From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net> To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:20:41 -0400 Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 1:37 PM Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery > 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. You live in a world of your own. From here it looks like a parallel universe with only a few connections to ours. --Ted White