Is the left trying to capitialize from Nixon 42 years later?

[Coolhand68]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

If there's any truth to your statement, then there would certainly be indictments, if not convictions.

So, please point them out.

If I have to spell out the lies and scandals of the aforementioned presidents then you've likely been living in a shell these last two decades. Are you really that naive to insist that indictments and convictions would be served for the lies, scandals and cover-ups of any of these administrations? I'm not in favor of the left or right, since both sides have more in common than they do differences. At that level of office you have to be shady. You know where the bodies are buried and capitalize on the gullibility of the American public.

[Tuck's Dad]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

Nixon has been in the news this week because it's the 40th anniversary of his resignation. The media loves rehashing things on important dates. I don't think there's anything nefarious about it.

This is current events not politics, so I will be walking a bit of a fine line, but I think the media love affair with Watergate is that the media was able to turn public opinion against a very powerful, and to that point popular president, and force the first and only resignation of a president over a "cover up", not a crime he committed.

It would be fascinating to see what George Bush's poll numbers would look like without two straight years of demonization by the press, and their failure to correlate congressional action to the economic problems of his last two years in office.

It would be equally fascinating to see what Bill Clinton's and Barak Obama's poll numbers would look like if the press actively and aggressively went after them with their scandals rather than covering for them through omission or attacking the watchdogs.

I remember a few years back (I think it was when John Kerry was running), I saw an ABC news exec being interviewed about political news coverage, and he said their coverage would be worth about 15 points in the election for (Kerry?). May have simply been bravado, but obviously he thought one of the powers of the press was the power to pick when it came to our presidents...

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

Currently I've seen several stories about Watergate & Nixon. Is the left using this as propaganda, or are these facts we should have concern about?

https://news.yahoo.com/watergate-big...094612137.html

When you tell people, their guy is the worst President ever, they look for someone else to dredge up so the current guy looks better in comparison.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Coolhand68

Compared to the scandals and lies of Obama, Bush and Clinton, Watergate was a little white lie. Four decades later the left still wants to beat him over the head in order to distract the public from this current President's epic failures and scandalous lies.

Hardly a little white lie.
Layer by layer, evidence was uncovered that Nixon played an active part in covering up an illegal break-in.

I'm willing to give Tricky the benefit of the doubt; he may not have ordered the break-in. But once he learned of it, he did everything he could to keep the incident covered up. If he knew nothing, he became a conspirator. If he did order the break-in, then he was the initiator of an illegal act, and a break-in is a felony crime.

Either way, all of the 'plumbers' (the term the thieves called themselves) and all of Nixon's top aides went to federal prison. Nixon would have been indicted immediately after his impeachment, and Ford's pardon was the only thing that prevented an indictment. Resigning did not make him immune from criminal prosecution after he was no longer protected by being the President.

In comparison, the Whitewater investigation, the basis for Clinton's impeachment, never came up with any evidence either Clinton committed a crime. Even after the impeachment proceedings fell apart before ever coming to a vote, Starr, the investigator, didn't lose his job. He continued to dig for dirt to the end, and never found any.

Whitewater was an investment group that played fast and loose with the law. The Clintons were investors, and got burned, but not as badly as others. Contrary to what the public thinks now, Bill's hanky-panky with Monica Lewinsky was never an impeachment charge, as Lewinsky was an adult. There was no crime committed except in the court of public opinion.

The fact is- scandals don't count for squat as impeachable offenses. Neither do lies.

Bush and Obama may have made poor decisions, but none have ever been impeachable offenses.

The office of President had a steady increase of power from the first to the last of the 20th century, and by precedent and SCOTUS decision, it is extremely remote that an Obama impeachment will ever go to a vote, much less succeed.
But such an attempt will destroy the GOP's chances of gaining the White House in 2016, and if pushed this year, will destroy their hopes for a Republican Senate and a veto-proof majority in the House.

That's why Boehner tried to push suing the President instead of impeachment. A lawsuit wouldn't win, either, but he was in the House in 1998, and saw the train wreck. Boehner won't let that stupidity happen under his watch as Speaker. He has seen what became of Newt Gingrich before and after the failed impeachment, and there is no way he will follow in Newt's footsteps.

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad

This is current events not politics, so I will be walking a bit of a fine line, but I think the media love affair with Watergate is that the media was able to turn public opinion against a very powerful, and to that point popular president, and force the first and only resignation of a president over a "cover up", not a crime he committed.

It would be fascinating to see what George Bush's poll numbers would look like without two straight years of demonization by the press, and their failure to correlate congressional action to the economic problems of his last two years in office.

It would be equally fascinating to see what Bill Clinton's and Barak Obama's poll numbers would look like if the press actively and aggressively went after them with their scandals rather than covering for them through omission or attacking the watchdogs.

I remember a few years back (I think it was when John Kerry was running), I saw an ABC news exec being interviewed about political news coverage, and he said their coverage would be worth about 15 points in the election for (Kerry?). May have simply been bravado, but obviously he thought one of the powers of the press was the power to pick when it came to our presidents...

George Bush would rank pretty lowly if he had to to be judged objectivelyby his entire record. The man did start an unnecessary war on false pretenses.... that is pretty major.