Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:37:49 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 11:51 AM 6/3/05 -0400, Ted White wrote:
>From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
>> At 09:09 PM 6/2/05 -0400, Ted White wrote:
>[...]
>> >
>> >I don't recall the timetable, but he *ran* on ending the war.  It was
>his
>> >principal campaign promise.  And the first that he broke.
>>
>> And probably why all the anti-war people hate him so much.  Watergate is
>> just an excuse...they hated him already.  Right?
>
>I'm not going to continue this.  Political discussions generally bore me
>and I'm pretty sure this one is boring most WSFAns.

Probably.  I'm not finding it that interesting either...though the views of
those who were older than I was at the time are good to hear.

One other idea that occurred to me this morning for why Nixon is so hated
(perhaps not applicable to you since you already hated him) is that in the
50s and 60s the kids were taught that the USA were the good guys, and the
Russians were the bad guys...that our Constitutional government was far
superior to, and immune by design, to the sorts of things *other*
governments were prone to, such as arbitrariness, injustice, power abuse,
etc..  Then along comes Watergate and we find that this just ain't
so...that our government is just as prone to those things as any other,
despite the design and the claims.  If you really want to be hated, take
away other people's comfortable illusions.  This idea isn't original with
me...I think I've heard it before though I can't recall where exactly.

If that theory is right, it would also explain why Clinton didn't provoke
the same reaction, despite his being slimey, a liar, a cheat, etc. too.
Clinton didn't take away anyone's comfortable illusions...those were
already gone.  What he did was confirm their cynical view of things, and
most people like being right, even if it's about something they don't
approve of.  Combine that with a totally polarized political situation
(courtesy of a two-party system, despite that not being anywhere in the
Constitution...in fact parties aren't mentioned at all) and it's not
surprising that he got to walk on his crimes and keep the nice retirement
bennies.

>Those who followed his career since the
>late '40s disliked him for far longer.  He was always slimey, always
>willing to sacrifice principal for the expediency of the moment, always
>willing to go the McCarthy route and brand his opponants "Reds" or "fellow
>travelers" even when he knew very well they were not.

Sounds like Clinton, Gore or even Kerry...just to name a few.  I suspect
that at least one reason why some voted for Bush's re-election is that he
took a stand and stuck with it.  He didn't wave around like a weathervane
in the political winds like the others have done, so like him or not, at
least you knew what you were getting.  Of course, the same could be said of
Nader, but since "he didn't have a chance", most vote-for-a-winner
Americans didn't want to "waste their vote" on him.  Or on any of the other
choices you probably never heard about until you got to the voting booth
and had to decide whether to vote for them or not.  The media does a lousy
job informing the public when it comes to candidates other than the "big
two".  C-SPAN is about the only exception to this.

>Comparisons with Clinton are wholly false and made solely to attempt to
>obfuscate Nixon's actual record.

Wrong on both counts.  Unless you can read minds, don't presume to tell me
what my motives are.

-- Mike B.
--
And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence.