Watergate Scandal

Presidential And Vice Presidential Candidates: “Shot Gun” Marriages Most Of The Time!

Ronald Leave a comment

When a Presidential nominee selects his Vice Presidential running mate in any Presidential campaign, it can be regarded as a judgment of the Presidential nominee’s leadership.

It can also cause much grief, as too often, the combination of Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees does not work, whether elected or not.

Since the time of Richard Nixon as Vice President under Dwight D. Eisenhower, as the Vice Presidency has become a significant and powerful office, there has been much distrust, stress, and alienation between the people running for the top two offices, and if elected, has become a major problem that affects the nation.

Witness the following:

While President Eisenhower allowed Vice President Nixon to take on more authority as Eisenhower suffered health crises, the two men never were very close, and Eisenhower held off on backing Nixon publicly for a second term as Vice President in 1956.

Lyndon B. Johnson had very little role and a difficult relationship with President John F. Kennedy, and his brother, Attorney General Robert F.Kennedy.

When Nixon ran against Kennedy in 1960, his running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, followed a very relaxed campaign strategy, taking long naps and breaks during the Fall campaign, and it was clear that the two men did not get along well.

When Lyndon Johnson chose Hubert Humphrey as his Vice President in 1964, he treated Humphrey in a very disrespectful way, similar to what had occurred to Johnson under Kennedy. Humphrey was ruined in his later Presidential candidacy by having to endorse and support the Vietnam War, a war he had grave doubts about, and was often left out of important cabinet meetings.

When Nixon became President, he looked at his Vice President, Spiro Agnew, in a less than respectful way, and just allowed Agnew to do “dirty work” of attacking liberals and the news media, and refused to keep him informed about many policies, and let him resign due to scandal, without a word of support.

When Nixon chose Gerald Ford after Agnew resigned, he saw him as a lightweight, who would insure his own survival in the Watergate scandal, an assumption that Nixon was totally wrong about!

George McGovern chose Thomas Eagleton in 1972, without any knowledge of his mental treatments and then, effectively abandoned him for Sargent Shriver, a Kennedy brother in law.

Gerald Ford got along well with Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President, but dropped him in favor of Bob Dole when he ran in 1976, a move that probably caused his defeat.

When Ronald Reagan chose George H. W. Bush in 1980, the two men did not trust each other, and had been major rivals, and although Bush worked hard for Reagan, there was no personal chemistry between them, and the Bushes were never invited to stay at the White House under the Reagan Administration.

Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, without knowing about the illegal activities of her husband, and they did not seem very close during the campaign.

George H. W. Bush did not have much confidence, or give much authority, to his Vice President, Dan Quayle, who was a major burden during his administration, due to Quayle’s blunders and misstatements.

Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen seemed like oil and water, when they ran together in 1988.

Much the same can be said for Bob Dole and Jack Kemp in the 1996 Presidential campaign.

The combination of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman never seemed to click during the 2000 Presidential campaign, and Lieberman publicly called for giving up the fight for Florida’s electoral votes when Gore was still suing for a recount against George W. Bush.

In 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards did not get along very well, as Edwards was very much his own man in his own mind.

And sadly, the same holds true for John McCain and Sarah Palin, with her becoming a major headache, embarrassment, and burden in 2008.

The only times running mates really seemed to work well together were:

Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie in the 1968 campaign.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale in the Carter Presidency, with Mondale practically seen as co-President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the Clinton Presidency, until the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when there was a falling out between the two men, which affected the 2000 Presidential campaign.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the second Bush Presidency, although their relationship started to deteriorate in the second term.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden, presently, in the Obama Presidency, working very well together, as united as Carter and Mondale were in the 1970s

This is all discussed as reality in our history as Mitt Romney edges closer to the Presidential nomination of his party.

And even if, somehow, Rick Santorum, or someone else ends up as the Republican nominee, who is chosen to be his Vice Presidential running mate will be crucial to the campaign, and if he wins, to the office of Vice President, and to the nation.

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

Ronald Leave a comment

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

Congress Approval At All Time Low: What It Means

Ronald 4 Comments

A new poll shows that only TEN percent of those polled have a positive view of Congress in 2012.

The Gallup Poll showed the unbelievable reality that Congress has a lower rating than BP during the Oil Spill, or Richard Nixon during Watergate, or banks during the banking crisis of 2008.

This could mean, in theory, that we could witness a wholesale removal of members of both parties in Congress in November, but that is really highly unlikely.

The fact that many Americans are unhappy with Congress as an institution does not mean that they do not like THEIR member of Congress, and most members routinely get re-elected, particularly in the House of Representatives, with a higher chance of defeat in the Senate races.

Also, reapportionment of seats, which occurs once in a decade, will probably promote less turnover since boundary lines change. And since a substantial number of members of Congress are retiring, some of them are leaving because they see the handwriting on the wall, as the saying goes!

More than incumbents losing who do not retire, is the question of whether the Republicans can retain control of the House of Representatives, and whether the Democrats can continue to control the Senate.

What seems most likely at this juncture is that we may see a switch in party control in both chambers, as the Democrats only need a 25 seat gain to take control, and there is great discontent with the Tea Party Movement membership in the GOP, which has made life miserable for Speaker of the House John Boehner and his party.

And the likelihood is that the US Senate will see a Republican takeover, needing only four seats to accomplish that.

This will present a new scenario for President Barack Obama if he is re-elected, but it is a more normal situation to have a Democratic House and a Republican Senate historically, having occurred from 1911-1913, 1931-1933. and from 1981-1987. The present opposite party control in the two chambers–a Republican House and a Democratic Senate–has NEVER happened, and seems to have proved to be less able to accomplish ANY cooperation as a result!

Richard Nixon Health Care Proposal 38 Years Ago Today: Another Republican President Besides TR Calls For Health Care For All!

Ronald 1 Comment

One of the readers and commentators on my blog today made me aware of the fact that on this day in 1974, at the height of the Watergate Scandal that would bring him down six months later, President Richard Nixon sent a message to Congress calling for a comprehensive Health Care reform to cover all Americans, as a basic right of citizenship!

The link to this is on the entry today on Republicans, and Hispanics and Latinos being wary of backing the party and Mitt Romney, due to their anti immigrant mentality. I wish to thank “Engineer Of Knowledge” for contributing this idea, and that has provoked me to mention it in a followup post here on the blog.

Nixon, like Theodore Roosevelt before him, understood the importance of this idea of health care for all, and it becomes clear that the Republican Party of today would reject both TR and Nixon for their far sighted ideas.

It is further proof of why the GOP in 2012 is dramatically different than it was in 1912 or 1974!

99th Anniversary Of Richard Nixon’s Birth: Anything To Celebrate? YES!

Ronald 1 Comment

Today, 99 years ago, Richard Nixon was born in California, and went on to become the most complex, most controversial, most divisive President we have ever had.

There is so much that is negative about Richard Nixon, and more is coming out from the Nixon Library itself, with the Watergate exhibits, and the constant revelations from the Watergate tapes, and the research being done by scholars in political science and history, and by veteran White House journalists, including a recent book in October on his judicial appointments (Kevin J. McMahon) and a scathing attack on his ethics and policy making (Don Fulsom), due out at the end of this month.

So Nixon will never be able to rest easily in the afterlife, so to speak, but since it is his birthday, can we find anything decent to say about his time in office, in the midst of the mountain of evidence of negativism?

Richard Nixon continued to expand on the New Frontier of John F. Kennedy and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, even while claiming to cut back on the economic and social programs of both Democratic Presidents. After all, he signed into law many initiatives that are now opposed by Republicans who would like nothing better than to repeal what he signed into law.

Nixon accomplished the following in domestic policy:

The Environmental Protection Agency
The Consumer Product Safety Commission
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Affirmative Action for Women and Minorities
Appointed Associate Justice Harry Blackmun
Supported the Equal Rights Amendment for Women
Initiated Wage and Price Controls in a time of inflation

He also had the following successes in foreign policy:

Negotiated Detente with the Soviet Union
Began Economic and Diplomatic Ties with China
Supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War

This list of ten accomplishments in no way makes up for the many negatives of the Nixon Presidency, and the damage he did long term to the institution itself.

This post is NOT an attempt to whitewash the Nixon record of horrible abuse of power, just a recognition that the 37th President did have a positive impact in ways worth remembering, a year before the Centennial of his birth, which will NOT be celebrated quite the same as Ronald Reagan’s centennial in 2011, or the future centennial of John F. Kennedy in 2017, or the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln in 2009!

Today Is A Shared Death Date Of Two Courageous Presidents, Often Criticized In Office Endlessly!

Ronald Leave a comment

Today, December 26, is a shared death date of two courageous Presidents, often criticized in office endlessly.

These two Presidents were Harry Truman who died in 1972, and Gerald Ford, who died in 2006.

Harry Truman was incessantly attacked on all sides, by Republicans who thought he would be easy to defeat in 1948, and were surprised by his upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey; and who later bitterly attacked his strategy on the Korean War. But also, liberal Democrats were disappointed in him, seeing him as a poor replacement for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he succeeded in 1945. So he faced the opposition of former Vice President Henry A. Wallace and the Progressive Party of 1948. But he also faced the opposition of Southern Democrats, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who ran for President in 1948 as a “Dixiecrat” on the States Rights Party line, because of Truman’s brave stand ending segregation in Washington, DC, and in the armed forces, by executive order.

Truman had twenty years in retirement, and grew in stature as the years went by.

Gerald Ford, not even elected Vice President, ended up succeeding Richard Nixon, when he resigned due to the Watergate scandal in 1974.

Ford gained criticism because of the pardon of Nixon one month later, and because of the economic recession that had already begun, and was the worst economic downturn since 1939.

Ford also had to battle for the GOP nomination against conservatives who backed former Governor Ronald Reagan, who nearly defeated Ford in the Republican National Convention of 1976, and this forced Ford to drop Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and replace him with Kansas Senator Bob Dole. He came close to the defeat of Democratic nominee Governor Jimmy Carter, losing in Ohio and Hawaii by very small margins, enough to have defeated Carter if only he had gained a few thousand votes.

Ford came to be regarded with respect and admiration, even by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who in 1999 said he had been wrong to attack Ford for the Nixon pardon 25 years earlier.

Ford lived on for 29 years after the Presidency, and is looked at kindly now, much like Truman.

These were two men who had in common that they came across to average Americans as being “one of us”! May they rest in peace!

Richard Nixon After 37 Years: What It Tells Us About The GOP Race For President!

Ronald Leave a comment

Richard Nixon’s grand jury testimony, given in 1975 after he resigned as a result of the Watergate Scandal, and was given a pardon by Gerald Ford in 1974, shows the same Richard Nixon we know–manipulative as always, feeling sorry for himself, and avoiding responsibility for ANYTHING! The National Archives and the Richard Nixon Presidential Library released new evidence a few days ago.

He is a master of the filibuster, as his party has been conducting in recent years in the Senate!

He claims to have no recollection of lots of details, even though he was the master detail man in the Presidency!

Nixon tries to explain away the famous 18 and a half minute gap as maybe a blank spot never erased!

Nixon spent a lot of time in the 298 pages of grand jury testimony talking about his love of foreign affairs, and in complaints about the brutal nature of politics, which he, of course, heavily contributed to!

Imagine if he was around in the age of the internet and blogs and the 24 hour news cycle, when he complained at the time about constant assault from the electronic news media for 30 minutes per evening!

Nixon portrays himself as the victim , a favored tactic of Sarah Palin and other Republicans today who love to attack the media for exposing their fallacies and shortcomings!

He also talks about his fragile health, emphasizing that he could die any minute because of his trouble in the fall of 1974 with leg phlebitis.

So he wants pity, and to be given a pass, and is insulted that he was not given one!

Reading Nixon should make us aware of the dangers of selecting for presidential nominations or elections ANY candidate who makes himself out to be a victim, who has demonstrated lack of ethics, who has obvious mental problems, who is ill informed, who says inappropriate things in debates, who acts strangely in ways that we can see–in other words, ALL of the GOP candidates except Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul! And this includes a much rumored candidate, who thankfully, did not run–Sarah Palin!

New Nixon Watergate Materials To Be Released Today: What Will It Show?

Ronald 1 Comment

39 years after the Watergate scandal erupted, bringing the downfall of President Richard Nixon, new materials are about to be released.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, grand jury testimony of President Nixon is being exposed, and the Richard Nixon Presidential Library is also releasing thousands of documents, including a 45 minute tape of Richard Nixon commenting on the scandal.

As a student of the Nixon Presidency, and the continuing fascination many scholars have with the very complex man who was our 37th President, and indeed had many outstanding achievements before being disgraced by this scandal, this release of documents should be very revealing, and could have an effect on interpretations of the Nixon Presidency!

The “Occupy Wall Street” Protests: Their Meaning!

Ronald 2 Comments

For the past two weeks, we have seen people of all ages committing themselves long term to an “Occupy Wall Street” protest movement, and it has now spread all over the country, and even overseas.

There is the temptation to say that this is a group of “losers”, who have nothing better to do than cause “trouble”, and among the elite wealthy, they are certainly comparing it to the anti war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, with the image of scruffy “hippies” causing a ruckus because they were “cowards”.

This protest movement, however, is of people of all backgrounds and age groups. Why are they protesting?

They are outraged at the corruption and greed of Wall Street, which caused this economic disaster in 2008.

They are outraged by the lack of bank investment in promotion of small business and mortgages after they were bailed out by taxpayers, instead sitting on $2 trillion.

They are outraged by the refusal of banks to help homeowners, and instead promote foreclosures, causing not only the loss of homes for millions of people, but also devaluing the properties of others who are able to pay their house mortgages.

They are outraged by the tremendous burden put upon young people by massive student loans that prevent them from being able to start their adult lives without massive debt, when in earlier generations, higher education was much more affordable and did not saddle graduates with unsustainable debt.

They are outraged by the lack of employment opportunities for young people, and also the inability of people in mid career to replace lost jobs due to the economic collapse.

They are outraged by politicians in Congress, and also the Supreme Court, who bend to the will of the wealthy few, with the top one percent having 20 percent of the income, double what it was ten years ago!

They are outraged by the loss of the “American Dream”, that anyone can succeed in this country, while the reality is far from that, and particularly for those of minority heritage, who have been devastated by the Great Recession of 2008.

What is it these people want? They want a return to a government of, by and for the people, not just the small percentage of wealthy! They want a return to social justice, concern about the sick, the poor, the aged, the disadvantaged! They want a return to competitive capitalism, with regulation and controls on Wall Street and the corporations in the name of fairness.

In other words, they want a return to the vision and goals of Progressivism, of the early 20th century, along with the aims of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson!

Our peak of national economic prosperity and advancement came in 1973, interestingly the year that the Watergate scandal was revealed for what it was. Richard Nixon had expanded the Great Society, but that stopped as he was being investigated and eventually forced out of office.

Nothing has remained the same since, and it coincides with THIRTY FIVE years of conservative government!

One might say, hey, wait a minute, weren’t there periods of Democrats in the White House? The answer is YES, but both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton pursued comparatively “conservative” administrations, along with Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and the two Presidents Bush!

So the decline has occurred during the triumphant period of CONSERVATIVE government, and the American people, at least those who are willing to be open minded, realize what has happened and are demanding CHANGE back to when life improved for all Americans!

So this is the meaning of the Wall Street protests, and is the answer to the Tea Party Movement, which wishes to take us back to the Gilded Age, while the “Occupy Wall Street” movement wishes to restore the advancements of the Progressive Era, New Deal, and Great Society! Anyone who thinks this will go away is living in the same illusions as the Tea Party Movement!

The American people are determined to take back their country from the elite wealthy who have no concern other than selfishness and greed. The battle for the future is WE against ME!

Death Of One Of Last “Liberal” Republican Senators: Charles Percy Of Illinois

Ronald Leave a comment

The era of “liberal” Republican senators, who were loyal to the party but crossed the aisle to work with Democrats, and had moderate views on most issues, is just about over, as the death of Charles Percy, who served three terms in the Senate from 1967-1985, was announced over the weekend.

Percy died at age 91 of Alzheimers Disease, which he had suffered for the past two years, according to family sources.

Percy, often seen as a possible Presidential candidate, might have run for the nomination in 1976, if President Gerald Ford had decided not to seek election, after replacing President Richard Nixon as a result of the Watergate scandal.

Percy served alongside other Liberal Republicans, including Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Charles Mathias, and Mark Hatfield, all of whom passed away before him.

Percy served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under President Ronald Reagan, and spoke openly against President Richard Nixon in the time of Watergate.

He was not afraid to fight for his principles, and was highly respected by his colleagues.

His death reminds us of just how extreme his party has become, and one can only wish for a return to moderation some day by his party, when they regain their senses!