We will agree to disagree."
Okay.
"Nixon won a national election in 1968 by 500,000 votes."
Actually, I think he won by over 800,000 votes. Mr. Wallace received around 9.5 million votes, or a little under 13%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1968-Large.png
Who he helped more is of course a debatable point. Like I said, I used to think it was Mr. Nixon, by taking votes from Mr. Humphrey. But I don't think that the evidence clearly points toward that conclusion, especially as the years have gone by, those places from which Mr. Wallace drew most heavily have mostly trended Republican.
"I was just referring to your statement, 'I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than previous presidents.'"
Then I ask to amend my previous comment to, "I also don't think that Mr. Nixon's minions did anything different than the minions of at least some previous presidents."
"What we saw in the case of Nixon was a witch hunt and lynching with a disproportionate reaction and punishment for a President's loyalty to his subordinates."
Well, my view is that it was certainly part witch-hunt, but it was also an adamant refusal by national Republicans to retain a felon as president.
"Clinton was not punished appropriately for his more serious crimes and has been rewarded and fawned over by the MSM ever since finishing his term of office."
I agree. But as I said, we Republicans evict our felons, the Dammocraps enshrine theirs.
"Nixon became a political pariah until he died."
I think that Mr. Nixon had achieved significant rehabilitation by the time he died, although he was certainly not without some stigma even to his dying day, or even since.
"There is no moral equivalency between these two men."
I agree. Mr. Nixon was, in the final analysis, a patriot who loved his country, however flawed he may have been. Mr. Clinton is a narcissist who loves only himself, in spite of whatever intellectual and political gifts he may have.
"And certainly, Nixon's performance in office dwarfs Clinton's pitiful achievements as President."
I don't know that I agree with that. Mr. Clinton took a lesson from the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, and significantly trimmed his sails thereafter. By abdication, in many ways, he governed almost as a centrist Republican, especially on economic issues.
Mr. Nixon, however, was a vigorous president, and in retrospect, I take issue with any number of the things he did, including wage and price controls, controls on oil pricing in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the EPA, affirmative action (started in the federal govt under Mr. Nixon), his handling of the Vietnam War, detente with the Soviet Union, the suggestion to provide every family with a guaranteed income (which some have pointed out eventually morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit), and his cavalier treatment of the Fourth Amendment (which ultimately what all this bugging & stuff gets down to).
I don't think these were particularly conservative, or particularly good for the United States.
But I give him credit for being imaginative, creative, and trying hard to do right by his country.
sitetest
