Question: The Historical "verdict" on Watergate

[Larry]

Was just thinking about historical events for the "what has the government done" thread, and a thought occurred to me.

OT but related: Few days ago, in the Doctor's office, I was reading TIME's summary of the decade issue. Specifically somebody's column about "The Florida Election", which he thought made a great parallel for the rest of the decade. And what he said was that a very highly respected and impartial group, after studying all of the evidence from that election, concluded:

That under some rules, Bush won. And under other rules, Gore won. But that the one thing that was guaranteed was that there was

zero

chance that both sides would settle peacefully. That if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in, then the inevitable result would have been that Congress would have determined the winner.

And I was wondering whether the fact that this country has successfully, peacefully driven a sitting President from office, was a Great Thing. The peaceful transition of power.

And it occurred to me that I really don't know what the historical verdict was, on Watergate. I have my opinions, which are essentially unchanged from the opinions I formed at the time, unchanged by any new information whatsoever.

So I thought I'd ask my fellow Tailgaters. What's the historical verdict, if you will, on Watergate? What, exactly, was Nixon guilty of? Who actually did what?

y own personal opinion, from back then, was that no, Nixon didn't order any break in. (For one thing, he didn't need to. He was well ahead in the polls.) That probably, Nixon's first news about the thing was the next morning, when somebody told him about it. And that Nixon's first reaction was "Aw, ****!", and the second was "Well, cover the thing up, and after the election, we'll fire the idiots who did it."

But I wouldn't mind some facts, to go with my opinion.

[thebluefood]

As someone who didn't live through the Watergate Scandal (and has only read about it via textbooks and articles), it's hard for me to really make an informed or solid opinion on Watergate. On one hand, I think the implications of the Scandal are a bit overblown and I can see how this could've been the work of some fringe members of the Republican Party. On the other hand, Nixon seemed like a very troubled, paranoid, and even sick man. From a political stand point, I probably would've voted for Nixon, but his paranoia (and apparent inferiority complex) seemed to get the best of him. In that respect, I can see how he could've had a role (and even a major role) in the break in.

I don't know what to think of Watergate, or even Richard Nixon as a whole. What I do know is that it never should've happened and that it sent this country into a nasty rabbit hole.

[Larry]

Well, as to the "tone" or the "feel" of the times, I think what best describes it, for me, are the Doonsberry cartoons of the time.

Early in the Nixon administration, he'd draw a picture of the White House, with voices coming out of it.

Later, the pictures of the White House had Secret Service people patrolling the lawn, talking into radios.

Later, the pictures featured sandbag bunkers and machine gun nests.

Later still, the pictures had tanks roaming the lawn, turrets swiveling, searching for targets.

I consider JFK to be a great President (although before my time), because of the tone he set for the country. I consider Nixon to be a terrible one for the same reason.

(I think that Ford pardoning Nixon was a good thing for the country. In fact, I consider it to be a Great Act by a President. I honestly believed that he knew it was going to cost him. (Maybe he thought he'd overcome it, with time, and be elected, anyway. But he had to know it would cost him in the short run.) But that he did something that would hurt him politically, but was good for the country. And I don't see too many examples of that, among politicians.)

[Riggo-toni]

Maybe you should read Silent Coup, although its theory that Haig was Deepthroat was completely wrong. Nixon didn't order the breakin, but he authorised the coverup. The worst aftereffect was that he dragged the CIA into politics. The sickening thing about Watergate is how Dean's reputation has been whitewashed in order to bolster his accusations against everyone else, despite the fact that the the tapes showed he was lying his ass off. What actually got Nixon impeached were all the racial slurs on the recordings. Vietnam and stagflation had already made him unpopular, and once he was caught making anti-semitic and anti-black slurs the handful of members of congress still loyal were humiliated and felt he had to go.

[Burgold]

I think the effect of Watergate and probably Watergate plus Vietnam is that it magnified are distrust of the government to a higher level. Then we added to that the moral betrayal of Bill Clinton and the ethical betrayals of George W Bush and now everyone is extremely cynical and almost hateful of our government. It used to be that every kid wanted to grow up to be President. Now, the President is no longer a hero.

[JMS]

Watergate wasn't just about the break in. Watergate was about the Nixon administrations sophisticated plans to manipulate the Democratic party and keep tabs upon even their most private and confendential dealings both personal and professional. Nixon did all these things; in addition to the cover up; which was the most public display of his illegal dealings.

So why did the Nixon administration break into the democratic headquaters? When Nixon lost the presidential election to Kennedy in 1964 his political career was effectively over, historically not many polititians get all the way back to the general election of the Presidency after having lost it once. Nixon was only able to come back in 1968 from that disasterous defeat in 64 with money from the then richest man in the country Howard Hughes. There was a falling out between Hughes and Nixon after his election victory; and Hughes had hired a bunch of fomer democrats to run his affairs including John Kennedy's former campaign manager and the future NBA commissioner Lawrence O'Brien. O'brien oversaw Howard Hughes Interests in Washington DC. The water gate breakin was all about Richard Nixon's paranoya that O'brien who was the DNC chairman in 1972, was using Howard Hughes money denied to Nixon in 72, for democratic Candidates. The five cubans sent into watergate were there to bug Odonell's phone to confirm or disprove this fear.

The resulting blow up uncovered much much more of what the Nixon people were doing. Attending grass root democratic functions to steer their candidate selection process in a direction favorable to republicans. Other buggings conducted by the plumbers not just in professional offices, but including doctors offices to hear what high ranking democrats were telling their psychiatrists.

Did Nixon have plausible deniability over all this. Certainly he did. Nixon didn't tell the plumbers to bug the DNC headquaters. But Nixon did set up the plumbers and empower them to take these steps on his behalf. He was certainly aware of their activities and he certainly was benifiting from them. But what really got Nixon into trouble was the cover up. After the plumbers were captured ( plumbers was the term in the nixon whitehouse for the team of people in charge of plugging leaks, and other dirty tactics headed up by G. Gordin Liddy. Nixon was caught on tape architecting how he would use presidential power to silence any investigation into the watergate break ins. This included firing the special prosecutor, and the Atterney General when that didn't work. It also included having the CIA tell the FBI to stop their investigation because it touched upon National Security matters. Which it did not.

When all this came to light, not just the illegal activity associated with watergate, but all the illegal activity ongoing in the Nixon administration to conceal what had happenned. Nixon lost the key political support in the senate he needed to stop an impeachment. When that occured he resigned. Nixon himself was never impeached; and Gerold Ford subsequently pardoned him for all his crimes. So he never even had to defend his actions in court.

[Larry]

I think the effect of Watergate and probably Watergate plus Vietnam is that it magnified are distrust of the government to a higher level. Then we added to that the moral betrayal of Bill Clinton and the ethical betrayals of George W Bush and now everyone is extremely cynical and almost hateful of our government. It used to be that every kid wanted to grow up to be President. Now, the President is no longer a hero.

Really? You think Americans mistrust our government now, more than then?

I'd contrast how people felt about the thought that the government was monitoring their phone calls, back then, vs how people feel about the idea now.

(It's one of the things that really surprised me. Back when we had the Oklahoma City bombing, it seemed like the entire Congress wanted to know why the FBI wasn't infiltrating these radical groups before they had probable cause of a crime. And I was, like, "Hey, weren't any of these Congressmen anti-war protesters in the 60s? Do they really want the government to have that kind of power?")

[mcsluggo]

(I think that Ford pardoning Nixon was a good thing for the country. In fact, I consider it to be a Great Act by a President. I honestly believed that he knew it was going to cost him. (Maybe he thought he'd overcome it, with time, and be elected, anyway. But he had to know it would cost him in the short run.) But that he did something that would hurt him politically, but was good for the country. And I don't see too many examples of that, among politicians.)

that could've gone either way for him. The circus show and trials of HIS party would've still been going on when the next election came... would that have helped him? really?

I actually think that appointing Paul Volker, whose DEFINING FEATURE was "inflation hawk" 1 year before an election fits your definition pretty well:

But that he did something that would hurt him politically, but was good for the country. And I don't see too many examples of that, among politicians.)

[JMS]

(I think that Ford pardoning Nixon was a good thing for the country. In fact, I consider it to be a Great Act by a President. I honestly believed that he knew it was going to cost him. (Maybe he thought he'd overcome it, with time, and be elected, anyway. But he had to know it would cost him in the short run.) But that he did something that would hurt him politically, but was good for the country. And I don't see too many examples of that, among politicians.)

I disagree. Nixon should have been put into jail. If you or I did what he did we would be in jail; that a sitting president did it only makes it worse.

As for Gerold Ford ( Lesley King) I will give him one positive note. When he pardoned Nixon he did it before the general election. So the poeple of the United States could judge him for his action. They did and he was not returned to Office.

Oddly enough Ford blamed Ronald Reagan for his election defeat at the hands of Jimmy Carter. Ford had offered the VP spot to Reagan, who had declined it. Then according to Ford, Reagan returned to California and didn't carry the party's water on Ford's behalf with conservatives. When Reagan won the GOP nomination in 1980; he offered the vp spot to Ford. Ford declined it, and the moderate republican George Bush Sr. was the default selection.