Watergate cannot happen now!

[deep]

If Watergate Happened Now
With the GOP controlling Congress, there'd be no Watergate hearings.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

June 13 issue - From a distance, Watergate seems like a partisan affair. But that's because we tend to look at it nowadays through red- and blue-tinted glasses. In truth, President Nixon was forced to resign in 1974 by Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, who realized from the so-called smoking-gun tape that he was a crook. This was after the Supreme Court—led by a Nixon appointee—unanimously ruled against him in the tapes case.

But imagine if Nixon were president in this era. After he completed his successful second term, I'd have to write a retrospective column like this:

President Nixon left office in 2005 having proved me and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism" wrong. We thought that his administration was sleazy but we were never able to nail him. Those of us who hoped it would end differently knew we were in trouble when former Nixon media adviser Roger Ailes banned the word "Watergate" from Fox News's coverage and went with the logo "Assault on the Presidency" instead. By that time, the American people figured both sides were just spinning, and a tie always goes to the incumbent.

The big reason Nixon didn't have to resign: the rise of Conservative Media, which features Fox, talk radio and a bunch of noisy partisans on the Internet and best-sellers list who almost never admit their side does anything wrong. (Liberals, bycontrast, are always eating their own.) This solidarity came in handy when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post began snooping around after the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Once they scored a few scoops with the help of anonymous sources, Sean Hannity et al. went on a rampage. When the young reporters printed an article about grand jury testimony that turned out to be wrong, Drudge and the bloggers had a field day, even though none of them had lifted a finger to try to advance the story. After that, the Silent Majority wouldn't shut up.

Some argue the Watergate story died right there, but Nixon's attorney general wasn't taking any chances. Just as in the Valerie Plame case, the Justice Department subpoenaed Woodward and Bernstein to testify before the grand jury about their sources. When they declined, they were jailed for 18 months on contempt charges. Talkingpointsmemo.com and a few other liberal bloggers complained that it was hypocritical—top White House aides were suspected of shredding documents, suborning perjury and paying hush money to burglars—but to no avail. Public support for the media had hit rock bottom.

Whistle-blowers didn't fare much better. With Woodward and Bernstein out of business, the No. 2 man at the FBI, W. Mark Felt, held a press conference to air complaints that the White House and his own boss were impeding the FBI probe. Of course it was only a one-day story, with Ann Coulter predictably screaming that Felt was a "traitor." Rush Limbaugh dubbed Felt "Special Agent Sour Grapes" because he'd been passed over for the top FBI job. Within hours, the media had moved on to the tale of a runaway bride. And because both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP, there were no "Watergate" hearings to keep the probe going. John Dean and other disgruntled former aides had no place to go.

For a while, I hoped that the Nixon tapes might bring some justice. But soon the tapes just became more fodder for those legal shows on cable. The Supreme Court split 5-4, along largely partisan lines, as it did in Bush vs. Gore. That allowed Nixon to keep control of the tapes. When he burned them, the bipartisan outcry you would have heard in the old days over destruction of evidence was muffled by a ferocious counterattack from the GOP's legion of spinners. A group calling itself "Watergate Burglars for Truth" set up a 527 to argue that Bill Clinton and other Democratic presidents had ordered more black-bag jobs than Nixon. There was nothing to prove them wrong. Reports of a tape showing that Nixon directly ordered the cover-up were just rumors, not anything that could be posted on smokinggun.com.

Nixon gave a TV interview to the British journalist David Frost in which he said, "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." This explained why he felt comfortable approving the break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Ken Duberstein and a few other principled Republicans weighed in that Nixon was bad news, but they were drowned out by former aides like Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy, who wanted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. When "Firebombing Brookings: Good Idea or Not?" became the "Question of the Day" on MSNBC, Liddy's radio show got a nice ratings boost. After Ralph Reed disclosed that Nixon and Henry Kissinger had been on their knees praying in the Oval Office, Nixon went up 15 points in the Gallup, double among "people of faith." Our long national nightmare was just beginning.

 

[NYRangers78]

newsweek? the same news organization that made up life costing lies of korans being flushed down toilets? no thanks...

 

[financeguy]

Watergate couldn't happen now.

The GOP is perfect.

Everything is under control.

Everyone go back to sleep.

 

[NYRangers78]

lol

 

[financeguy]

NYRangers78, at least you have a sense of humour and can have a laugh, unlike one or two of the GOP'ers on here, I will give you that.

 

[NYRangers78]

cool...i like having discussions with people...a lot of my friends arent very much into politics and probably didnt even vote...im a registered republican, and i consider myself independent but im not nearly as republican as some people i know, and this is new york. where im the minority by about 7-1. i guess i got my parents irish humor...lol...

side note: what part of dublin do u live in? my uncle lives there, but i forget where because usually i go to Cavan because my father is from there ( as well as my uncle who lives in dublin) or Leitrim and Roscommon where my moms parents are from. next time i go to ireland, i have to get to dublin..

 

[Scarletwine]

newsweek? the same news organization that made up life costing lies of korans being flushed down toilets? no thanks...

You really need to work on your recognition of facts vs propoganda (pablem) coming from this admin. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces under oath said the Newsweek article had nothing to do with rioting in Aphganistan or other Arab countries.

It is the continued presence in their countries. Then the DOD released at least 6 instances of desecration of the Koran. Read Dreads apology to muslim's thread.

Dictators always declare dissent fosters violence against the people of a country. Wake the up.

 

[financeguy]

side note: what part of dublin do u live in?

City centre, or very close to it to be more accurate, but I'm originally from the southside of Dublin.

 

[NYRangers78]

You really need to work on your recognition of facts vs propoganda (pablem) coming from this admin. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces under oath said the Newsweek article had nothing to do with rioting in Aphganistan or other Arab countries.

It is the continued presence in their countries. Then the DOD released at least 6 instances of desecration of the Koran. Read Dreads apology to muslim's thread.

Dictators always declare dissent fosters violence against the people of a country. Wake the up.

come to the bronx new york and tell me to wake the fuck up to my face. have i been rude to you personally on these forums? show me the same respect ive shown you. and as for costing lives, maybe not directly but indirectly it cost lives. and please give me a break, were desecrating the koran and they are beheading people left and right. god american soldiers are so horrible...

 

[Scarletwine]

I didn't say exactly that, but I apologize for a personal statement.

In every thread you've posted in profess the same blind party line with no indication of grey. Fox News is God.

And no it cost no lives. Our gov'ts action kill US citizens not our media. In fact if our media had any balls they could save lives by reporting on reality.

edited to add
Brian Eno was just on LinkTV

 

[NYRangers78]

I didn't say exactly that, but I apologize for a personal statement.

In every thread you've posted in profess the same blind party line with no indication of grey. Fox News is God.

And no it cost no lives. Our gov'ts action kill US citizens not our media. In fact if our media had any balls they could save lives by reporting on reality.

edited to add
Brian Eno was just on LinkTV

point out where i said fox news is god or I even alluded to that fact...because i used a bill o reilly article for a thread? his columns are also in the nydaily news which is considered liberal. im supposed to be posting in grey but liberals here can post ironclad to their party line? give me a break. i dont begrudge liberals or democrats posting here or what they post. i may disagree with them, but ive never said what you just said to me. and the media could save lives by reporting reality ? how ironic u write that when probably the vast majority of big media in america is liberal. amazing how republicans can jsut be treated like they are child murderers even if they personally are nothing like the stereotype or dont agree fully with bush...

and it did cost lives indirectly because it just increases the hated by the insurgents...im betting the majority of the decent iraqi people are glad to see the us in there helping to get rid of all teh corruption there....where is the muslim outcry from the decent ones decrying the beheading of innocent aid workers? or contractors trying to help the country? but one koran gets pissed on or " flushed down a toilet" and all hell should break loose. if someone pissed on a bible, i could give 2 shits because i dont need someone elses opinion to validate my religion to myself.

quick question?..how did u feel when clinton cost american lives leading an offensive in the balkans without un consent? or mogadishu?

 

[Scarletwine]

I've never been ironclad to any party. Your views just seem to so align with the RNC talking points of the day.

To illustrate my point I think Biden is an apologistic ass. He doesn't represent the democrats anymore than Leiberman.
He just wants to appear as some senior statesman, while they both undermine the DP.

To stay on topic, I think the media is corporate controlled and afraid of being locked out of the BS that passes for news for DC.
Stupid runaway bride BS, Jackson, and one case of missing indiv. are so more important than what our gov't is doing, what is happening in the world, and our place in it's causes and effects.

 

[NYRangers78]

I've never been ironclad to any party. Your views just seem to so align with the RNC talking points of the day.

To illustrate my point I think Biden is an apologistic ass. He doesn't represent the democrats anymore than Leiberman.
He just wants to appear as some senior statesman, while they both undermine the DP.

To stay on topic, I think the media is corporate controlled and afraid of being locked out of the BS that passes for news for DC.
Stupid runaway bride BS, Jackson, and one case of missing indiv. are so more important than what our gov't is doing, what is happening in the world, and our place in it's causes and effects.

the media is corporate controlled by liberals and hollywood. why would they report on serious issues like africa or war or anything else when braindead idiots need to get excited over when angelina jolie is banging the shit out of brad pitt or julia roberts was seen buying a soda at a deli.

if what i post seems like rnc talking points, maybe it is because im republican. but do i see u criticize the liberals here for posting the dnc talking points of the day? no. i guess it is because u agree with them and disagree with me.

 

[financeguy]

the media is corporate controlled by liberals and hollywood.

One of these statements is true.

 

[Scarletwine]

Who owes more to big business and their owners. Certainly not the dems. How about you talk the talk and walk the walk and raise back to 2000 tax code breakdown.

Have you not read any stats abourt the rise in CEO wages vs workers. You seem to be one of those indiv that vote against your best interest.

This is why I quit posting in FYM. What I find interesting is that except for social issues the Rep. I disagreed with then, are now so quiet.

 

[NYRangers78]

Who owes more to big business and their owners. Certainly not the dems. How about you talk the talk and walk the walk and raise back to 2000 tax code breakdown.

Have you not read any stats abourt the rise in CEO wages vs workers. You seem to be one of those indiv that vote against your best interest.

This is why I quit posting in FYM. What I find interesting is that except for social issues the Rep. I disagreed with then, are now so quiet.

i dont vote with my wallet or about my wages, i vote with my beliefs about bigger issues for the country. like the war on terrorism among other things...how do u know what my best interests are?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Every political controversy is watergate and every war is Vietnam, I am sick of the sentamentalists.

 

[Scarletwine]

Ahmen

 

[nbcrusader]

We haven't had this good of a "blue vs. red" spat since the election.

 

[BonosSaint]

We haven't had this good of a "blue vs. red" spat since the election.

 

[phanan]

If Watergate Happened Now
With the GOP controlling Congress, there'd be no Watergate hearings.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

June 13 issue - From a distance, Watergate seems like a partisan affair. But that's because we tend to look at it nowadays through red- and blue-tinted glasses. In truth, President Nixon was forced to resign in 1974 by Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, who realized from the so-called smoking-gun tape that he was a crook. This was after the Supreme Court—led by a Nixon appointee—unanimously ruled against him in the tapes case.

But imagine if Nixon were president in this era. After he completed his successful second term, I'd have to write a retrospective column like this:

You know, I just got around to reading this, and while I see the writer's points, I disagree with his sentiment that Watergate would never happen today the way it did back then. He seems to think that because of "the rise of conservative media" that Woodward and Bernstein would never get as far with their investigative reporting today - I assume that to mean that there would be so much pressure on them as a result, that they or their bosses would break under it and have the story buried.

But the truth is, there was immense pressure on them back then as well, and while Republicans in Congress eventually did come around to go against the President, that certainly wasn't the case at the beginning. There were vicious attacks all around, yet Woodward and Bernstein (and the Post) stuck to their guns. If Watergate had occurred in the present, I believe things would have gone the same way.

Just thought I'd post a reply to what this thread was actually about.