Originally posted by Guppy35
And that's where your lose me Seagoon.
You keep making this a Liberal vs Conservative thing.
It was no such thing when it all came down to it when it came to Watergate.
Nixon tried to hide behind that, making it about the liberal press and the Democrats, but when the truth did come out, in his own words, his defenders were left betrayed and calling for his resignation as well.
There was no one left to defend him because his actions were indefensible.
Again I ask. Do you recall the time at all?
Dan/CorkyJr
Dan and Nash,
Respectfully, if you check above, I've never argued that Nixon wasn't guilty in fact I started out by saying:
"Nixon lied and misused his office to cover up crimes perpetrated by some of the oafs working for him. He did so because he was a politician, and a particularly bitter and slightly paranoid one at that."I have no doubt that even if the Post hadn't stuck to the story so tenaciously, the FBI investigation would eventually have toppled his presidency - even the conspirators have admitted that it was only a matter of time after the ham-fisted cover-ups started. My point, which I have to admit to being weary of making, was that the reason this particular Presidential scandal made it to the front pages of the Post was because of their particular editorial slant.
As a case in point, people at the Post knew of Kennedy's many affairs, including the fact that he and Sam Giancanna had shared a mistress. The 1960 vote buying scandal was also well known in the Washington Press corps, and interesting tidbits like the identity of "Mimi" the 19 year old JFK "intern" whose "only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House" according to biographer Robert Dallek could easily have been dug up by aggressive reporters with an editor willing to actually run the stories. However, JFK's scandal rich presidency was handled throughout with kid gloves by the Post in a way that Nixon could only have dreamed of.
If one is tempted to think, "well that's only because in the early 60s the Presidency was a sancrosanct office that the press would never have been willing to tarnish" one is forgetting the fact that the same "no digging, no reporting, no leaking" treatment was afforded to the Clinton Whitehouse and the Gore campaign during the fundraising scandals of the late 90s, and there the issue was not sex, drugs, or break-ins
it was a foriegn power attempting to influence the US elections and their aftermath by making huge illegal contributions and then the subsequent attempts to cover up those donations and actively subvert the investigation into them. Here the Post had a story tailormade for gritty idealistic investigative reporters eager to uncover government wrongdoing even if it lead to the highest levels of the executive branch. What did they do with it? Spiked, ignored, waved away for the sake of preserving Camelot Mk. II.
Apparently a break in at the DNC and cover-up had to be run to ground by the Post as a high-crime of monunmental proportions. But China's attempt to illegally influence the US elections with the connivance of the administration, and all the associated "technology transfers" to the Chinese that could have been directly related were of no interest at all. I wonder if Reagan or either Bush would have been so blessed by the Post? Oh, of course they would, because none of this is about politics, only Fox News has an agenda. Och aye, and the Guardian frequently gives the Republicans and the Torries a free ride as well.
Dan, in answer to your question. Do I recall the time? Yes, I well remember the grumpy looking man who occasionally interrupted my viewings of the Wombles and the Magic Roundabout whom my parents "tut-tutted" over. Apparently it was all very serious stuff.
- SEAGOON
