Do you remember living through Watergate? If so, can you check in

[moc]

and describe what it was like? When/how did you know the Impeachment Train was inexorably rolling toward Nixon? I know about the Saturday Night Massacre as the turning point, but what was the general feeling before that happened? How do you think it compares to what's going on today? There's a lot of talk in the lefty blogosphere about the "wheels coming off", an "avalanche", etc. I wonder if Bush's insane plan for escalation is akin to the Saturday Night Massacre and we're at that turning point. Do you think this is wishful thinking or not?

I was about 11yo during the Watergate hearings, and I was just too young to really remember what it was like. My memories of that time are of my parents eating their meals on TV tables glued to the hearings and me being ticked off because I was missing reruns of I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show. I'd love to hear perspectives from those who were old enough to remember it well.

Thanks in advance.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. I was a teen

at the time, but I remember it being just a steady drip-drip-drip of new revelations.

The Sam Ervin hearings were televised on all the networks, and the latest developments were front-page news for months.

Sadly, I don't think we're anywhere near that point now.

The fact is, Watergate was a simple crime that people understood: the President ordered a break-in and theft.

The case that this war is illegal is much harder to make to the American people.

[Tom Joad]

2. The notebook i took to high school had an "Impeach Nixon"

bumper sticker. I wisely kept it, and still have it today.
The hearings made all the difference.

I was quite young, also, so i can't tell you too much first hand. I just think we can't sit passively and wait for congress to do the right thing, we need to get on the streets and make it happen.

[suston96]

8. It was more evidence.......

... that impeachment of the president was strictly partisan and easily manipulated to assure that the targeted president would obstruct justice and commit perjury regarding something silly like a political burglary.

[benddem]

24. HUH?

You didn't watch the same things I did.

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

36. I agree. I dont know what world this "suston96" was living in, but it wasnt this one.

[suston96]

67. Alas, I was old enough to clearly remember

...and to have diligently followed what happened.

It was a low class political burglary that was turned into a series of impeachable offenses by the time the Democrats did to Nixon what Republicans did to Clinton years later.

And a hundred years earlier, Republicans had done it to Democrat Andrew Johnson, by hurriedly passing a law which they knew Johnson would violate, thus committing their version of an "impeachible offense".

You see, Watergate was a "third rate burglary" which Democrats used to get Nixon and his administration to attempt an obstructive coverup, thereby committing a series of "impeachable offenses".

[hootinholler]

81. So, paying one of the burglers with RNC funds was a bad idea?

I was young, but they had Nixon on way more than a cover up of a third rate burglary. The articles of impeachment that were drawn were signed by a goodly number of Republicans as well, they would have passed handily had Nixon not resigned.

What was actually uncovered with Clinton? IIRC, Johnson was acquitted. Those are both examples of partisan driven impeachment.

-Hoot

[tblue37]

82. And they nailed AL Capone on tax evasion. (eom)

[struggle4progress]

94. Horseshit. Nixon's obstruction of justice started less than a week after the breakin

[pacalo]

95. This is a bunch of tripe. Where did you get these outrageous ideas?

You need to read some history.

The burglary, third-rate as it was, was a criminal offense. The burglars, which included another of today's hate-radio jocks, G. Gordon Liddy, were stupid enough to get caught, which led to the funneling of hush money by Nixon to keep them quiet. The Democrats didn't have anything to do with the orchestration of any of that.

The fact that Nixon recorded all conversations in the WH was the beginning of Nixon's web of self-destruction. A man as paranoid, secretive, & imperialistic as he was had to resort to hiring burglars to rifle through information at the Democratic Campaign Headquarters & Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to calm his fears; & to record all conversations about burglaries, hush money, & various enemies on his list only provided proof of how vile that man was. Again, the Democrats didn't have a hand in that stupidity; he brought it on himself.

You're so wrong on so many points when you blame the Democrats, I can only suggest that you learn some American history. The Bush administration has gotten away with its lies & revisionist history for so long that they've also lowered the standards for those who admire their evilness. I just can't believe what I've read in your post.

[suston96]

104. I blame any .....

...and all who are foolhardy enough to believe that presidentiol impeachment is anything more than partisan "impetuous political violence", used by both parties whenever the particular moment indicates its use.

Study the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton and you will see that because the Founders did not define impeachable offenses, future generations of House Judiciaries would decide on whatever political expediency they had at hand to define an impeachable offense.

Nothing Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton did merited the removal from office as the "great and dangerous offenses against the United States" the Founders intended. Rather, they were the objects of the partisan disdain and animosity of the opposing parties.

If we Democrats get sucked in by this ill-conceived impeachment process, the Founding Fathers' saddest mistake in the framing of this government, we will all suffer for it.

[pacalo]

105. If a president like Bush doesn't fit the requirements of the impeachment provision,

I'd like to know any example you may have in your mind of what constitutes an impeachable offense.

[suston96]

121. Bush fits......

...Indeed, if there ever was an impeachment asking to happen, the war actions by Bush and his abridgement of the privacy rights of Americans are the nearest to "great and dangerous offenses" which the Founders had in mind.

And this time there will be no need of an "Alexander Butterfield moment". All the evidence is already in.

But I still hold that an impeachment process against Bush and Cheney when we are trying to increase our margins in the Congress, especially the Senate, would serve nothing because of the present texture of the Senate. We could barely get a majority for conviction in the Senate and we would need two-thirds to convict.

We have a bigger and more dangerous problem to resolve - the corrupted election process. DUers are as passioante as I am regarding the immediacy of removing or diminishing the hold Republicans have on that election process. The past election was much closer than indicated.

Let's work together on simplifying that election process, with paper ballots counted publicly, both by scanning AND by hand. And speaking of impeachment, let's fix it so that we, the people, directly elect our President and Vice-President, and, when the occasion arises, we, the people will remove either or both of them by national referendum.

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. Ah, now we get to the core, here. Our founding fathers made a mistake?

I don't think so. The process of impeachment is necessary, otherwise the office of presidency would be untouchable until their term is up. Impeachment is simply a first step made by the House of Representatives who are voting for a call to investigate the president. The Senate can decide whether it's politically driven or not, as they did in Clinton's case. The Senate, in 1998, determined that the House's impeachment of Clinton was politically motivated, then stopped the process. The public had a chance to express their opinion. Over 60% were against the impeachment and Newt Gingrich felt the force of that number when he lost everything because of his stupid involvement.

Now we have George Bush who has gone beyond what any president has gone before, and I'm damn glad we have something hanging over his head to stop him from going too far in the next two years. We need to begin the process to slow him down, if nothing else.

[suston96]

126. Yes, a mistake......

House Rep. Gerald Ford was asked years back, when an impeachment of Associate Justice William Douglas was being considered by the House of Reps, what exactly was an impeachable offense? "Whatever the House of Representatives decides it is," Ford replied.

That is the big mistake. I find it hard to believe, and so do many others, that the Founders would have left such an open ended factor in the impeachment process, but they did.

You are correct, the "impetuous violence" of the House, where an impeachment can be effected by a simple majority, can be quelled by that two-thirds vote in the senate. So it was in the Johnson and Clinton impeachment.

But that is not a comforting fact. The impeachment process grinds the nation's business to a halt. When the charges are as flimsy and contrived as the Johnson and Clinton charges, we can see the danger and even the damage that the nation and its citizens must endure.

The changes we need are direct election of the President and a removal process similar to the one we helped engineer for the new Russian constitution - namely: a constitutional court that determines an "imeachable offense" BEFORE the impeachment process starts in their House. Then a two thirds vote in their House (Duma?) to impeach, and then a two-thirds vote in their senate to remove.

And after that happens, I would like a national referendum by the voters to approve or veto that removal voted on by the Senate.

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. What process do you recommend to remove a president who is

completely out of control and does not have the country's confidence?

I mean, besides revolution. The impeachment process at least gives the public the belief that our elected officials will remove a tyrant president, before they resort to mob rule.

[suston96]

129. What process?

I cited the Russian process which we helped formulate. See my previous post.

First we need direct election of the President and then a removal process similar to the one we helped engineer for the new Russian constitution - namely: a constitutional court that determines an "imeachable offense" BEFORE the impeachment process starts in their House. Then a two thirds vote in their House (Duma?) to impeach, and then a two-thirds vote in their senate to remove.

[The Backlash Cometh]

132. What do you do if the executive branch prolongs the court process,

as they're doing with Patrick Fitzgerald, as they did with the Cheney meetings?

We HAD a checks and balance system, and now you're circumventing the Congress's right to subpoena or the House's right to even call for an investigation. What's going to stop your constitutional court from being any less partisan when the positions are probably appointed, not elected. Why would you do that when the Democrats FINALLY have control of the Congress.

Just out of curiousity, do you support Lieberman? Are you a conservative Democrat?

[suston96]

134. A Lieberman what?

Sorry, that won't work with me. I studied the impeachment process aggressively and in great detail. Check out my iDisk Public Folder which I have already linked twice.

The Russian system was tried once against Yeltsin and he was acquitted. A right decision back then.

Our present system is completely political and even insidious. Just before Clinton was impeached, and just before the 1998 elections, the Republicans swore that impeachment was off the table. (Yeah, right). When their continued control of Congress was assured, they went full speed ahead with the impeachment.

I want the control of the presidency (vice-presidency) removed from the electoral college process. I want a system like the Russian system (which we actually devised for them). When that process is followed, and if a president is impeached and about to be removed, I want to add the people's approval or veto of the removal of the president they elected.

[The Backlash Cometh]

143. You didn't answer my question, I noticed.

I'm not ready to say that your plan is a bad one, but I am saying it's badly timed. I have every right to ask what your position is in reference to Lieberman, because I have every right to determine where you're coming from and decide for myself if there are an ulterior reason.

As far as an independent agency, the only agency which has managed to maintain its independence since Bush took office is the GAO and the only civilian core which has consistently resisted outside interference, are librarians.

With that in mind, do you really believe that you can set up a new department to take care of the investigation for impeachment of a president? How do you keep that group from becoming partisan? How are GAO employees & managers selected?

[suston96]

145. What does Lieberman have to do.....

...with the impeachment topic?

Since I don't vote in Connecticut I entertain no feelings about Lieberman except that I will keep my fingers crossed and hope that he doesn't get angered enough to switch parties.

All the more reason I trepidate when impeaching Bush and Cheney talk arises and the more serious problems of corrupted elections are moved off the burners completely.

I am a constitutional devotee and wish only that it be modified and repaired to insure that it always, and in its entirety, reflects the will of ALL the people, and not just the partisan cravings of political parties.

[The Backlash Cometh]

147. Okay, let me know when you want to answer my questions.

I might even let go of the Lieberman question, if you tell me how you plan to keep this new court of yours free from partisan influence, when we haven't managed to do that all in the last six years for 99% of our government agencies.

[suston96]

151. Someday, when we mature....

...as a nation, political parties will have taken their place in the dusty trash heap of history, and the people will take back their own governance by electing those THEY choose and not those nominated by political hackery.

The Russian system, which, I repeat, we devised, and my final validation by the people after the impeachment trial, will provide virtually all the neutralizing factors needed to sanitize that impeachment process from the partisan pollutions of political parties.

[The Backlash Cometh]

152. If nothing else, you have certainly displayed a proficiency in

alliteration. ;-)

Hope your dreams come true, for the sake of our nation.

[suston96]

153. Alliterations.....?

....always. Appreciated.

[struggle4progress]

168. You think we should emulate Russia's example of democratic process?

[maine_raptor]

128. suston96, you DO need to read some American History,

"Study the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton and you will see that because the Founders did not define impeachable offenses, future generations of House Judiciaries would decide on whatever political expediency they had at hand to define an impeachable offense."

First off, I refer you to Federalist Paper Number 65, written by Alexander Hamilton;

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words from the abuse or violation of the public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar property be denominated POLITICAL*, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

*Emphasis in the original text.

The Founders put the ability to impeach into the Constitution for one very good reason; They knew that it would be needed.

Now about the impeachments you cite (Johnson's, Nixon's "almost", and Clinton's):

In Johnson's case he was trying to follow Lincoln's "with Malice toward None" policy of Reconstruction, while he dealt with a Congress controlled by Radical Republicans that wanted to be somewhat more harsh in the treatment of the South. The Office of Tenure Act was the excuse used, but the reason behind the impeachment movement was the Great Debate over Reconstruction and Johnson's insistence on his policy vs the Firebrands in Congress. And for them, his policy was a "great and dangerous offenses against the United States".

As to Nixon's "almost":

Richard Nixon tried, via the powers granted to him under the Constitution as President, subvert the political process. I suggest that you read the Articles of Impeachment that was voted against him. In that document you will find that Nixon was not accused of some small, petty cover-up; he was accused of using his powers in clearly documented un-Constitutional manners. As a someone who was a lowly under-grad American History major at the time, Nixon's impeachment was clearly a necessary Constitutional duty by Congress and had he not resigned, he would have been the first President to be removed from office.

And now we come to Clinton:

And here you are damn well correct: Nothing they had on him matchs what Hamilton was talking about.

So 1 out of the 3 impeachments in American History fits your "political expediency" theory.

Oh, and on that "they were the objects of the partisan disdain and animosity of the opposing parties" thing; yea they were. But remember what Hamilton said about it being a political process? Well, "impeachment" can't help but be that; it's its nature!

And as a closing thought, some recommended reading:

"Impeachment: Some Constitutional Problems" by Raoul Berger, 1973, Harvard University Press.


Have a Nice Day!

[suston96]

130. Cannot be a political process......

....no matter who says it can be. Please read my other posts on this thread.

Please take a look at my iDisk public folder which contains evidence of my studies of this process.

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=suston96&templatefn=FileSharing1.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.1.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US〈=en

I have Raoul Berger's book, as well as "Grand Inquest" by Rehnquist, and others, including the four volume Max Farrand "Records of the Constitutional Convention". At my iDisk Public Folder you will find a valuable extrapolation of the "impeachment" discussions in the Convention. Also, a very long and comprehensive discussion of the Clinton impeachment I parented under a different name, in 1998-1999.

The only political element in the removal of the president should be the people themselves.

I like the Russian impeachment process which minimizes the political element in impeachments:

Article 9.

The President of the Russian Federation may be impeached by the Federation Council only on the basis of charges put forward against him of high treason or some other grave crime, confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the presence of indicia of crime in the President's actions and by a ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation confirming that the procedure of bringing charges has been observed.
The ruling of the State Duma on putting forward charges and the decision of the Federation Council on impeachment of the President shall be passed by the votes of two-thirds of the total number in each of the chambers at the initiative of at least one-third of the deputies of the State Duma and in the presence of the opinion of a special commission formed by the State Duma.
The decision of the Federation Council on impeaching the President of the Russian Federation shall be passed within three months of the charges being brought against the President by the State Duma. The charges against the President shall be considered to be rejected if the decision of the Federation Council shall not be passed.

[maine_raptor]

136. I have read your posts.

Impeachment HAS to be political!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you talk of impeachment, you are talking about the removal from office of an individual placed in that office by a POLITICAL PROCESS.

As to your assertion that "the only political element in the removal of the president should be the people themselves"; remember that those Representatives and Senators are elected by the people to do the people's work. In order for this whole thing (the US operating under a Constitution) to work we have to trust that our Rep and Senators will do their Constitutional Duty and they have to trust that should we disagree with how they performed their duty we will vote them out.

Sounds naive, I know, but that is what we signed on for way back when.

I too have a great deal of material on the founding of this country: My graduate studies were focused on the early Federalist Era, so I'm familiar with Farrand's work.


On your idea of judicial review of impeachment "crimes": Originally the actual trial of an impeached President was to be done by the Supreme Court, but the Founders (Pinckney and Madison objecting) moved it to the Senate. Why? Check your Farrand; he notes that Roger Sherman "regarded the Supreme Court improper to try the President because the judges would be appointed by him" (2 Farrand 551).

So if the Founders felt that the ability to try the President more properly rested with the Senate than the Supreme Court surely any review and decision as to what constituted an "impeachable offense" more properly rested with the Legislative branch than the Judicial. Congress is, after all, that branch of government that is most designed to respond to the people.

[suston96]

142. The Founders really had run out of time...

...Check the records of the Convention. The impeachment article was the last order of business and it was hurriedly done.

The judicial review (Russian Constitution) is ONLY of the charges against the President before any further impeachment action, and only to "judge" whether the charges reflect the great and dangerous offenses against the republic.

The system as left by the very tired Founders ignored partisan chicanery and unfortunately, history reveals that a serious mistake was made.

Each of the three impeachments were commenced by opposing political parties. Two of them were ludicrous if not criminal persecutions of the President.

Nixon's would be impeachment articles were distanced from the Watergate break-in and reflected his behavior in a cover-up.

Where are the "great and dangerous offenses...against the United States" that were clearly the intent of the Founders?

I like the Russian process. Add the final validation or veto of a national referendum by the people, and the process will be the least politicized of the two methods.

[CTyankee]

119. Your description is right on, as I remember it. I was 31 so my memories

are fairly clear.

Are you as hopeful as I am that we'll have another "Alexander Butterfield" moment when we start our investigatory hearings in Congress? That came from right out of the blue. Everybody was stunned.

[suston96]

123. See my reply to 8-year-nightmare just above.....

We have had many Butterfield moments but the impeachment and conviction process is thankfully arduous enough so that only purposeful derelictions and truly "great and dangerous offenses" would be considered impeachable offenses.

"Great and dangerous offenses" comes from the impeachment discussions in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. People serious about impeachment should read them.

You can also go to my Public Folder in my iDisk where I extrapolated all impeachment conversations from the 1787 Convention and listed them. You will also find a long and lively discussion I parented on another board back in 1998-1999 on the Clinton Impeachment. My handle was different and you will see it in those discussions.

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=suston96&templatefn=FileSharing1.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.1.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US〈=en

[pacalo]

175. Thanks, CTyankee.

I was 21, idealistic, & had high expectations of the presidency back then. I was hooked on watching the hearings on tv & read both "All the President's Men" & "The Final Days" by Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward, along with "Blind Ambition" by John Dean as soon as they were available.

I think all of us who were adults back then & were interested enough to follow the sequence of events know bullcrap when we hear it. :eyes:

As for the Butterfield moment, I'm hopeful that we'll be getting quite a few, since Bush's list of crimes far surpass those of Nixon's. There's just so much more territory to delve into with this administration.

[The Backlash Cometh]

122. hahahaha! What dribble.

So, the fact that it's a bungled third-rate burglary means that it's not enough to impeach a president? Oh, what a joke. Too funny.

I do believe that people get judged based on their intentions and motivations. Their methods only serve to add punitive damages, if needed.

[HamdenRice]

137. self delete -- wrong place nt

[Mme. Defarge]

159. A third rate burglery of

The Democratic National Committee Headquarters with the purpose of planting listening devices that would allow the Nixon presidential campaign to spy on the McGovern campaign, thus allowing the Nixonites to tamper with a free-election.

[Minnesota_Lib]

166. "Diligently followed?" In what alternate universe?

[struggle4progress]

167. You think burglary wasn't at least a "misdemeanor" under the federal DC Code in 1972?

Or that obstruction of justice, including obstruction of an investigation or alteration of records, wasn't at least a "misdemeanor" under the federal USC in 1972? Or that conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States wasn't at least a "misdemeanor" under the federal USC in 1972?

[struggle4progress]

92. Really? By early August 1974, when Nixon's June 1972 tapes revealed that he had ordered ..

.. the FBI to drop its investigation of Watergate only six days after the burglary, all the Judiciary Committee Republicans who had originally voted against the impeachment resolution announced that they would now vote for impeachment.

Thus by early August 1974 EVERYBODY on the Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, supported impeachment. Nixon resigned less than a week later.

I am very interested to hear you explain exactly how partisan advocates of impeachment could have managed to manipulate Nixon into directing the FBI to drop its investigation of Watergate only six days after the burglary and many months before the November 1972 election (which Nixon won handily).

[zanne]

114. Gee...What does that remind me of?

Wasn't it in 1998 that someone was encouraged to record her friend on the phone when they were having private conversations about the president and blow jobs? Hmmmm. Political burglary suddenly seems a lot less "silly".

[Patchuli]

45. I was 18

and had an 'Impeach Nixon' sticker too, which my dad ripped off my bumper. In 1972, I had a 'Lick Dick in '72'
which he also ripped off the car. Go figure...LOL!

I wish I could offer more insight into my perspective of Watergate but all I really understood was that Nixon screwed
up and we were going to get rid of him. When he resigned, you could hear the cheers 'round the neighborhood!

[northofdenali]

57. Gawd! I had the same stickers!!

Senior in high school - my dad, though, had THREE Impeach Nixon stickers on his car - and he worked on a federal site..........

[Patchuli]

61. Did ya have 'Honk If You're Horny" too? hehee

That one got ripped off faster than the other two! "Hey, it was just a joke, Dad!" :P I was the daughter of a staunch Republican, told me not to make fun of his "man" until his man got busted. Then he just grudgingly admitted that I was right!

[northofdenali]

62. Nope, didn't have that one -

but I wanted one.............. :P

[Spiffarino]

78. Mine had a cartoon of a pregnant woman

The caption: "Nixon's the One!"

[PCIntern]

3. I was in college and an activist at the time...

it was glorious...Jimmy Breslin wrote a book "How the Good Guys finally Won" Philip Roth wrote a book "Our Gang" about Trick E. Dixon.

It was one veil coming down, one curtain going up,,,better than seeing Britney Spears' C-section scar, let me tell you...every day, more excitement - better than sex...I'm not kidding. You know, the pursuit in relationshyips is often the most exciting part. Every day was the pursuit...for YEARS.

They fired the shit Heard Round the World...we thought some of the Kennedys/King assassination stuff would also come out...it was starting to be discussed with the revelations on the tapes...

and then that Pardon came and turned out the lights...

It has never been the same since.

[wordpix]

25. but, but, it was Saint Gerald who gave the pardon and that was the RIGHT thing to do

:sarcasm:
The far right thing, I mean :grr:

[Geek_Girl]

58. Why did you think the Kennedy King stuff would come out?

I was like 3 and my parents don't seem to have an educated perspective about these events.

[WI_DEM]

4. I was ten years five months when Nixon resigned but I remember it

and his resignation speech and Ford's taking office.

[displacedtexan]

5. I had just graduated from college.

The worm turned when the Republicans in congress started distancing
themselves from Nixon (just ahead of the hearings). The deal was done
when Republicans started asking their own tough questions during the
hearings.

It was a truly exiting (and sickening-- Gasp! The president broke the law!) time.
Watergate was the lede in every news report every single day for months on end.

[MichiganVote]

6. Watched all the hearings during government class in 12th grade

It was confusing. Teacher helped out and that made it easier to understand. What was the general feeling? Doom and gloom. Kind of like the OJ trial but without the celebrity features.

[PCIntern]

7. Oh, but they became celebrities:

Cox, Ervin, Sarbanes, Rodino, Sandman (Boo!), Dash, and so many others. It was like a soap opera.

[MichiganVote]

10. Yes they surely did make out alright didn't they

[jody]

9. The nation was polarized but bi-partisan houses did their duty under the constitution.

Today the parties harbor so much hate that it's probably impossible to get enough votes to actually convict a Repug president through impeachment.

[PCIntern]

11. ...yeah sort of...

the Rethug panel of the Senate Watergate Committee beat the shit out of witnesses against the President and his staff for months until...Alexander Butterfield and the Tapes. Then they knew that would have to stop allowing the lies and moderated their questioning. Howard Baker's famous question (What did the President know and when did he know it?) was posed to see if Nixon could be exonerated. Don't kid yourself...

[jody]

19. I was not a kid in those times and I don't kid myself. Obviously we remember things differently.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[PCIntern]

31. Have a nice day to you...

too.

I watched the hearings in a room day after day after day with about 50 people or more at any given time. There were cdontinuous boos when Rethugs wouyld question the veracity of many of the witnesses who were impugning the President.

You may remember it differently, I recall it correctly.

:evilfrown: :evilgrin: :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :mad: :puke: :eyes: :smoke: :think: :crazy: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :freak: :dunce: :hangover: :nopity: :hurts: :boring: :spank: :wow: :beer: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :thumbsdown: :thumbsup: :hi: :dem: :kick: :shrug: :puffpiece: :loveya: :donut: :tinfoilhat: :hug: :grouphug: :cry: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :banghead: :dilemma: :blush: :rant: :sarcasm: :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :spray: :patriot: :yoiks:

[jody]

33. Again we differ because I RECALL IT CORRECTLY! n/t

[PCIntern]

39. So you're saying that the Republicans on the

Select Committee did NOT question witnesses in a hostile, cover-up-style fashion? What were YOU smoking?

They glad-handed Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Mitchell...didn't ask them one question that wasn't "So you would have to admit, Mr Haldeman, that you were certain that the President had absolutely no idea of the money being offerred to the burglars?" And Haldeman/Ehrlichman/Mitchell would respond, "That's right, Senator. We had no idea that this was being done." and the Senator, would say, "Good, thank you for your honest and forthright testimony here today..."

[jody]

41. My how you forget history. I have no intention of doing your work for you but

I suggest you begin by reading Watergate tapes

In April 1974, Sirica, acting on a request from Jaworski, issued a subpoena for the tapes of 64 presidential conversations to use as evidence in the criminal cases against the indicted officials. Nixon refused, and Jaworski appealed to the Supreme Court to force Nixon to turn over the tapes. On July 24, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 in United States v. Nixon that Nixon must turn over the tapes.

In late July 1974, the White House released the subpoeaned tapes. One of those tapes was the so-called "smoking gun" tape, from June 23, 1972, six days after the Watergate breakin. In that tape, Nixon agrees that administration officials should approach the Director of the CIA and ask him to request that the Director of the FBI halt the Bureau's investigation into the Watergate breakin on the grounds that the Watergate breakin was a National Security matter. In so agreeing, Nixon had entered into a Criminal Conspiracy whose goal was the Obstruction of Justice --- a felony, and an impeachable offense.

Once the "smoking gun" tape was released, Nixon's political support evaporated. Every single Republican on the House Impeachment Committe who had voted against impeachment in committee announced that he would now vote for impeachment once the matter reached the House floor. In the Senate, it was said that Nixon had at most a half dozen votes.

[PCIntern]

44. I was talking about the initiation of the committee hearings -

what did I refer to? It was Haldeman's testimony and others which was early in the proceedings. You're talking about much later.

You've just got to understand that there was an early Republican defense mounted which was pro-Nixon. Do you deny that? Really?

"You may be entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."

[jody]

48. Sorry but I said "bi-partisan houses did their duty under the constitution"

in post #9 and you disagreed with my statement.

It's too late now for you to claim you were talking about something else when I framed the issue narrowly in my post #9.

My statement was correct.

Have a nice evening and good bye. :hi:

[PCIntern]

51. You statement was technically correct but highly misleading...

the impression you left was that it was one big group acting in concert for the entire proceeding. It was not.

You want to make a trite phrase come to life, next time, flesh it out. I repeat: the ONLY reason they did it is b/c they had to b/c of the existence of the tapes. Otherwise they would have continued to fight tooth and nail. It'd be like saying: "Saddam Hussein quietly went to his death last week." Well, yes, but not if you watched all the machinations beforehand.

But since you feel you have to say goodnight...then goodnight.

[jaysunb]

90. Now, YOU, have a good memory

cause that's how I remember it, and I was a full adult at the time. :thumbsup:

[LibDemAlways]

12. I was in college at the time and was transfixed by

the hearings. Barbara Jordan's comments on the Constitution were electric. John Dean's "Cancer on the Presidency" was high drama. Howard Baker was probably one of the last decent Republicans - willing to get at the truth wherever it led-- "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

It was a time when some Republicans actually acknowledged the evidence that their President was a crook, and they ultimately delivered the news that he had to go.

Impossible to imagine repukes delivering that kind of news to the chimp today, despite chimp's crimes being, IMO, far worse than Nixon's. Repukes are all about circling the wagons. They'd never break rank to impeach the bastard today. He could sexually assault a 5-year-old on the field of the Superbowl at halftime and they would find a way to excuse it. The Constitution, the document in which Barbara Jordan put so much faith, is the equivalent of toilet paper to the scumbags in DC today.

[Independent_Liberal]

26. Appearances can be deceiving.

Never say never. The Republicans were very supportive of Nixon at first, but once the revelations came out, they started to turn.

[Hepburn]

13. Married with Children at the time...

...and I remember it well.

[pretzel4gore]

14. the break in happened only 9 years after JFK murder...

and within 5 years of both RFK and MLK murders...closer in time then 911 is to us now. And the VN war cost 58000 lives by the time it was done: 1200 US aircraft were shot down; god knows how many million people were killed. In sept 73, when the watergate hearings were on every day, pinochet seized Chile and murdered President Allende. G gordon Liddy famously would shoot red lights out while driving around washington dc, too damn busy to stop. The hearing themselves mesmerised people who were startled at the oily (egil krogh? jeb stuart magruder? maurice stans? dita beard?) people mixed up in the government. I fear the pig learned ALOT from the Ervin Committes Hearings ie, to prevent anything like them from happening again....
notice in 30 years, there's never been a documentary on watergate, or its hearings. too goddam dramatic for the american people, i guess...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Oh, boy; where do I start?

The whole process was fascinating and a bit horrifying -- kind of like what's happening now. I had been active in the antiwar movement since about 1967, and I already regarded Nixon as a nasty character, but as the layers of skin were peeled off that onion by means of the hearings (to which I, too, was riveted), we got to see how really foul and crooked he was. I think the tipping point for the public was John Dean's testimony in the summer of 1973, because up to that time a lot of people -- maybe most -- didn't think Nixon was involved, despite the previously-published Woodward/Bernstein articles in the Washington Post.

Then, Alexander Butterfield revealed the existence of the tapes, which were subpoenaed. This subpoena, which Nixon did not want to comply with, led to the Saturday Night Massacre in October, but eventually the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to cough up the tapes, and I remember a lot of speculation over whether Nixon would defy even the Supremes. The hearings continued, and I think the first Bill of Impeachment came out the following summer, but IMO it was the Saturday Night Massacre and the content of the tapes that got the impeachment ball rolling.

I don't know what it would take to get Bush impeached, but it was Nixon's defiance of the rule of law and his pissing on Congress from a great height that did it for him. Impeachment is the only weapon Congress has against a rogue President, so if Bush goes too far and kicks too much sand in their face, maybe it could happen.

[XOKCowboy]

103. I didn't remember the date.

Thanks for the timeline. That time was a blur to me. I was just out of high school. I was finally certain that I wouldn't be going to Vietnam and trying to build a life. I did know that Nixon was a crook (I cast my very first vote for president against him the year before) and John Dean really dropped the bombshell.

I remember Senator Sam most of all. It just seemed that in those days that the rule of law would prevail and Sam was the guy to get it done. I wish I had that kind of optimism today.

[tnlurker]

16. I was twelve and thirteen at the time.

I followed it very closely. I clipped out articles from the local paper and saved all Watergate articles for about a year. I also had a collection of editorial cartoons from then. They are up in my attic somewhere. I haven't ween that stuff in years. I seemed to remember having a sense that Nixon was involved and that he would be implicated somehow. I think that is why I saved all the articles. I knew it was a historic time. I spent the entire summer of 74 watching the hearings on TV instead of being outside playing.
I did find my Impeach Nixon button from back then and gave it to my 18 year old son. He wears it quite often.

[moc]

27. We were about the same age, but I feel like such a slug in comparison

I was more interested in The Brady Bunch. :D

[bobbolink]

55. Welcome to DU, tnlurker!

:toast:

That would be great if you had all that saved stuff now!

Hmmm, start saving the *impeachment momentos.. :hi:

[Spiffarino]

89. I have an old Newsweek in the basement from 1974

There are a couple of Watergate-era bums on the cover. I'll hunt it down and scan it if I can find it.

[wordpix]

17. there was a difference b/c Vietnam War came with a draft. With dimson's war,

we have a backdoor draft impacting relatively few Americans. All of us are paying the exorbitant costs, however, whether monetarily or in ways such as no universal health insurance, social and environmental program cuts, school programscut, potholes in the roads and highways and so on.

The sheeple are still sleeping through this Iraq War, although some woke up recently as witnessed in the last election. Should there be a draft, pRes. Dimwit will likely get thrown out on his ass. Until then, I think we're in for 2 years of major fights between the Dem Congress and repuke administration as Congress tries to unravel, discover and uncover what BushCo did and why.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. I was old enough to vote in '72

When I heard about the breakin, I knew, intuitively, that Nixon was behind it. Frankly, I thought he'd never be impeached. I was impatient at how long it took for Congress to even start investigations, and was a bit paranoid at the power and control Nixon had. I bought records by an impersonator (I don't think it was Rich Little, but another fellow), where he had Nixon impeached and sent to prison. Hilarious take-off of "Folsome Prison" as sung by "Nixon"--and then a prison riot like Jimmy Cagney. At the end, Nixon was sent to the chair--with several people making comments about it-the one I remember best is "I'm George McGovern, and I think killing is wrong. But in this case I'm willing to make an exception."
Literally, it was comic albums like this that kept me sane. And then, when it was all over, I was camping and missed the resignation speech! But I did feel very relieved.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

20. i was stationed at Bethesda Naval Hospital

watergate, war protests, the White House encircled by Metro busses. getting pulled over and ticketed by DC police because he thought i was an out-of-town agitator. after being taken to police station he asked for my address and when i gave him the naval hospital, i could tell he was sorry for ticketing me.

[DURHAM D]

21. The tapes! That's when I knew he could not stop the train. n/t

[SaveElmer]

22. Yeah I was a 14 year old political junkie...

Spent the whole summer watching the impeachment hearings...

I remember the feeling among my parents and acquaintances that the country was dangerously slipping off track. Watergate and VietNam had really put a dent in people's belief that the system was capable of working.

I remember Nixon resigning and Gerald Ford coming in as taking the pressure off a bit. People became less focused on what was happening and more able to concentrate on their every day lives...

Carter being elected really purged the bad feelings...at least in my family!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I remember the whole crew at the Post Office I worked in cheering when he resigned.

The letter sorting machines we worked on were shut down for about 15 minutes while we literally danced in the aisles.

[moc]

28. That is extremely cool!

[redwitch]

38. My husband was on Martha's Vineyard camping when he heard the news.

He drank 6 pints of Guinness in celebration. :-)

[Obamarama]

I was 9 at the time and I vividly remember the blue curtains during the press briefings...

I didn't fully understand what was going on, but I remember the blue-curtained backdrop of the unending press briefings interrupting my Gilligan's Island viewing schedule. My brother and I would switch on the TV and say "Oh man...not the blue curtains again!"

[Obamarama]

29. Self delete (accidental double posting)

[Poiuyt]

30. I think the division in the country was worse back then

I certainly wouldn't say that Bush's plan for escalation is akin to the Saturday Night Massacre. And I think the division back then was more defined by age. That, of course, was because of the Viet Nam war and the draft. But I think we need to go some before there is the outcry for impeachment that there was in '74. The media was better at being the watchdog of the government back then - they will need to do their part now. I don't know if the blogosphere is strong enough yet to educate the whole country.

[Marymarg]

32. Watergate days

As soon as I would arrive home after work, I made myself coffee, lit up a cigarette, turned on the TV and watched the rerun of the day's hearing. It was mesmerizing.

I loved talking to my mother on the phone about the hearings. She got me hooked on it by telling me how brilliant John Dean was and how great his testimony was. She was sooooo impressed with him and it was not an easy thing for a Republican to impress my yellow dog Democratic mother!

I remember where I was when I heard about the Saturday Night Massacre. It was a scary thing. I really thought we would have a coup. It was so obviously beyond the pale behavior and I felt sure that Nixon's days were over, one way or the other.

[murielm99]

165. I was a Watergate junkie, too.

I worked all day, and then watched the replay of the hearings on PBS until I could not stay awake any longer. I was riveted to the news, which was actual news in those days.

The whole thing played out like a Greek tragedy. But I was frightened. I worked with some smart people, many of them Republicans, but we all knew a constitutional crisis when we saw it.

I remember Nixon's many news conferences. He seemed to interrupt anytime he pleased to "update" us. One commentator called it "government by pique."

The one I remember best was when he had the tapes edited and typed, with the stacked notebooks sitting behind him. He proposed to turn those over, rather than the original tapes. That is the news conference where he said, "I am not a crook."

My mouth dropped to my lap when he said that. I literally choked and gasped for breath. Then, I had to walk up to the TV screen to hear the rest of the news conference, because I was laughing so hard, I thought I might miss something. That was the big thing about those days. I was afraid I might miss something.

I was a young adult when all this happened. I read every Watergate book, and watched everything on television that I could find.

Nixon had set out to strip the federal government of the power and money it had accumulated over a period of forty years. He said, according to the Fall 1973 CQ Guide, "Government must learn to take less from people so people can do more for themselves." Does that sound familiar? Does it sound anything like the ownership society that * likes to talk about?

The Democratic Congress was already smarting over his resumption of bombing in Vietnam, his impoundment of appropriated funds and his refusal to permit his aides to testify before congressional committees -- something we must watch out for again with *. People doubted that the legislature could successfully challenge the powers of Nixon's imperial presidency. They thought Nixon would get away with denying Congress and any investigators what they wanted just by shouting that it was a matter of national security.

It seems to me that the first thing they tried to clean up was campaign financing. Nixon's aides were throwing all kinds of money at Watergate conspirators and others. There was a GAO investigation. Nixon's CREEP was indicted on eight counts of campaign finance violations. And that was only the tip of the iceberg. Trials resulted from that, and there was a banking committee probe that found innumerable violations and lawless behavior.

Most political scandals have involved betrayal of the public trust for greed, graft, patronage, fraud, etc. They involved money and goods. This one, even though it did involve misuse of vast amounts of money, was about undermining the political system itself. They disregarded a whole array of state and federal laws, and called it national security. * does much the same thing, but he has added signing statements to his array of crimes.

Watergate was more than a third-rate burglary, and it was not political. The presidency itself was on trial. Plenty of republicans were screaming for Nixon's head before it was over.

Anyone who tried to rewrite history on this is insane. And anyone who does not see the current parallels is blind. We need to investigate and impeach and jail the current administration criminals, many of whom are the same players.

[tnlefty]

34. I remember Watergate as being similar to the Viet Nam war in this

respect: I was very young when Viet Nam started; older during Watergate; and when I would ask the adults around me about either the story always changed from one year, or one month, or one week to the next. As time rocked on these adults turned against Viet Nam, and I remember a few months before Nixon resigned my father knew he was a criminal SOB. When Ford pardoned Nixon, my republican father went ballistic. He truly wanted Nixon to tar and feather!

What I remember more, though, is the women that my Mom played bridge with. I had to help get the house in order and fix food on the nights that the "Bridge Club" met at our house (I was raised in a TINY GA town that 1 traffic light). I did homework in the kitchen while they played bridge in the next room, so that I could be on stand-by to refill drinks, etc.

One night the talk turned to national affairs, and one of these southern women who didn't usually swear stated rather loudly, "That Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He ran on a platform seeking peace and an end to Viet Nam, and all he's doing is escalating everything and makin' it worse!" There was general agreement and a little more swearing.

To this day when I'm trying to detect the 'winds of change' I listen to hear someone calling a current leader a "lying son of a bitch" or something close to that.

[charlyvi]

35. The Saturday Night Massacre was riveting....

One resignation after the other.....the second most bizarre aspect of the Nixon tapes, the first being the fact that the meglomaniac actually made tapes of his treasonous activities at all, was the missing 18 1/2 minutes--Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, supposedly erased 18 1/2 minutes by accident. Yeah, sure.

[struggle4progress]

101. Bork's willingness to fire Cox after Richardson and Ruckelshaus refused ..

.. certainly made him a hero to Republicans and explain why reagan appointed him to the DC Court of Appeals and then nominated him for the Supreme Court. Gerald Ford certainly loved Bork enough to appoint him Solicitor General and to later testify in favor of his nomination to the Supreme Court.

[benddem]

37. I've never forgotten

the night of the Saturday Night Massacre. I was taking PoliSci at the U... and we were really keeping close tabs on the events. There were a bunch of people at my house...younger and no interest in Politics. I'm pretty sure we'd been smoking. When they came on the TV to announce the whole debacle..it was like a gun shot with every new development. I was absolutely sure they were going to announce that Nixon had gone in to the bathroom and shot himself...that might have been the dope.
But that was a monumental night. The guests left cause I was so wrapped up in the events.
There was a feeling of electricity through the hearings. We're no wheres near that point. The revelations had been dripping out since the burglary...but people weren't really paying attention. When the hearings began people tuned in. John Dean's testimony was another pivotal moment. Then came Butterworth. Everytime Nixon came on TV it got worse. But contrary to one of the posters...it was not partisan. It was Republicans who participated in the hearings and questioned closely and who went to the White House to encourage him to resign.
We have to have hearings and lay out all the lies and the subterfuge. I doubt that's going to happpen in 2 years. Cheney will either have a heart attack or stonewall. And like some people said when Nixon resigned..."I still think he was a great President." The kool-aid drinkers will never be convinced...cause * is such a good Christian.

[mondo joe]

40. I only remember the hearing fucked with my afternoon viewing of Match Game.

[Cant_wait_for_2008]

42. Gerald " I will not seek the office of the presidency in 1976" Ford

Thats all you have to know about that old windbag and Watergate!

Rot in hell, Ford !!!

[ToolTex]

68. Yes, our six days of national mourning are finally over! Thank God!

[Raine]

43. Yes, I was about 23 yrs. old

it was a TERRIBLE time, that's all I want to say about it. :-(

[Liberal_Dog]

46. I Remember Some Of It

I was 9 years old when Nixon resigned. I remember watching the hearings on TV during the afternoons. Of course, I really didn't understand what it was really all about.

[BlackVelvet04]

47. The 1972 was the first election

where I could vote. I remember before the election thinking Nixon was a scumbag but quite frankly I don't remember a whole lot about Watergate. I was happy when Nixon resigned in disgrace.

[bobbolink]

49. I was a mother of a small boy, and mostly remember John Dean's

testimony, and his beautiful wife sitting behind him the whole time.

I was clearly an adult, but young enough that I thought this meant things would really change.

What did I know... :cry:

[madokie]

50. having come home in oct of '70 from Vietnam I paid a lot of attention to the hearings

every chance I got to watch the proceedings I did. I have a feeling of deju vu at some of the things happening now. There were times where we about gave up hope but never really did. John Dean was one of my hero's during that time if I remember right.

[LiberalEsto]

52. It took a LONG time to develop

When the burglary story first broke in mid-June, 1972, it was treated as a minor event in the papers.

I remember working as a volunteer for George McGovern and nearly banging my head against walls in frustration because Watergate wasn't brought up during the campaign.

The Watergate story didn't begin building a head of steam until months after Nixon won re-election.

I still wonder if he would have been re-elected if the Democrats had raised holy hell about Watergate during the summer and fall of 1972. It could have meant ending the Vietnam War a couple of years earlier, saving countless lives.

[many a good man]

53. “Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean” (Mr. G Records 826), is by the CREEP, a goofy acronym for

Committee to Rip-off Each and Every Politician. And here are the words you seek:

We're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean
The way we've been treated is really obscene
To think that a bug worth hardly a shrug
Could end up by getting us tossed in the jug
We all got the gate for no reason or rhyme
You'd think we'd committed some horrible crime
Our minds may be dirty but our hands are clean
We're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean

We're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean
Our job was to see that the White House stayed green
We might have had flaws like bending the laws
But God only knows it was for a good cause
There's no power shortage where we were concerned
And what little profit resulted we earned
Four lovelier fellows you never have seen
Than Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean

We're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean
Our past has been fat but the future looks lean
With backs to the wall we're taking the fall
But damnit we only robbed Pete to pay Paul
Just when we were getting to be well-to-do
The Watergate turned into our Waterloo
And now everybody is out to demean
Poor Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean

Yes we're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean
We're perfectly willing to spill every bean
We've nothing to hide with God on our side
He knows we were only along for the ride
And so it won't come as a terrible blow
There's one little thing that we think you should know
Whatever we say isn't quite what we mean
We're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean

Oh yes we're Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean
Things won't be the same when we're gone from the scene
But people will still recall with a thrill
Our sell-out performance on Capitol Hill

It just isn't fair to take all of the blame
When all we were doing was playing the game
Now all of Washington's caught in-between
Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean

[moc]

64. LOL! That's great. Thanks!

:toast:

[HockeyMom]

54. 25 and right before my wedding

so I was a little bit preoccupied. I did watch the hearings when I got back from my Honeymoon. No, I did not vote for Nixon in 72. I may have been an Independent back then, but I wasn't THAT dumb.

[ToolTex]

56. I was about 31, I think. We spent every evening watching the hearings at first,

then when they heated up we had television at the office during the day. Each day was riveting. It became about all that was discussed in the country.

I think we knew Nixon was involved with the Saturday night massacre, but still doubted that it could be proven. It was with the stunning low-key testimony of Alexander Butterfield, that he had recorded tapes full time of all oval office conversations, that we knew Nixon could be impeached. After all no president had ever before been successfully removed from office and I think we thought it was impossible.

Then we all held our breaths as the three branches squared off to stare each other down. In fact, I can say that my well connected, ex-marine, father-in-law took our family out of the country during the entire month of August to a very remote part of the world, not knowing what horror Nixon or the CIA might unleash with their backs pushed to the wall. In fact, we left the country the morning after Nixon went on television with two high stacks of notebooks which he said were his answer to Congress; the famous transcripts of the tapes, (which had the famous 18 minute gap). I remember about three weeks into our isolation, that we saw people high above us on the canyon rim. We Yelled through a rolled up cardboard megaphone, "What news of the President?" They yelled back with an echo which I can still hear, "He resigned!" "he resigned. "he re..." And that was all we knew for the next three weeks, but we were hugely relieved.

What I remember most as a young professional struggling daily for a foothold in the Dallas establishment, where I often had to hide my awe of the wealth and power of the people I was associating with, was how much I identified with the young men in the Nixon administration who were sucked into the crimes. I particularly remember thinking as both John Dean and later as Jeb McGruder each testified to their own involvement, how easily I could have been overwhelmed by John Mitchel as Jeb was, or John by Nixon and Halderman. When you're young and impressionable and ambitious, it is too easy to believe what the powerful suggest is necessary and acceptable, even when your own compass points otherwise. I was so glad I had chosen a field other than politics.

[moc]

65. Thanks so much for your story. I'm in Dallas too.

:hi:

[ToolTex]

70. Golly, does anyone else remember the strange stories about Martha Mitchell,

John Mitchell's wife, as she first became an alcoholic, and then started to lose her mind, calling radio talk shows late at night from locked bathrooms, etc., saying things like," no one will believe the crimes going on in my living room right now." Eventually, IIRC, they locked her up somewhere, maybe before a divorce, or maybe she just conveniently died. But she was spot on before most of us had much of a clue. We just watched her asshat husband, Nixon's AG, just puff on his pipe and look-on condescendingly during Senator's questions. Reminds me a lot of our current asshat vice president.

[windbreeze]

102. uhhhhh, let me see...yes...but then

hopefully we realize by now, that any story can be planted in order to further someone else's agenda.....Nixon stated that there wouldn't have been a Watergate if it hadn't been for Martha Mitchell...she died of myeloma in 1976...
wb
found an interesting article...at the following link...

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/mbwhywasmartha.htm

[hatrack]

59. I was twelve years old, and even then it was hypnotic

The hearings, and Sam Ervin's drawl, and John Dean's marathon testimony and Daniel Inoue's accidental aside re. Ehrlichman caught on tape: "What a liar!"

I vividly remember Butterfield's disclosure of the tapes, and Nixon's "transcripts" and how absolutely phony he looked during that broadcast - like a salesman stuck with a defective Pinto that he HAD to sell to make quota.

My political coming-of-age was Watergate and the fall of Vietnam - and people wonder why I'm somewhat pessimistic.

:evilgrin:

[MN ChimpH8R]

60. I was seventeen when Tricky Dick resigned

I'd been following Watergate largely through Hunter Thompson's coverage in Rolling Stone and the honorable reporting of Walter Cronkite. Had an "Impeach the Cox-sacker" sticker on my bass guitar case.

After the Saturday Night Massacre it was only a question of how and when Nixon would go, not if. My dad and I watched the Trickster's resignation speech together and he said something like "good riddance to that crooked son of a bitch." Dad passed about three months later. There was an enormous sense of relief when Nixon slunk into his San Clemente spider hole. I turned 18 a couple of months before the '74 election and voted for every Democrat I could find on the ballot. Did the same thing just a couple of months ago. The more things change.....

I remember the National Lampoon's headline on its "News" section a couple months later: They've fired the shit heard round the world. Big laffs.

[EndElectoral]

63. John Dean's testimony was the turning point...WE need a Dean today...

[Pastiche423]

66. It was like someone up thread said...

It was difficult to find people my own age that were into politics at the time. I rented a room from an elderly couple who religiously watched the hearings.

When I got home from worked, my dinner was ready and they told me what had gone on in the hearings that day and every day after. I was giddy. I despised Nixon, long before I could vote against him in 1972.

Every news report, every article about Nixon, I hungrily consumed. If I din't understand something, I found someone to explain it to me. At the same time, I can't count the number of times people would tell me to have patience.

My semi-patience was rewarded on August 8, 1974 when I heard of his resignation. I was in my car, a silver Vega (don't think they make those cars anymore) w/the radio on. I had just turned off of Independence (how fitting!) Blvd when I heard the news, I screamed and hit my horn.

Sadly I thought back then, that the worse president in my lifetime was gone from office.

[ToolTex]

69. What a great thread, 68 replies, but only 3 kicks! WTF guys and gals?

(edited to add): And what a lot of "institutional" memory we have here at DU.

[kineneb]

71. Nixon resigned on my 16th birthday

and it was the best birthday present I have ever received. I spent the entire summer watching the hearings. Nixon's aids were so slimy, and I still remember John Dean sweating while he testified. I am glad he has redeemed himself.

Alas, where are you Sam Ervin, Barbara Jordan, and Elizabeth Holtzman when we need you?

[Malikshah]

74. Wow-- you, Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams are the same age...

[shance]

88. Holtzman is out there swinging, I saw her speak in Los Angeles a few months back.

I wish we had many more like of her caliber in Congress.

I don't believe we would be in the mess we are in if we did.

[Beausoir]

72. My dad forced me to sit down and watch Nixon resign. I was about 10.

And my dad was PISSED.

Furious. Furious about the fraud and the lies.

I've never forgotten it.

[babydollhead]

115. we were driving home

and my dad pulled over instead of going through a tunnel because we had to listen to Nixon resign on the radio. I was 10, also

[Malikshah]

73. Uh...I was alive, but only under the age of 7... I was confused

I heard Watergate and thought, oh, it's a dam. Then when I saw the hotel, I was confused and asked my dad what were they thinking in building that thing, it wouldn't hold back any water... true story!

My dad was teaching at the time and actually said the burglary was a small snafu that would blow over to his class...needless to say...it's always the coverup.

[NastyRiffraff]

75. I was about 23...

I would watch the hearings live every chance I got; watched reruns if I couldn't catch them live. The one thing that sticks out in my mind:

I was with a bunch of friends watching the live hearing. None of them were political junkies like me; they were just there to smo...er...party. So up comes Alexander Butterfield. No one expected much out of him, and indeed as I remember the first part of his testimony was rather boring. Until....

he almost casually mentioned the tapes. I can't remember what the question was that he was responding to (I'll have to take a look at the transcripts again). And my jaw dropped...for a moment, time seemed to stand still. Finally, I yelled to the room at large "Holy SHIT!! Did you hear what he just SAID?"

Of course, my friends, stoned outta....uh, having a good time, thought I was nuts.

[ToolTex]

99. Exactly as I remember it. Very low key, then WHAM!

[Syncronaut Seven]

76. I too was 11, When at Granpa's I watched at his knee

When at home..... I skipped school...... Just to watch.

I have always been, and will continue to be, an American fascinated by politics.

I've never been this angry before.

[irislake]

77. It was the most thrilling TV drama I ever watched

I don't expect anything will equal it in my lifetime. What a cast of characters. The real people made Hollywood actors pale by comparison. Absolutely fabulous. I didn't miss a minute of it though I was a busy young mother with four children.
Will something like that happen to Bush? Depends what the Democrats unearth when they start all their investigatin'. That is IF they have the guts to do it. Fingers crossed. The evils of the Cheney/Busg regime really dwarf the Nixon crimes. Tricky was a saint by comparison.

[Hardrada]

79. I was 29 and at Nixon's departure I wrote the following:

Impeachment Song

(To the Hee Haw tune: Where O Where Are You Tonight?)

May brought us roses
And May brought us clover
In Maytime McGovern was looking so fine
But then came November and Dick was elected
So we got plastered with beer and cheap wine.

Chorus

Where, o where, are you tonight?
Where did you go when you go when you left us at last?
Good bye, Dick Nixon, and good bye forever.
I tried to see you but PFFFT! you'd gone past.


But then came that April all golden in promise
And I remember the glorious day
When both the lackies that guarded their master:
Haldemann, Erlichman both went away!

Where, o where, are they tonight?
Where did they go when they left us so fast?
Goodbye, you bastards, and goodbye forever
I tried to see you but PFFFFT! you'd gone past.

May brought us roses
And May brought us clover
But it's been too long since our country looked fine
So we'll just redo it and somehow renew it.
For starters, we'll toast with our beer and cheap wine.

Where, o where, is he tonight?
Where did he go when he left us so fast?
Goodbye, Dick Nixon, and goodbye forever!
We wanted to see you but PFFFFT
You'd gone past.

[progressoid]

80. First time I heard my mother swear was during the trials.

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. What I remember about Watergate.

My dad pointed out that we were experiencing history in the making. What I remember of the times is that our country still shared a collective opinion of what was right and what was wrong. I don't remember the Republicans stepping up to defend Nixon, so I did get the impression that we were all together as a country in the belief that the president had crossed the line.

Then came Reagan and the absolution of Oliver North, I felt that unity chip away and continue to chip away until the Gingrich era, when everything finally collapsed. Suddenly the ends justified the means. The Republicans have successfully managed to destroy everything that I ever believed in regarding public officials using their public offices for public good. We destroyed everything when we allowed private corporations to take over our public interest, because managers never get held accountable for their bad actions. Indeed, if they do wrong, they just jump off with their golden parachutes...and end up in my neighborhood. I guess that's punishment enough, for some.

[MamaBear]

84. I remember Barbara Jordan.

She was a member of the house panel on impeachment. I remember her scholarship, her dignity, the deep and measured sound of her voice as she spoke about crimes, and the constitution.

I was in my mid20's at the time, and was exhausted and burnt out: almost all of my cousins had been there and were coming home but weren't the same; the mention of Nixon was sure to bring arguments at parties and fights in bars. Family members said horrible things to each other and in some cases those wounds took a very long time to heal.

I am utterly heartbroken that we have to go through all this again, but this time I hope they go all the way and remove the shrub from office.

Cheap oil is suicide.

[Spiffarino]

85. I was 13 when the break-in was disclosed

I watched as many of the hearings as I could. John Dean's appearances were particularly stirring to me as he seemed to be the only insider who would speak out. Then came word of Nixon's "Enemies lists" and other examples of his paranoia. By the time Nixon resigned, the whole household was relieved.

My family were staunch Republicans and I was a product of that upbringing. I was a Nixon fan in 1968 as a fourth-grader, wearing buttons and making signs out of notebook paper. By August of 1974, my future as a Democrat was assured, though it was years later that I became a flaming liberal (thank you, Ronnie Reagan!).

[MoseyWalker]

86. I was a kid, but a very politically aware kid

In '68 Nixon promised "peace with honor" while thousands more died. People got tired of it, thankfully, and we were then a country with honorable, liberal people taking stands against corruption and violations of the rule of law and who believed that people in powerful positions were not above the law.

Things have apparently changed. Welcome to the Musellini years, re-do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. I was in grad school and had access to a TV only occasionally

But I remember how fantastic Barbara Jordan, Sam Ervin, and Elizabeth Holtzman were on the House Judiciary Committee.

After Nixon resigned--I watched the speech on the TV in the lounge of the graduate dorm--I walked outside, and I remember thinking that even though something unprecedented in American history had happened, people were out walking around as if nothing had happened.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

91. It was not a shock that most were for impeachment - because

Nixon was wrong and he was guilty and it was the right thing to do. Truth and justice prevailing was the American way. That is why I was totally shocked when I knew Bush was guilty of lying us into an illegal invasion and NOTHING happened to him. This is not the America we once had.

[unblock]

93. the big difference: back then, the TRUTH had yet to be revealed

in nixon's case, the truth came out in tantalizing drip, drip drips. as it came out, people responded. and as more and more crap came out, more and more of nixon's support dissapated. republicans back then had loyalty, and more of it than democrats have ever had, but nothing compared to the pathologically unbreakable loyalty of the shrubbies.

so when the evidence became overwhelming, particularly in the form of the tapes, quite a lot of republicans abandoned tricky dick.


the difference today is that the truth about the shrubbies IS ALREADY OUT. shrub has survived up to this point because those in power were in the know and chose to ignore it for the sake of their own power and political expedience.

with democrats in charge, who knows what may come of it.

[struggle4progress]

96. The definitive image: Rose Mary Woods demonstrating how she

thought she might have accidentally erased 18.5 minutes of tape while on the telephone:

http://www.nndb.com.nyud.net:8090/people/576/000055411/rmw.jpg
from TIME 10 December 73

The tape machine used would have required her to stay in such a position for 18.5 minutes.

[msedano]

97. riveting television

the repiglican mantra, "what did the president know and when did he know it?" sounded like a solid defense the first thousand times the apologists chanted it. the tapes proved he instigated the whole mess.

my wife was pregnant with our daughter and i was in grad school on the GI bill and TA'ing. i'd come home at night and my wife would rush to the door with highlights, "oh my gawd..." then i'd do a few hours in front of the tv watching the replays on public tv into the early morning hours.

the televised watergate hearings provided the greatest moment in television history when alexander butterfield testified in exacting detail to something nixon ehrlichman and haldeman were saying in the oval office. it went something like this:

BUTTERFIELD: and the pendejo said 'i am a total crook and idiot but the voters will never find out, and young geo bush is playing footsie with bar girls in alabama whilst he's awol from his unit while real men are dying in vietnam. (OK, so that's what my heart heard. i don't remember what my ears heard).

ERVIN: mr. butterfield, how can you be so certain those were the president's words?

BUTTERFIELD: oh, i didn't trust to memory. before i came to testify i consulted the tapes.

ERVIN: the tapes?

BUTTERFIELD: the tapes. the prickident videotapes every minute of every conversation in the oval office.

Of course, it was all a set-up. The staff had already discovered this in the research and the Q&A was designed to provide that shining moment of incredible clarity with the maximum drama. I remember snappinig out of my fatigue. There are tapes of this shit?!? It's over. The boy is going down for the count, ajua!

Then Nixon goes before the national audience with a stack of green notebooks, saying, "no, i'm not giving you my tapes, i transcribed them and here they are. come and get it." (Those transcripts, btw, is where the "expletive deleted" tag line got popularized) But the committee says, "no way in Hell will you tell us what's in those tapes, we want the tapes and we want them now." Nixon held on for a couple of days, but in the end, the supremes said he had to surrender the tapes. That's when we discovered the famous missing 18 1/2 minutes (or however many rosemary wood had supposedly erased--ten times over so nothing was recoverable).


Finally, here's a bit of satire you might enjoy, link below. Some editor inserted the misspelled disclaimer "Fictionalise' Tape Recording". It's the stuff on the left hand column:

http://0101aztlan.net/moratorium/moratorium4.html

[struggle4progress]

98. Somebody (maybe Firesign Theatre) did a nice release in 74 of

a parody Nixon speech, made by splicing words from various recordings of his voice: IIRC, the speech was essentially a confession that he was guilty of everything and included the line "I am a crook."

[Missy Vixen]

100. I was thirteen that summer

My mother was recovering from extensive surgery, so I was sent to live with my grandparents. They were fairly unconcerned with what I was doing, as long as I was quiet and left them alone. I spent the entire summer that year watching the hearings.

Let's just say it made an indelible impression on me.

Julie

[cynatnite]

106. I was about that age...went to the other room and watched something else n/t

[eridani]

107. If someone in 1974 had told me that 30 years later--

--I would be avidly looking for anything with John Dean's byline, I would have asked for a big hit of whatever they were smoking.

[roguevalley]

108. I was around. I remember the slow crawl to hearings and how even

the pugs hated this stuff. I remember watching The Advocates on PBS where they debated this thing with big time politicos. Michael Dukakis was the moderator. :) I remember when they said he was going, the psycho farewell speech he gave and him going. I remember thinking now he will be tried like the common cur that he was but Ford prevented that, the bastard. Set the groundwork for now.

I remember the enemies list, the plumbers, all of it. I remember being scared for my country but not like I've been scared now. The pugs weren't complete nazis then. They almost cared for the country too.
The hearings were awesome to watch. John Dean, all of them. Truly amazing to see democracy work.

[Festivito]

109. HS

I remember
. being surprised when Nixon said he would resign.
. thinking that it looks bad for Nixon, but there are two sides to stories.
. that the revelations were complicated and required constant in-depth reading just to keep abreast.
. that we would not know what was really happening.

Time brings more memories.

[Hubert Flottz]

110. I even remember the jokes!

Mrs. Nixon went to the doctor, because she was itching like mad in her crotch area and the doctor told her not to worry...someone had just bugged her watergate.

I remember the day Nixon had to eat all that crow and I pray for the day to come, that Bush has to do the same, times a thousand.

[donheld]

111. Barely, my mother still thinks he was a saint.

She thinks the Democrats just bullied him. :eyes:

[WritersBlock]

112. I was in junior high school

Wore a McGovern button to school one day in the autumn of '72 and wound up being called a "commie" for the rest of the year by a couple of students *and* a teacher. Ah, the good old days. These two kids were part of the social elite of the town, and I have warm memories of both of the spoiled little bastards riding their bikes past my house screaming "commie!!!" if I happened to be outside.

A couple of summers later, my Mom and I were in Washington DC and got to ride the Congressional tram or golf cart or whatever it was; seems to me it was like a golf cart... with Peter Rodino! I remember how thrilled Mom was.

And a couple of days after that, we were in Atlanta, Georgia, and some Georgia politician was being interviewed in the lobby of the hotel we were staying in. He was being asked what he thought about Nixon's resignation. I just walked past without paying too much attention... after all, he was only the governor of Georgia ;)

[RebelOne]

113. I was going through a divorce at the time,

so I didn't pay too much attention to Watergate. But I was glad Nixon resigned because I really despised him.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

116. I was 22 years old and listened to the hearings at work on radio and watched them when

I was home. I believe the testimony I most vividly remember was John Dean's. I even remember how the tv camera kept showing his wife Maureen.

I felt like a bit of a traitor to the Dem party as the two out of the three Senators I most admired were Republicans...Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker (he later became an Independent). The third was the amazing Senator Sam Ervin.

[King Coal]

117. I remember a girl I went to college with telling me to shut up in class.

I was for McGovern, of course, and she was for Nixon. McGovern had the goods on Nixon on time and ran last minute commercials about the burglary, but still lost. That girl told me, "Nixon won, so you should just shut up and deal with it." It seems to be a recurring theme. I also remember Martha Mitchell blowing the whistle. John Mitchell gave several speeches in which he was supporting wiretaps etc. Back then, you used the Readers' Guide to keep informed and television reporting was more truthful. When Nixon fired Archibald Cox, we were ready to take to the streets. We did. We protested Watergate and the war.

[ProfessorGAC]

118. Yep. Late HS, Early College

I started college in September of 1973.
The Professor

[H2O Man]

120. I sure do.

It was a strange time. I think it is something that all Americans, including progressive democrats, need to study closely. There are faded memories turning into a mythology, that incorrectly makes it seem that Nixon & Co. were so bad that the entire nation, led by Bob Woodward and a noble Congress, evicted them. And, while there are bits of truth there, it is far from the real story.

There are a few good books about the topic that I would recommend. The Senate's Ervin Committee Report was recently re-issued. It's a great read. You get a sense of the tensions between the republican and democrats.

Woodward & Bernstein's books "All the President's Men" and "The Final Days" are both worth reading. The film "All the President's Men" was also re-issued a while back. It's fun. A lot of it is true, too.

There were strange dynamics. Obviously, some forces beyond Congress and the Washington Post had decided to remove Nixon from power. The process met with resistance, and it is likely that not much would have come of it, had those "unseen" powers not pushed it.

The WP's book of the transcript of the White House tapes is fascinating. You are able to watch the administration self-destruct. The combination of their stupidity, along with the outside pressure they could not identify, moved things to a point where both democrats and republicans recognized that Nixon needed to go.

It is best, in my opinion, for people to study the era closely. Don't buy into the myths.

[Peace Patriot]

171. I have a copy of the original paperback of the Sam Ervin Committee report,

and a whole lot of other stuff--original Times, Newsweeks, newspaper clippings. I was riveted to the TV throughout. Most of all it was a fantastic lesson in the "rule of laws not men." Fundamental. The President is not above the law. But it was a lot more than that, emotionally. I was in my mid-twenties and had seen every one of my political heroes shot dead, within the space of five years. The last one, RFK, should have been the candidate in 1968, and was assassinated on the night he won the California primary. It was all about the war. JFK's death, MLK's death, RFK's death--all about the Vietnam War and done by war profiteers, is my opinion now.

The Watergate scandal occurred in this context. We had been DENIED a peace-minded president, a peace-advocating civil rights leader, and, finally, the one candidate who could bring about peace and who could win (RFK)-- by acts of murder. It ripped the Democratic Party to shreds. And Nixon--who promised "peace with honor" and claimed to have a secret plan for peace--was the result. And, after a million more Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians were slaughtered, and tens of thousands more US soldiers killed, under Nixon, he was already in disrepute. Then, come to find out, he had BURGLARIZED the Democratic Party campaign headquarters--during the campaign of peace candidate George McGovern--and the psychiatrist office of Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg--in Nixon's lying, disreputable claw up the ladder to be president, and it fit. I didn't doubt for a minute that he was deeply involved, had hired the burglars, had paid them, and tried to cover it up--and was no doubt doing much worse than that--but I have to say that it was a surprise to me that he was held to account. I also have to agree with some of the posters above that he might not have been held to account, if the taping of his office had not been revealed, and if Judge Sirica and the Supreme Court hadn't forced him to give the tapes up. That was really the turning point for many Republicans and War Democrats. The war was in its waning years, anyway, and they could afford to dump Nixon--out of necessity (given the tapes)--having made a bundle on the war.

I speak cynically about it now, but did not feel cynical about it then. It seemed that our democracy was still in working order. Maybe we couldn't get foul warmongers and political assassins held to account, but at least some part of the rule of law could still prevail. More on this in a moment--my feelings then, my feelings now.

The Watergate hearings were an unforgettable experience for me--right up there with each of the successive assassinations, and men walking on the moon. I had a grandfather some of whose last words on this earth were a warning about Nixon becoming president. He had been witness to Nixon's 'red-baiting' of Helen Cahagan Douglas, in Nixon's first Congressional campaign in Los Angeles. Grandpa predicted that Nixon would become president and that nuclear war would follow and the world would end. Well, thank heaven that the latter didn't occur--and I do think that that was the chief accomplishment of the antiwar movement of the '60s--that Nixon felt constrained about nuking Vietnam. But Grandpa was right in the general drift of his final thoughts--that Nixon was a worm, a rightwinger, a McCarthyite--ugly, vengeful, mean, a tool of the worst elements in the country, and a dangerous man as to democracy and Constitutional government. The Watergate scandal vindicated my opinion of Nixon--having mostly to do with the continued Vietnam war--and I was fairly in love with Howard Baker and John Dean, the last of the honorable Republicans.

I now feel--like you do, H20 Man--that something else was going on during Watergate, something murky and unseen--that resulted in Nixon's demise--something other than the scandal itself. Nixon's offenses were certainly impeachable. But there was, perhaps, more than met the eye, about Butterfield's revelation that Nixon had taped all his conversations. In fact, just now, an ADDITIONAL new idea about it has occurred to me--that it wasn't Nixon taping those conversations, but one of our "secret government" entities--that Nixon taping it all ("for historical purposes") was a cover story. It was all a bit too neat. What could the "secret government" purpose have been? Some possibilities--that Nixon was actually ending the Vietnam War sooner than the war profiteers wanted, that they had intended endless conflict in Southeast Asia, perhaps ending with war with China? Nixon's peace initiative to China? Nixon's fairly liberal environmental policy (he signed the EPA into law)? Nixon's visit to Russia (the first president to go there)? Despite a lot of evidence that Nixon was the tool of the rightwing and of war profiteers--and of the "secret government"--could it be that he was angling away from them, in order to leave a better legacy?

I'm just wondering. Because, looking back to those years from THIS perspective, I see that almost nothing of importance happens in this country that doesn't serve the war profiteers. Even the civil rights movement may have been permitted its successes in order to better recruit poor blacks to be cannon fodder in Vietnam and other planned wars. MLK finally caught on to this, and blasted the war in one of the greatest speeches of the era, at the Riverside Church in NY in 1967--and, within a year, he was murdered. The moment any REAL hope for peace and justice arises--as it did with the JFK presidency, with the civil rights movement, and with RFK's antiwar campaign for president--it is destroyed. And other efforts--such as Congress forbidding Reagan to conduct a war against Nicaragua--are undermined and subverted, all in the interests of war profiteering and fascism. So...Watergate cannot have happened without the consent of the war profiteers. And why would they want to be rid of Nixon?

What I'm saying is that I've come to profoundly distrust the "national narrative" as written by entities like the NYT, the Washington Post, the Associated Press & brethren, and that this is a new lens through which I'm looking back at the '60s era. A lot of "conspiracy theorists" have gone before me--in their lonely and supposedly "out of the mainstream" investigations. I'm not saying this is any big revelation--that I've begun to question the Watergate narrative. It's just that, prior to Bush and the naked manufacture of war that we have seen--and the naked corporate takeover of our election system--with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, for God's sake!--I never questioned my perception of Watergate, and now I do. I ALWAYS questioned the Warren Commission Report on JFK's assassination--and it was clearly wrong about the "lone gunmen" theory. But Watergate SEEMED a straightforward narrative at the time--and now I'm wondering about it.

I think that how Nixon's Oval Office tapes came to light needs investigation--if that is possible, this far from those events. Who was really doing the taping? Who really decided to disclose them? Who was Butterfield, really? And if there is some concocted aspect to the Watergate events, who did the concocting, and why? By "concocted," I don't mean that the burglaries or Nixon's complicity were invented--the facts of it all seem beyond question. I mean possible concoctions as to Nixon being permitted to be caught. The war profiteers surround and protect a president who abets their massive thievery. They would not permit something like the tapes to become known if it didn't suit their profit margins. Perhaps the later Reagan "Star Wars" buildup was the issue (--with Nixon trying to SOFTEN the "Cold War" with initiatives to China and Russia, winding down of the Southeast Asian war, and disarmament talks). ?? Just speculating. I haven't thought this through very well yet. It's a new idea--and of course goes against the partisan grain in me, and my anti-Nixon lineage.

This is not to say that there were not some great heroes of the Watergate scandal. After all, many of the people in Washington may ALSO not know what is really going on, and sometimes accept false narratives, the way the rest of us do. I think John Dean was a hero--I want to say, in his own context, or by his own lights (what he understood of the situation). So were Judge Sirica, Archibald Cox and the other prosecutors that Nixon fired--and many Congress critters--and possibly Woodward and Bernstein (although I've really begun to wonder about Woodward). And inadvertent things DO happen, not planned by the war profiteers/Corporate Rulers. To APPEARANCES, Nixon was their tool. And maybe that is the simple truth--and that Nixon brought about his own fall through hubris, and by means of some courageous, ethical people in government--and his backers could not save him. But one does wonder: Did they mean to hire INEPT burglars? (--kind of like the question of "incompetence" in the Bush White House--feigned incompetence?--or Reagan's supposed Alzheimer's fog and/or deniability--disproven in the cases of the 200,000 Mayan deaths in Guatemala and the war on Nicaragua). I mean, how stupid can you get--burglarizing the DNC and trying to plant bugs in its offices--and getting caught by a janitor?

Well, all this is just to say, you are right, H20 Man, to advise caution about myths and official narratives. I very, very strongly endorse that view--moreso today than ever before, and including our own party's myths and narratives. Never forget that the Vietnam War was escalated into a full-scale war by our own party--and by means of the outright lies of a Democratic president (LBJ)--and that nearly every Democrat in the Diebold I Congress (just retired) voted in favor of the "Help America Vote For Bush Act" of 2002 (Bushite corporate-controlled electronic voting).

[H2O Man]

172. There were at least two

hidden influences that I am aware of. You mention them both. One was a faction in the Pentagon who wanted to expand the war in southeast Asia. This includes, of course, what you mention about China. It's almost Shakspearian, in the sense that to the extent that the few kind of good things Nixon wanted to do created very powerful enemies or him.

There was also the terrible series of crimes we call "Watergate." They were all part of the Huston Plan. In the Ervin Report, much of this is coveredI in Chapter 1, on the prelude to the break-in. The "myth" is that Nixon stopped the Huston Plan. In the report, Dean's testimony makes clear it had not been concluded at all.

A small group derailed the plumbers, hence the White House. McCord set them up in the Watergate. And the people called "Deep Throat" took an active role. Even if Woodward believed it was only Felt acting as his handler, that is clearly impossible: Felt couldn't check the flower pot or put the clock face in the newspaper. It was a tiny, tight-knit group of senior officials.

The question becomes, I believe, were these two groups connected in any way, or were they distinct?

[kentuck]

125. I was following it just as if I were a member of DU...

I had returned from Vietnam in '69 and had turned very political and anti-war. I recall some of the discussions with friends and acquaintances. When I first brought up Watergate to them, they laughed. I think John Dean, of Watergate fame, may be closest to what Bush and Co. will do for the next two years. They will stonewall, just like Nixon did. They will claim 'executive privilege' whenever they can. At the same time they mouth "bi-partisanship" they will be shutting off the world and secreting every document that might incriminate them personally.

[Sapere aude]

131. When people heard the tapes they made up their mind to impeach Nixon.

I remember the fights I had with Nixon supporters. They wanted him to remain tough. We wanted him out.

My brother had gotten back from Vietnam as a Green Beret and worked down the hall from Donald Segretti who was recruiting for CREEP. (The committee for the reelection of the President) He asked my brother if he wanted a job when he got out of the Army and it was to work for CREEP. My brother did not want to stay in California (Fort Ord) so he declined the invitation. He felt at the time that if Nixon was not reelected the country would turn to anarchy. We fought and fought about Watergate.

The night Nixon resigned we watched it on tv at his house. My brother fell silent. We never talked about Watergate again. I do remember a lot of the die hard Nixon supporters that I had fights with telling me after the resignation that they never really supported Nixon during Watergate. They never let you gloat or say "I told you so."

[Sapere aude]

133. A reply to some of the stuff I've read here.

Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before it could happen and it was not because of a third rate burglury. He could have been charged with obstuction of justice, abuse of power and contemp of congress. Also it was a bi-partisan effort. The House Judiciary Committee voted to submit the articles of impeachment. Both Dems and Repubs were on the House Judiciary Committee.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee 1974
The 38 members of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee met during 1974 and eventually voted to submit 3 articles of impeachment to the full House.

Nixon resigned before the House considered the impeachment articles.

Democrats (21)

1. Peter Rodino (D-New Jersey) - Chairman
2. Harold D. Donohue (D-Massachusetts)
3. Jack Brooks (D-Texas)
4. Robert W. Kastenmeier (D-Wisconsin)
5. Don Edwards (D-California)
6. William L. Hungate (D-Missouri)
7. John Conyers (D-Michigan)
8. Joshua Eilberg (D-Pennsylvania)
9. Jerome R. Waldie (D-California)
10. Walter Flowers (D-Alabama)
11. James Mann (D-South Carolina)
12. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
13. John F. Seiberling (D-Ohio)
14. George E. Danielson (D-California)
15. Robert F. Drinan (D-Massachusetts)
16. Charles S. Rangel (D-New York)
17. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas)
18. Ray Thornton (D-Arkansas)
19. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York)
20. Wayne Owens (D-Utah)
21. Edward Mezvinsky (D-Iowa)

Republicans (17)

1. Edward Hutchinson (R-Michigan)
2. Robert McClory (R-Illinois)
3. Henry P. Smith III (R-New York)
4. Charles W. Sandman Jr. (R-New Jersey)
5. Tom Railsback (R-Illinois)
6. Charles E. Wiggins (R-California)
7. David Dennis (R-Indiana)
8. Hamilton "Ham" Fish Jr. (R-New York)
9. Wiley Mayne (R-Iowa)
10. Lawrence J. Hogan (R-Maryland)
11. M. Caldwell Butler (R-Virginia)
12. Delbert L. Latta (R-Ohio)
13. William S. Cohen (R-Maine)
14. Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
15. Harold V. Froehlich (R-Wisconsin)
16. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-California)
17. Joseph J. Maraziti (R-New Jersey)

[Independent_Liberal]

161. Weren't there two other articles that failed?

I believe one was for the Cambodia bombing (military action without approval from Congress) and tax code violations on presidential tax returns.

[moc]

135. SINCERE THANKS TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR REPLIES!

I really appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts and experiences. Although I didn't have time to reply to each one, I read every response and it brought back so many memories. It seems I recall more than I realized!

Cheers! You're a great group!

:toast: :patriot: :grouphug:

[NancyG]

138. The end of good music

I was a HS math teacher at the time and vividly remember hearing on the car radio that Nixon had resigned.

I felt exhilarated that a New Day was beginning.

Then the good music ended as we no longer had a cause and disco started.

I still comment that we haven't had any good music since Nixon resigned.

That's when I started to only listen to NPR and now Air America, so I may have missed some good music in the interim.

Okay the Dead. I did go to their shows.

[Peace Patriot]

173. You have a point, NancyG. Time for some good music again, eh? Finish the

work of the '60s. Bust the military budget down by about 90%, to a true defensive posture (no more wars of choice!). And do a couple of other things we left undone. And for big, difficult projects like these, you need some real fine troubadors!

[NancyG]

176. Yes, yes, Peace Patriot

Let it go in reverse.
This time let's turn it all around AND make some great music in celebration.

[HamdenRice]

139. "Richard Nixon is the dead rat on the floor of America's kitchen"

That was my most memorable moment in the Nixon impeachment saga. At the time, 60 Minutes had a "Point-Counterpoint" segment, which was a debate between a liberal, Nicholas von Hoffman, and a conservative, James J. Kirkpatrick, every Sunday night.

During the time of the impeachment proceedings, they debated the impeachment. Von Hoffman called Nixon "the dead rat on the floor of American's kitchen," meaning that Nixon was toast and America was just procrastinating removing him.

I was a teen and watched that segment with my family. I think my sister and I said something like, "ohhhh, snap!"

But that was when we all knew it was over. Nixon would either be removed or have to resign.

BTW, von Hoffman was immediately fired for the comment.

[unc70]

157. Remember the dead rat well

My wife and I loved that image so much we used the nickname "Nixon" for catnip mice for the next decade.

She was in graduate school and able to watch most of the hearings live. I had to watch the replay each night on public TV.

She called me at work with the news when Butterfield first testified about the tapes.


Each morning began by checking the morning TV shows for some new revelation that had just been published in the various newspapers that morning. Eventually we had the hearing durings the day. Then we watched Walter Cronkite reviewing the day's events and a commentary by Eric Sevareid. Finally, replays of the hearings.

I remember having just come home that Saturday night and turned on TV when the bulletin about the firings came on.

I even remember where we were when we initially heard on the radio about the breakin itself. Still have all the transcripts, etc. of the time plus the other trappings of an older liberal (e.g. Pentagon Papers). Also remember Sen. Erwin's earlier hearings that exposed/confirmed domestic spying on ordinary citizens, often by the military. Many of us who were in college during the 1960's already knew this.

[unc70]

158. Remember the dead rat well

My wife and I loved that image so much we used the nickname "Nixon" for catnip mice for the next decade.

She was in graduate school and able to watch most of the hearings live. I had to watch the replay each night on public TV.

She called me at work with the news when Butterfield first testified about the tapes.


Each morning began by checking the morning TV shows for some new revelation that had just been published in the various newspapers that morning. Eventually we had the hearing durings the day. Then we watched Walter Cronkite reviewing the day's events and a commentary by Eric Sevareid. Finally, replays of the hearings.

I remember having just come home that Saturday night and turned on TV when the bulletin about the firings came on.

I even remember where we were when we initially heard on the radio about the breakin itself. Still have all the transcripts, etc. of the time plus the other trappings of an older liberal (e.g. Pentagon Papers). Also remember Sen. Erwin's earlier hearings that exposed/confirmed domestic spying on ordinary citizens, often by the military. Many of us who were in college during the 1960's already knew this.

[never cry wolf]

140. I knew it was going to the top in autumn of 1972

I was a frosh at Northern Illinois University and taking poli sci 101. Our professor was Dr. Martin Diamond who had been on the cover of Time and was ranked as one of the 10 best teachers in the USA. Of course he had a huge class and basically did his lectured by video to many classes run by TA's. However, once a month he met in person with each small class.

The elections had just been held and at the time Watergate was just a minor break-in, a blip. Someone in our session with him asked what he thought about it and he astounded us all by saying it's going to end up in the White House.

[H2O Man]

148. Cool.

There are a number of interesting responses on this thread. Your story sticks out. It is always good to hear how a good teacher makes an impression on students.

[never cry wolf]

155. Unfortunately the video lectures failed

I was quite apolitical at the time. I voted for McCarthy but unfortunately really paid little attention to politics. It was just amazing how he presaged events. He had high some connections. He died in 1977 I believe so there is not that much on the web I could find about him, no CV per se, but I did find some interesting background info:

Neoconservatives and Trotskyism

By Bill King
web posted March 22, 2004

In one of the first in-depth studies written about neoconservatism in the 1970s, The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics (1978), Peter Steinfels observed that it is impossible to understand the neoconservatives without understanding their history. Yet it is precisely the history of "the neocons" that is today being systematically distorted by paleoconservatives through the polemical campaign they are waging against leading neoconservative intellectuals and the foreign policy of the Bush administration.

snip---------

But the original neoconservative "brain trust" of the 1970s, as Alexander Bloom referred to it in his Prodigal Sons (1986), did not consist of any of the above New York intellectuals associated with Trotskyism. <6> Instead, it consisted of Kristol, Glazer, Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Norman Podhoretz -- and of this group, only two were briefly involved with Trotskyism: Kristol and Lipset. We can even add here the names of two less influential neoconservatives, although eminent scholars in their own rite: the historian and wife of Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and the late political scientist Martin Diamond. The result is a grand total of four founding neoconservatives who passed through the ranks of Trotskyism. If one considers the list of first generation neoconservatives mentioned so far, which includes Bell, Glazer, Podhoretz and Decter, none of whom were Trotskyists, and then one adds such prominent early neoconservatives as Daniel Patrick Moynahan, James Q. Wilson, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Novak, Robert Nisbet, Peter Berger, Hilton Kramer, and Walter Laqueur (and indeed one could go on); in other words if one looks at the first generation of neoconservatives as a whole, its so-called "Trotskyist roots" are shown to be much smaller and weaker than paleoconservatives have so insistently claimed.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm

-----------------
Kristol and Podhoretz had both studied with Trilling, but Podhoretz’s other mentor was the literary scholar F. R. Leavis, with whom he spent three years of graduate study at Cambridge. By contrast, Kristol learned much from Sidney Hook, Leo Strauss, and Strauss’s student Martin Diamond. Kristol planted his journal firmly in the social sciences, albeit as chastened by pragmatism and Straussianism. This was social science liberated from dogmatic progressivism and keenly aware of the limitations of reason in politics. Although Commentary would publish many of the same circle of social scientists, its focus was different: more literary, religious, and political (including geopolitical), in keeping with Podhoretz’s interests and those of the magazine’s publisher, the American Jewish Committee.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA5N2U5ODU3ZWIzNTJlZDc2NjAwMmY0MzZhYzE4YTg=
------------------


The Education of Gerald Ford


Posted Monday, Dec. 23, 1974

A log crackled in the fireplace of the White House Red Room as butlers served drinks from silver trays to President Gerald Ford, a handful of aides and his four guests: Historian Daniel Boorstin, Harvard Government Professor James Q. Wilson, Woodrow Wilson Fellow Martin Diamond and Chicago Lawyer John Robson. The group moved to a first floor dining room for a meal of roast beef, mixed vegetables and fruit salad. The scene was more reminiscent of the White House of Thomas Jefferson, who had company at his dinner table nearly every night for leisurely conversation, than that of Richard Nixon, who guarded his privacy and preferred to hear from outsiders by memo.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911582,00.html

Maybe it's a good thing the video lectures bored me, otherwise I may have been posting at FR rather than here.

[H2O Man]

160. He made you think.

That is what counts. I appreciate that you shared this on DU. Thanks!

[havocmom]

141. Day after the Watergate break-in, when the news came out, I was overjoyed

Then, so angry that the nation was not waking up and seeing what was going on.

Watching the hearings made me proud to be an American, to have a system that could work so well. Helped me understand why it took so long to do things by the book. Still, annoyed that it took SO long for the public to wake up and get angry.

Mo Dean, sitting there behind her husband as he testified, day after day, taught me the value of patience and trust in the system working if we kept a watch over it.

Those lessons seem to have been lost to many. The nation has to re-learn everything every few years because not enough history is learned.

[struggle4progress]

163. Yes: it was clear within days that the White House was involved.

I had a summer job as a camp counselor in rural MD that summer, was in and out of DC several times that summer, and read a few of the WaPo stories when they came out. By the end of the summer, when I headed back home down south, I had no doubts about Nixon's involvement.

WaPo first reported the story on 18 June and reported on 19 June that a White House aide was among the burglars. On 1 August, WaPo reported $25K of CReEP money had been deposited in a burglar's bank account.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/specials/watergate/articles/

[leftofthedial]

144. I was in college

I was apalled that the Senate Democrats seemed to have no desire to go for the jugular in the hearings

I also realized that, with the possible exception of John Dean, not a single repuke seemed to have the slightest interest in the truth.

I also had the unmistakeable feeling that there was something major going on under the surface that had little to do with the public story. Then, I didn't know who, but it seemed to me that even beyond "Deep Throat" there were forces within the repuke party intent on eliminating the Nixon-Rockefeller-style repukes from power.

When Ford pardoned Nixon, it was obvious that there was no justice in this country.

[Jack Rabbit]

146. OK

I was a 21-year-old student at San Francisco State University in October 1973.

On hearing of the Saturday Night Massacre, I got up from eating dinner with my roommates and telephoned Western Union to wire my Congressman. The word impeachment was in the message.

I took an hour to get through. That's when I knew Nixon was toast.

Before that, I thought that impeachment was a very real possibility. Nixon was obviously guilty of participating in a cover up and it was just a matter of time before enough evidence would be gathered by Cox to pull the trigger.

Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq, as foolish as it is, does not have the same flavor to me as the Saturday Night Massacre. It hasn't even occured to me until now to even try to draw a comparison. If Congressional investigations go into the manipulation of intelligence prior to the invasion and start coming up with concrete evidence that Bush and his aides really didn't know whether Saddam possessed a biochemical arsenal or not, then we might see dynamics that compare to Watergate that will bring the Bush regime crashing down. Even then, it will be a greater Götterdämmerung than Watergate, which merely brough down Nixon; this will bring down the entire executive branch and possibly percipate an international war crimes tribunal.

[onenote]

149. what I remember

I was in college and followed the entire thing pretty closely.Although the Saturday Night Massacre was an important turning point, it wasn't until the smoking gun disclosure -- the tapes -- that it seemed certain that Nixon would not finish out his term (that he'd either resign or be forced from office).

Ultimately, in my opinion, the public's outrage over Watergate came not because the president was found to have participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, but because, at the core, the conspiracy was related to an effort to subvert the political process. I should add that the difficulty facing proponents of impeaching chimpy is that I think there will not be a bi-partisan demand for impeachment unless and until there is a new "smoking gun" that goes beyond what we already know. Which is why investigations/oversight is important as an end unto itself at this point.

[tigereye]

150. the hearings were fascinating

I watched them after I had surgery for a broken thumb - I think I was 13 or 14. I was stuck in the hospital for a few days and I'm glad that I got to see history in the making.

[AngryAmish]

154. They really pissed me off

Boring old guys talking on TV when it was patently obviuos that cartoons were on. I was furious.

Then again I was around 5.

[mmonk]

156. The hearings were leading towards articles of impeachment.

So republicans asked for Nixon to step down to avoid the charges and thus embarrassment to the party. I remember watching and it was very obvious where things were headed. So, I pretty much figured he wouldn't last in office much longer. I'm not convinced this will happen with the current administration. First, republicans today are more ideologically strident and might not ask bush to resign. Second, we had a more public responsive press back then than we do today, so I don't know how much coverage investigations would get. Third, Pelosi has stated impeachment is off the table (charges of wrongdoing). Therefore if there are to be no charges brought by those that run the House, no one is likely to resign from office and removal is impossible.

[Independent_Liberal]

162. This is really weird...

I wasn't around during Watergate (I wasn't born until 1983) but I've done so much research on it and have closely examined how the Bush administration has come from the exact same mold as the Nixon administration, that I'm feeling deja vu. Like maybe I experienced it in a previous life. It's really weird. In other words, I've done so much research on the subject that it's almost as if I lived through it even though I wasn't born yet.

[Independent_Liberal]

164. My adventures as a researcher...

www.watergate.info

www.911truth.org

www.911blogger.com

www.911citizenswatch.com

www.copvcia.com

www.justacitizen.org

www.sibeledmonds.blogspot.com

www.nswbc.org

www.cooperativeresearch.org

www.peterlance.com

www.peterdalescott.net

www.scholarsfor911truth.org

www.reopen911.org

www.tarpley.net

www.whatreallyhappened.com/enron.html

www.halwhistleblowers.org

[TheCentepedeShoes]

169. I was hooked on the hearings

Early 20's, working some from home, teevee on every day. Nixon gave me the CREEPs (hey, I made a punny) and kept thinking he might pull some stunt to keep himself in office. I picked up an old paperback copy of All the President's Men at the last library book sale and keep meaning to re-read it.
Re Ford's pardon: I would have liked Nixon to get his just desserts, but at the same time I can see the pardon was good for the country. Watching tv network news every night, nothing was being reported but the hearings and possible impeachment. It's like everything else in the country just stopped happening. And this was before the 24/7 news channels.
On the Sat nite massacre - someone I knew saw a bumper sticker reading "Impeach the Cox Sacker."

[autorank]

170. Great threat moc. Here's a prediction and a point that may not get made.

Yesterday's headlines today. "Management" is a one trick pony.

Key point. The key players in the Congressional investigations and impeachment hearings were
extremely intelligent, well educated people. Many of them were at their top form when Watergate
rolled around. Nixon had been such a shit to so many people, had walked over so many political
corpses to get his way, there were people lined up ready to have at it. Nixon's side was well
stocked with bright people also. Senator Irvin, NC headed up the set up investigation in the Senate.
He had Howard Baker, R (sane) TN as ranking minority member. There staffers, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson (the Senator turned actor) were the key questioners. These Senators were quick, very
knowledgeable of the law, Senate procedures, and legislative and rhetorical drama. Thompson and Dash
were highly skilled and both showed a lot of poise under pressure. Two key events: 1) The exchange between Nixon's first lawyer (not Sinclair) and Sen. Irvin. Go watch the best four rounds of boxing, Hagler - Hearns. That's what it was like. You didn't know who would drop first. The tension shut a room full of politicians up for the entire colloquy. Amazing arguments and tactics. Irvin climbed out of the ring in good shape. 2) The aid, Butterfield maybe, who said that Nixon was going to talk to Howard, meaning Baker, and fix the Senate investigation. Baker just cracked up, flashed that Tennessee smile, and buried Nixon after that. "What did the President know and when did he know it."

Yes people were glued down and a large part of the appeal were the intellectual and rhetorical heavy weights who came to rumble.

Is there a Sam Irvin. I doubt it. Is there a Howard Baker on the other side. No chance.

It will be different this time, more like the tear down of the House Republicans before the election (Delay, Foley, Haste rt, etc.).

The Senate was my favorite part of the process. The House Chairman, Rodino, was a fine individual whose savvy carried that committee, also filled with cranial power. Rep., later Sen. Sarbanes was one of them, brilliant guy.

Careers were made and legends among the informed, which was most of the country, were born.

One interesting point. When it was time for McCarthy to go, Sen. Irvin ran the investigation
Somebody said this:

"The courage needed to bring Senator McCarthy down came from Edward R. Murrow , Senator William Fulbright and Senator Sam Irvin. A journalist and two southern senators acted the way Americans should. They challenged McCarthy’s proof and he fell like a house of cards."

Irvin knew what he was doing, at every step. Damn that was amazing to watch.

[Peace Patriot]

174. There are remarkable broad parallels between Watergate and today:

1. The war. (--same war, it seems; unjustified; based on lies; mass slaughter of innocents; every escalation sold as a step toward peace).

2. Malfeasance and criminal acts by the President connected to the war (the Watergate burglaries were committed to plant listening bugs in the DNC headquarters during McGovern's antiwar campaign for president, against Nixon; and to get dirt on Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg).

Two big differences:

1. Bush and Cheney's crimes are orders of magnitude worse than Nixon's, as to violations of laws and the Constitution (--although on the scales of slaughter, Nixon was worse than Bush at the point of his impeachment; Bush is trying hard, though, and, if he has his druthers, will add mass slaughter, and possibly nukes, in Iran, to the 600,000 dead in Iraq). (Vietnam and Southeast Asia: upwards of two million dead before it was over--about half under Nixon.)

2. Diebold and ES&S. Plus, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies.

In those days, the Democratic Party was more responsive to its constituency than it is now. When antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy did well in the New Hampshire primary in 1968--didn't win, just did well!--that was it for LBJ. He declined to run for a second term, because Democratic voters had turned against his war. And I think that most of the Dems, in our current era, voting for Bushite corporate-controlled (s)elections is mind-boggling, and is greatly influencing things for the worse. As for people of stature and intelligence, we shall see. I won't prejudge people who have been out of power during this Junta.

[Imagevision]

177. Watergate is pale in comparison with Bush's Iraqgate, No-one died in Watergate...

[The Traveler]

178. moc

I was in college, studying physics at Georgia Tech. I was already a political junky so I followed it quite closely. There was a tension and gloom over the country, which was really very divided. Really, we were in bad shape in those days ... Ford and then later Carter were handed a hell of a mess to clean up. People forget that, but we're about to experience it again.

When Nixon's resignation was announced, the dorms emptied into the courtyard. Massive quantities of alcholo and marijuana were consumed. (You didn't dare get caught with an oz in Georgia in those days ... you might get a ticket.) Some girls ripped off their T-Shirts. Supplies began to run low. My room mate and I invented a vodka based drink using available mixers that became known as the "Chinese Potato Masher" and it became immediately popular ... but in the morning we could not remember the recipe, much to the dismay of our classmates. You get the idea. It was one of the larger spontaneous celebrations I have ever experienced. It was over. The bastard was gone.

And I think for a lot of people, that was enough. We were so overwhelmed with relief that this unscrupulous nutcase was out of a job ... I don't think anyone I knew doubted that tough times were ahead but there was a belief things could now start to get better. My own personal reaction to Ford's pardon of Nixon was fairly typical of my peers, a cynical "Well what did you expect?" But that didn't take away from the relief, and in a way added to it.

Over the years, I have come to believe that it would have been better to lance the boil and let all the yucky shit out ... better to have prosecuted these men of power who betrayed the public trust. But back then, I think most people were just glad we were coming out of the long nightmare.