I'm Worried

David Broder:

I have not worried about the fundamental commitment of the American people since 1974. In that year, they were confronted with the stunning evidence that their president had conducted a criminal conspiracy out of the Oval Office. In response, the American people reminded Richard Nixon, the man they had just recently reelected overwhelmingly, that in this country, no one, not even the president, is above the law. They required him to yield his office.

That is not the sign of a nation that has lost its sense of values or forgotten the principles on which this system rests.

And yet here we are in 2008. And I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the current President of the United States violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any number of legal commitments to refrain from torture. Some people think these violations were good policy. Many of those who regard those violations as good policy, also maintain that higher constitutional principles grant the President the right to break the law. Which is precisely what you could say on behalf of Richard Nixon. And Bush, like Nixon, has become unpopular. But Bush won't be hounded out of office.

I'm not exactly sure what accounts for the difference. I wasn't alive in 1973-74. I have a vague sense that at that time America's elites operated with some sense of conscience and dignity, and it was taken for granted even among Republican leaders that one couldn't just break the law. These days, a misleading deposition taken in the course of a frivolous lawsuit aimed at avoiding the revelation of an affair is a grave national crisis, but it's taken for granted that only a lunatic would believe that Bush or any of his henchmen should be held accountable in any way for repeated violations of the law. I don't really know what changed, or why David Broder and other gatekeepers of elite consensus can't see that something's gone wrong here, but I'm not happy about it.

Comments

You are accusing plaintiff's lawyers in Jones v. Clinton of unethical conduct and suggesting that they should be sanctioned? Because that is what "frivolous" means.

Posted by y81 | July 3, 2008 11:28 AM

Politics is dirty and National Security is pristine.

Playing Politics with National Security is pissing on the Virgin Mary.

Nixon got caught riding dirty, Clinton too.

Reagan and Bush were just protecting our babies.

Posted by Ben | July 3, 2008 11:29 AM

that's actually a helluva good question, matthew: my basic sense is that a number of things have changed, of which the biggest include the inordinate fear by media elites that they might be branded as "liberals," and the fact that - although nixon was indeed chased from office - he and his supporters were allowed back into polite company quite easily, easily enough that we see key members of the bush administration with roots in the nixon administration.

(let's remember that the right-wing response to nixon and the tapes is that he should have burned them; if you basically assume that the people who thought that now run the country, you get a pretty good explanation).

as for why david broder can't see that something has gone wrong: he lives in a fantasy world. an easy job and a heavy paycheck will do that to people.

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 11:31 AM

Matt, here's the difference. Nixon's offenses were, in a very direct way, against other politicians. Bush's offenses are not. So it's natural that politicians should be more moved to anger and action over Nixon's offenses. (Of course,t his can be constructed more charitably: Nixon's offenses were against our democratic system in a more direct way that Bush's.)

Posted by Rich | July 3, 2008 11:32 AM

Could it be because Broder was still idealistic back then but has become a corporate sell out since(like the rest of the WaPo?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 3, 2008 11:33 AM

The difference being I think that Bush is not so much a pragmatic political leader as he is a religious leader. People who broke with Nixon weren't called apostates for their crime. "Breaking with Bush" as late as yesterday is seen as leaving a cult leader, not shifting political winds. That last 28% aren't rabid followers because of some policy or other, but because they worship blindly.

This, combined with the false idea that Bush's impeachment would be seen as payback for Clinton are why he wasn't flat out impeached. It would be much the same if we were to publicly announce the death of Osama and why high-level terrorist prisoners ask for the death penalty.

Martyrdom

Posted by Byrd | July 3, 2008 11:35 AM

The difference being I think that Bush is not so much a pragmatic political leader as he is a religious leader. People who broke with Nixon weren't called apostates for their crime. "Breaking with Bush" as late as yesterday is seen as leaving a cult leader, not shifting political winds. That last 28% aren't rabid followers because of some policy or other, but because they worship blindly.

This, combined with the false idea that Bush's impeachment would be seen as payback for Clinton are why he wasn't flat out impeached. It would be much the same if we were to publicly announce the death of Osama and why high-level terrorist prisoners ask for the death penalty.

Martyrdom.

Posted by Byrd | July 3, 2008 11:36 AM

Right. And one shouldn't worry about the future of the eight-track as a musical format, because it sold over ten million units in 1974.

Posted by lampwick | July 3, 2008 11:37 AM

In 1974 there was a large Democratic majority in Congress and a Republican president. During Bush's time in office there have been either Republican majorities or very slim Democratic ones. The level of outrage in this country would have to be very high indeed to pressure members of Congress to vote to impeach a member of their own party.

Posted by Gil | July 3, 2008 11:38 AM

In 1974 there was a large Democratic majority in Congress and a Republican president. During Bush's time in office there have been either Republican majorities or very slim Democratic ones. The level of outrage in this country would have to be very high indeed to pressure members of Congress to vote to impeach a member of their own party.

Posted by Gil | July 3, 2008 11:38 AM

And I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the current President of the United States violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any number of legal commitments to refrain from torture.

Oh, please.

Posted by Al | July 3, 2008 11:38 AM

Broder is being kept alive by necromancers. One of these days the spell will be broken and he will collapse into a odoriferous heap of quivering putrescence.

Posted by John Emerson | July 3, 2008 11:39 AM

y81 seems to have forgotten that the judge in Jones v. Clinton wrote an opinion (it's called summary judgment) stating that Jones had no case. That if we looked at all of the facts in the most favorable light, no harm had been done to her by Clinton. She even said that no evidence of other affairs would change this.

The case was frivolous because it couldn't withstand summary judgment.

It is natural for idiots to forget details.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 3, 2008 11:39 AM

y81,

Yep, frivolous does seem to fit.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by howie | July 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Gil, putting aside for the moment that many of the '74 dems were southern dems with strong republican dispositions, i think it's important to note that many republicans did favor the impeachment of nixon in '74, something that would be inconceivable today due to three decades of republican decline into a home for loud-mouthed, simple-minded propagandists.

specifically, peter rodino, the henry hyde of his day, made it very clear from day one that impeachment would be on the republican's terms or it wouldn't happen, and the nixon articles of impeachment were constructed precisely to gain support of a now non-existent class: republican adults.

which is to say the country's outrage was very high: but why was that? and why isn't it as high today? those are matthew's questions....

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 11:41 AM

The difference is that the Democrats had controlled the government for 40 years and the extremist Republican movement was just getting started then and had yet to so completely corrupt our political system.

Since then you had Reagan take over and between him and Bush Sr. they made "liberal" into a bad word. The press corps became a bunch of celebrities who were more concerned with their position in the ranks of the D.C./Versailles courtiers than doing their job.

Starting with Reagan, all the momentum has been with the conservatives and the Democrats have been largely the party of careerist pussies, who allow the Republicans to get away with anything. They allowed Reagan to get away with Iran-Contra. They allowed Bush Sr. to seal the coverup by pardoning his co-conspirators.

And now we have allowed George W. to start a massive war based on a hoax, to break laws, and to commit warcrimes with no serious attempt to have any accountability.

This country has gone insane. And hardly anyone notices or cares.

Posted by The Fool | July 3, 2008 11:42 AM

Isn't this an old, old story, though? For my reading project I had Plutarch yesterday talking about how the elites mobilized against Caesar's imperial ambitions. Then Augustus came along and did the exact same thing, only more so, except now the legislature was supine.

Scalia's beloved founders worried about this exact scenario -- Washington was fond of Addison's Cato, but it has come to pass anyway.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | July 3, 2008 11:48 AM

you know, i assumed y81 was joking, but in case y81 wasn't joking. let me join in the chorus: yes, paula jones' case was frivolous.

and speaking of frivolous, we have al attempting to claim here that bush didn't violate FISA and hasn't authorized torture: stick with sports, Al, and don't embarass yourself.

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 11:48 AM

"I don't really know what changed, or why David Broder and other gatekeepers of elite consensus can't see that something's gone wrong here"

The second question is obviously the answer to the first. The real question is why these people are our national conscience.

Posted by aleks | July 3, 2008 11:49 AM

I'm worried too. The real insanity will begin when leftists like you people get anywhere near sniffing real power. Which is why Obama has begun the ritutual distancing of himself from the freaky left, even before he has won.

Posted by Jailer | July 3, 2008 11:53 AM

What changed?

The Republicans who called out Nixon died, and the ones who worked for Nixon took over the Republican party.

Rove, Cheney,Rumsfeld...Bush's entire inner circle are Nixon's boys. Add to that the fact that Buchanan, Roger Ailes and other Nixonites became members of the punditry in good standing.

They are treated like people who make good faith arguments, and they are respected and taken seriously. But they're simply not. They're the guys who aided and abetted Nixon. They don't operate with any sense of conscience or dignity, though they are on a personal level charming and decent people.

And that's the real rub. David Broder has known them--personally and by reputation--for the better part of 30 years. Because they weren't shunned after Nixon, these guys and their tactics became part of the political mainstream, and over time as they moved up the chain into higher and higher positions of power, it simply became acceptable for the right-wing of American politics to engage in increasingly corrupt practices. Because there was a plurality of their fellow-travelers with "elder statesman" privileges who would defend actions that were clearly corrupt, and who would fight against people who tried to effectively prosecute such corruption.

And even more, these people became David Broder's colleagues. He knows their friends, he knows their wives, he knows their kids. He doesn't want to cost them their jobs.

And, that's when you really start spinning yourself. Because after all, these charges beng leveled by faceless liberals we don't personally know seem terribly overblown. If you'd met these people socially, you'd understand that they are not awful people--and only awful people could do things like defend torture or lie the American people into an unnecessary war. Karl Rove is quite a funny and self-deprecating guy! He's tough but he's certainly not malicious--and if someone had truly done the kinds of hirrible things you suggest they have, we'd somehow know it. We're collectively good judges of character, we would know if someone were capable of this sort of thing.

This is why Nixon's guys simply should not have been allowed to re-join the public opinion elite.

Posted by anon | July 3, 2008 11:56 AM

see, when i read piffle like that composed by jailer at 11:53, i worry about an educational system that produces people who can type but not think....

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 11:57 AM

I think the difference between then and now is that, now Democrats are so wrapped up in their own little cocoon world - where everything is so obvious to them that they literally cannot conceive of how people might believe differently without being evil - that Democrats deliberately cut themselves off from mainstream America.

You have folks like Matthew thinking that Bush should be impeached because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, or Bush ordered warrentless wiretaps of potential terrorist communications between the US and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, most people in the US think that these things are just fine.

Posted by Al | July 3, 2008 12:02 PM

btw, anon, you remind me of a larger point: every so often at angry bear and prof delong, a couple of left-of-center economics blogs, the hosts will discuss something greg mankiw wrote.

and i consistently (and will consistently) note each time that greg mankiw worked for and enabled the bush administration, and therefore should be shunned by polite company for the rest of his life.

of course, i am not unrealistic enough to believe that bush-enablers actually will be shunned, but i do believe that we have an obligation to call each and every one of the bush folks out every time we see them....

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 12:02 PM

If there was actual proof of "repeated violations of the law," instead of just the constant and repeated harping of "Bush ignores the constitution," you may have a case. But repeating something often does not make it true. If there were "repeated violations of the law," don't you think that the 100 or so congresional hearings would have come up with some sort of definative proof. He hasn't so there is no law breaking.
Also, if a republican president would have had a sexual relationship with a white house intern, would that not have constituted sexual harrassment? This is why noone takes you serious in your charges.

Posted by Judd | July 3, 2008 12:03 PM

What has changed is the nature of journalism. The forces that be, if they really exist, have co-opted the main national newspapers and other new and opinion outlets, and they by and large tend to toe the Republican line.

I cannot imagine a Walter Cronkite punctuating his newscast by editorializing that he has lost all faith in the ability of the government to fight the war on terror without trampling on our civil liberties and the constitution, and be taken seriously.

Posted by gregor | July 3, 2008 12:04 PM

The GOP of the Nixon years did still have a shared commitment to American values, and people did believe in the rule of law in those days. The kind of conduct Nixon engaged in was seen as "not done" in polite GOP circles--in fact, Nixon had had that stench about him since his first run at Congress. Remember in 1974 there were still a lot of GI-Generation politicians in DC. But the idea upthread that Nixon was personal but Bush isn't is just wrong--Bush has done far more damage to the prerogatives and powers of Congress than Nixon ever did. But the Dem leadership has been supine and the GOP leadership lined up behind Bush and now won't admit there was anything wrong with him. Neither will the Broderian establishment, because it would mean admitting to themselves that they were wrong about so much, and really facing how the Bush/Cheney regime they helped into power and enabled has wrecked the country.

Anon's analysis above is basically correct about the personal level. These people all know each other and they live in a bubble isolated from real people and their views and concerns. And they profitted handsomely under the GOP and don't want to see their taxes raised. Don't forget about that.

Posted by Mimikatz | July 3, 2008 12:08 PM

For those who are interested, here is why the Jones lawsuit was legally frivolous. Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. There are 2 types of sexual harassment under the law. One is "hostile environment" harassment, in which the plaintiff is repeatedly subjected to offensive conduct in the workplace, to the point that the workplace becomes a "hostile environment" for the plaintiff. The other is "quid pro quo" harassment, in which a plaintiff's supervisor or superior offers to reward the plaintiff in return for sexual favors, or threatens the plaintiff with retaliation if sexual advances are refused, or actually subjects the plaintiff to such retaliation.

Assuming Jones' accusations to be true, Clinton made sexual advances on her in a crude and inappropriate manner, but neither type of actionable harassment occurred. Jones' lawyers (right-wing activists who worked the case for free) had to know that she had no viable legal theory. But the real objective wasn't to prevail in court, it was to embarrass Clinton and use the discovery process to look for dirt, and in that sense the lawsuit was of course a spectacular success.

Posted by Gator90 | July 3, 2008 12:09 PM

Anon is onto something. When Nixon's crimes were exposed we should have done what we usually do with criminals -- lock him up. Instead we let him go and at the same time let go of accountability and the rule of law.

We live in a lawless country now.

Posted by The Fool | July 3, 2008 12:09 PM

I'm worried too. The real insanity will begin when leftists like you people get anywhere near sniffing real power. Which is why Obama has begun the ritutual distancing of himself from the freaky left, even before he has won.
This line of argument is new to me, but it makes sense:

As we've seen with W's disastrous Presidency, when a conservative fails it's because he's not a "real" conservative. Because we all know that conservativism can't fail.

So I guess the flip side is that when a liberal succeeds, it's because s/he's not a "real" liberal. Because we all know that liberalism can't succeed.

So good luck with that.

Posted by hubcap | July 3, 2008 12:09 PM

And I wonder about morons like howard who cannot find the Shift key on the keyboard and who think they make a difference by posting snide comments on left-of-center economics blogs.

Posted by Jailer | July 3, 2008 12:09 PM

The GOP of the Nixon years did still have a shared commitment to American values, and people did believe in the rule of law in those days. The kind of conduct Nixon engaged in was seen as "not done" in polite GOP circles--in fact, Nixon had had that stench about him since his first run at Congress. Remember in 1974 there were still a lot of GI-Generation politicians in DC. But the idea upthread that Nixon was personal but Bush isn't is just wrong--Bush has done far more damage to the prerogatives and powers of Congress than Nixon ever did. But the Dem leadership has been supine and the GOP leadership lined up behind Bush and now won't admit there was anything wrong with him. Neither will the Broderian establishment, because it would mean admitting to themselves that they were wrong about so much, and really facing how the Bush/Cheney regime they helped into power and enabled has wrecked the country.

Anon's analysis above is basically correct about the personal level. These people all know each other and they live in a bubble isolated from real people and their views and concerns. And they profitted handsomely under the GOP and don't want to see their taxes raised. Don't forget about that.

Posted by Mimikatz | July 3, 2008 12:10 PM

Rich-
Matt, here's the difference. Nixon's offenses were, in a very direct way, against other politicians. Bush's offenses are not. So it's natural that politicians should be more moved to anger and action over Nixon's offenses.

I think this is the key. "The Rights of Man" and "Rule of Law" are abstract concepts dreamed up by elites to justify why their ox should not be gored. When it comes to applying these concepts to non-elites, nobody much seems to care.

Charles I lost his head because he was imprisoning some of the wealthiest subjects in the realm. If he had just used the Star Chamber against peasants, nobody would have said boo. Locke's Second Treatise would have never been written.

The French Revolution did not happen because the sans-cullottes in Paris or the peasants in the countryside were starving. It happened because the rising Bourgeousie wanted political power comensurate with their economic power.

This is why Bush can get away with imprisoning Jose Padilla on just his say-so (something that cost the aforementioned Charles I his head) while Nixon, who was guilty of a lesser offense, i.e. spying on his enemies, had to go.

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 3, 2008 12:12 PM

I would have loved to have seen Scooter Libby say "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" just to see liberal heads explode.
Also, Anon, it seems that the left has embraced John Dean these days. Many believe that he was the one to actually order the break in. So spare me your indignance. If Nixon himself came back from the dead and endorsed Barack, you would claiming what a genius he was.

Posted by Judd | July 3, 2008 12:12 PM

Jailer, feel better now that I've locate the shift key? and ever heard of "bearing witness?"

sheesh.

as for Al, one imagines him, in 1973-74, claiming that watergate was a third-rate burglary, nothing to get upset about, and that most americans could care less.

actually, Al, if you want someone who favors impeachment, go visit prof delong; what matthew is noting is the complete absence of any kind of internal governor or restraint within the bush administration when it comes to choosing between obeying the president and obeying the law. it's what happens when a political movement if full of thugs.

the fact that you don't even understand what bush has ordered via FISA and the extent to which bush allowed torture and the US government to be used in the same sentence should be sufficient grounds for you to keep your mouth closed and be thought ignorant rather than opening it and settling the question.

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 12:17 PM

There are two things that happened that changed the way the Broder Elite behave and function in our society.

1. The phenomenal economic growth of the 80s and 90s (whatever its underlying causes) and the concentration of such wealth in the elite.

2. The end of the Cold War.

I don't think you can underestimate the effect on the political Broder Elite of the enormous increase in wealth amongst the business elite, or the effect of some of that money slopping over into the Broder Elite. The David Broder's of 1974 weren't that far economically from the average guy.

2. The threat of Soviet Communism forced people to take things seriously because if you really screwed up, very bad things could happen. Without that challenge to American power and dominance, an attitude has developed that it doesn't really matter that much if you elect a dysfunctional narcissist as President (pick either Clinton or Bush Jr.) because nothing all that bad can really happen to America.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 3, 2008 12:18 PM

Don't forget, the head count in 1974 was 10 in the House and 4 in the Senate to spare Nixon (according to Senators Goldwater and Rhodes, who delivered the bad news to the President). Really impossible to imagine now.

Also, if a republican president would have had a sexual relationship with a white house intern, would that not have constituted sexual harrassment?

No. Next question?

Posted by kth | July 3, 2008 12:19 PM

Judd, one doesn't know what the hell you are talking about.

the reason clinton discussed the meaning of "is" is because "is" was central to the question he was being asked (since he no longer was having an affair with lewinsky). the only people whose heads exploded were people who hated clinton and didn't bother to understand the context.

and no, no one who has looked at the watergate story believes for a second that dean ordered the break-in, nor was nixon's impeachment solely about the break-in.

so spare us all your silly observations.

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 12:22 PM

Al-
You have folks like Matthew thinking that Bush should be impeached because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, or Bush ordered warrentless wiretaps of potential terrorist communications between the US and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, most people in the US think that these things are just fine.

Here is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that human rights and rule of law only matter when it is elites who being affected. For Al it is perfectly fine to torture some low life terror suspect. (And presumably whoever else the President says should be water boarded.) But when John McCain is tortured, well that's evil.

The moral relativism of the right wing is simply breathtaking.

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 3, 2008 12:26 PM

Judd: "Also, if a republican president would have had a sexual relationship with a white house intern, would that not have constituted sexual harrassment?"

For the reasons stated in my previous comment, the answer is, No, it would not. A consensual sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is not harassment.

Also, do you really not understand that the FISA statute is a law, and that Bush has publicly admitted to repeatedly violating that law? Bush is, quite simply, an admitted felon. There may be a variety of reasons why he has not been punished, and you may believe his crimes had justification, but he is, beyond any rational doubt, a criminal.

Posted by Gator90 | July 3, 2008 12:31 PM

Watergate never really gained traction until congress started holding hearings.

That's why every request, subpoena, testimony all gets quashed by the administration. Any testimony must be behind closed doors, not under oath and no transcripts recorded.

The administration goal is to prevent or delay the inevitable outrage. And that has been the difference between this administration and Nixon's.

However, this is not in a vacuum. A timid Congress has not done enough. Nancy Pelosi's policy that impeachment is off the table has effectively removed much of the oversight.

Posted by Joe Student | July 3, 2008 12:35 PM

Actually, I think that Al is onto something, for once. Indeed, many Americans have been so frightened by the monsters under their beds that they DO actually approve of torture - of “the other”. Thank Mr. Broder, et al; Fox “news”; and the very slick propaganda machine of the Bush cronies, and you begin to understand why.

Also many recent posts are enlightening on the detailed historical mechanics of this, as well.

Posted by M. Carey | July 3, 2008 12:37 PM

I think the problem is one of our media and political elites: the former are only willing to offer the most mild criticisms against powerful Republicans, and the latter are pathetically supine.

Polls have repeatedly shown that a good chunk of the American people are ready for impeachment, but we have no representation.

This is why I keep on saying we DFHs need a political party of our own: to get 'radical' ideas like this into the popular discourse in a way that blogs just can't quite manage.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 3, 2008 12:38 PM

What has really changed is the concept of public service and where a public servant's loyalty should lie.

Back in '73 there were loyal Republicans whose loyalty to the Constitution required them to resign rather than execute a presidential order to break the law. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus quit Justice rather than fire the Special Prosecutor. Robert Bork (yes, the same Bork), on the other hand, anticipated today's concept of loyalty and fired Archibald Cox explaining "All I will say is that I carried out the President's directive."

As Sara Taylor explained her understanding of the oath of office "I took an oath the president, and I take that oath very seriously..."

The concept of being loyal to the Constitution is today viewed as quaint, like the Geneva Conventions. Loyalty to the leader (whether Clinton or Bush) is valued more than loyalty to the nation. In fact, today's politicians and bureaucrats are unable to distinguish between loyalty to their leaders and loyalty to the nation, and thus if you're not loyal to *their* leader, you must be unpatriotic and hateful of our nation.

And that's the way it is...

Posted by west coast | July 3, 2008 12:42 PM

I'm not exactly sure what accounts for the difference.

Pretty simple, really. "9/11 changed everything!" One thing it changed is that 40% of the country will now support anything as long as you tell them they are going to be nuked in the next 45 minutes. The other thing 9/11 did was create a new fissure in American politics: those who actually believe in things like democracy and the rule of law and those who don't. The number that don't is surprisingly high.

Posted by jim | July 3, 2008 12:42 PM

MY - And I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the current President of the United States violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any number of legal commitments to refrain from torture.

Oh, please! Love your Jihadis somewhere where it would really be appreciated, like Pakistan's media.

Some people think these violations were good policy. Many of those who regard those violations as good policy, also maintain that higher constitutional principles grant the President the right to break the law.

That would be starting from President Carter autorizing Griffin Bell to say FISA was a crock of shit that may endanger US citizens through the AG's of every Administration up to Bush's that reasserted Executive Privilege over FISA rearding direct language in the Constitution and his duty to protect the People from enemy agents and combatants. Oh, and including the 9/11 Commission which concluded that FISA did possibly contribute in failing to stop the combat ops of Al Qaeda that DID kill thousands of Americans on the fear of lawyers o get the FBI and CIA to share info, the infamous "Gorelick Wall". And recommended massive changes to FISA, which the Congress has only partially done because liberatarians and Far Leftists worry that if signals from terrorists overseas are intercepted w/o warrant, their gay porn surfing habits are next on the slippery slope.

MY - Which is precisely what you could say on behalf of Richard Nixon.

Both Clinton and Nixon were disbarred after leaving office for obstruction of justice. Neither was guilty of any crime outside interfering with iinvestigations or lying to investigators under oath.

Nixon was hounded out because the media and intelligensia had previously done a masterful job covering up for actual breaches of law, obstructions ordered by Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ. Then after Nixon was booted and it turned out that FDR LBJ and JFK had done far worse - Nixon looked a little better. And when it turned out the Pinkos, Leftist Jew intelligensia and Hollywod types and Alger Hiss actually were Communists loyal to the Soviets....all the self-righteousness abated.

Then Reagan did obstruction in Iran Contra and it was swept under the rug after Col North made asses out of Congress. Then Clinton obstructed on Travelgate, shady Hillary transactions back in Arkansas, and the famous blowjob. About the same level of slimeness as Nixon, with a little more corruption..far less than Truman or LBJ (LBJ - from a schoolteacher to a man worth 80 million dollars from TV station and radio licenses the FCC gave him as Majority Leader, then VP - the American Dream).

Bush II is unfortunately like Jimmy Carter - simply not intelligent and cunning enough to do the clever sleaze, do favors for mobsters in return for pussy, dirty triangulating stuff that came easily to FDR, Clinton, Wilson, Nixon...etc.

***************
mimikatz - in fact, Nixon had had that stench about him since his first run at Congress. Remember... That was from many friends and family associates of the Jews he went after on HUAC using their influence in media organs to go after and demonize Nixon for 20 years. And the Eastern Establishment who deeply resented an upstart from a dirt-poor family impugning the honore and dignity of Alger Hiss.
Of course, as the Cold War ended, the Venona Cables revealed that Nixon was right and instead of "McCarthyism!!" - Hiss, associates of H. Gahagan Douglas, and the Jews he helped bring to HUAC were up to their necks in treasonous activities for the Soviet Union. (Nixon later said that he was not anti-Semetic about it, as everyone he went after was a Jewish Communist with only exceptions for Hiss and Whitaker CHambers)

Posted by chris ford | July 3, 2008 12:44 PM

What happened was 2 fold: 1) the media turned away from the Edward R. Murrow mode to the Murdoch mode and 2) the Newt Gingrich School started to get genuinely abhorrent swine elected. I wouldn't be surprised to find in 100 years that Bush got the Dirty Goods on lots of spineless corrupt Democrats as well.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2008 12:47 PM

What changed? Don't be so purposefully dense. Good god. There was a huge difference in intention between the two violations of criminal law, and intention matters. Nixon's break-in and numerous other ethical lapses during the '72 campaign were in service of Richard Nixon. Bush's violation of FISA was a clear attempt to grapple with a terrorist threat that, we now know, was exaggerated. However,the country had been rocked by Sept 11th, and the broad-based consensus was that sleeper cells existed throughout the country, ready to pounce. Bush's violation of federal statues were, at least, in service of national security. Now...they were, on their face illegal, but the intentions were somewhat nobler than Nixon's. That, my snark-filled friend, is the fucking difference.

Also--can we also re-call that Nixon conspired to actually commit domestic terrorism (eg firebombing Brookings).

Posted by smm | July 3, 2008 12:47 PM

Actually, Judd, I think the fact that "weapons of mass destruction program-related-activities" never entered into the lexicon shows how much Republicand have warped our debate.

Bush's 2002 SOTU: "Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax--enough doses to kill several million people...materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin--enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure...the materials to produce 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and vx nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could kill untold thousands...upwards of 30,000 muntions capable of delivering chemical agents...several mobile biological weapons labs...an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enrichng uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa...Saddam Hussein has not credbly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide...imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

January 26, 2004: "Two days after resigning as the Bush Administration's top weapons inpector in Iraq, David Kay sad Sunday his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the US-led invasion in March."

2004 SOTU: "let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction program-related activities and significant amounts of equipment...had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

Posted by anon | July 3, 2008 12:48 PM

What changed? Don't be so purposefully dense. Good god. There was a huge difference in intention between the two violations of criminal law, and intention matters. Nixon's break-in and numerous other ethical lapses during the '72 campaign were in service of Richard Nixon. Bush's violation of FISA was a clear attempt to grapple with a terrorist threat that, we now know, was exaggerated. However,the country had been rocked by Sept 11th, and the broad-based consensus was that sleeper cells existed throughout the country, ready to pounce. Bush's violation of federal statues were, at least, in service of national security. Now...they were, on their face illegal, but the intentions were somewhat nobler than Nixon's. That, my snark-filled friend, is the fucking difference.

Also--can we also re-call that Nixon conspired to actually commit domestic terrorism (eg firebombing Brookings).

Posted by smm | July 3, 2008 12:49 PM

smm, you're being purposefully dense. Bush obviously knew that the terrorist threat was exaggerated because he was the guy who exaggerated it. His FISA abuses cast a wide net: there was no limit to what his claim of authority as a "war" president encompassed. He's been spying on everyone.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2008 12:52 PM

Goodness, monuments have been built on the Mall to Presidents who commit felonies. The electorate of this country no more wants an honest man to be President than it wants FOX to broadcast Shakespeare in the "American Idol" time slot. The same people who decry Bush's lawbreaking as evidence as to how awful a President he is will nearly worship Presidents who break the law in pursuit of goals they favor.

I'd say the biggest difference between Nixon, Clinton, and Bush II was that Bush II, unlike Clinton, had no Independent Counsel Act to deal with, and unlike Nixon, he Bush II never appointed an Archibald Cox that had to be fired. I suspect that there are several reasons why Bush II was never compelled to appoint an Archibald Cox, some of which have been mentioned above.

I think the biggest similarity between Nixon's and Bush's unpopularity is a big spike in the price at the pump. I suspect Bush's popularity would be in the low to mid 40s, if not higher, if gas was selling at $2 a gallon. If the price of oil was at $9 a barrel, as it was in Clinton's 2nd term, instead of $145/barrel, Bush's popularity would almost certainly be north of 50%. For all the talk of how awful a President Jimmy Carter was, I highly suspect that he beats Reagan handily absent the late '70s oil shock.

People often overanalyze politics.

Posted by Will Allen | July 3, 2008 12:54 PM

Jeffrey, time to change your tin-foil hat. The President is listening to your conversations. And he even reads this blog!!!!

Posted by Danger Will Robinson | July 3, 2008 1:00 PM

I can do even better about the frivolousness of Jone's lawsuit. She said she had a private encounter with Clinton in which he took actions revealing that he had "distinctive physical characteristics" and that these actions constituted sexual harassment. During the course of the litigation, Clinton underwent a physical examination in which it was revealed that no physical characteristic of the type described by Jones existed.

q.e.d.

What we have here is an impeachment of a president on the grounds of a misleading deposition about a matter irrelevant to a lawsuit that was based on a perjured complaint and supported by perjured testimony by the plaintiff.

Posted by Mike Toreno | July 3, 2008 1:02 PM

I think it is much aimpler. Nixon was never popular with the Republican elites, they tolerated him becasue he won, he was never one of them. They were perfectlky happy to get rid of him.

Today's Republican party is Bush's.

Posted by eric k | July 3, 2008 1:04 PM

Anon,
You would also need to take that up with pretty much all the influencial democrats who made very similar statements regarding WMD. And also voted on authorizing the use of force to depose Sadaam. Those influencial dems couldn't wait to get in front of a microphone to explain the dangers of a Sadaam led Iraq. But I digress.

Posted by Judd | July 3, 2008 1:07 PM

west coast, you remind me that i once sat next to elliot richardson on a plane, and i told him it was an honor to meet someone who had such integrity. he brushed it off, of course, as just doing his duty....

will (who argues this point sanely) and chris ford (who argues this point insanely): the extent of lawlessness under richard nixon's command dwarfed that of any other post-world war ii president at that time.

and the bush administration, full of nixon folk, is the worst since.

and will, i apologize for associating you with a know-nothing like chris ford....

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 1:11 PM

the fact that you don't even understand what bush has ordered via FISA and the extent to which bush allowed torture and the US government to be used in the same sentence should be sufficient grounds for you to keep your mouth closed and be thought ignorant rather than opening it and settling the question.

Oh, I understand as well as anyone lacking access to classified documents was has been involved in the warrantless wiretapping. Which is why I understand that FISA hasn't been violated. And I understand perfectly well that waterboarding does not necessarily meet the definition of torture under US law, whatever you may think of it.

You may think I'm wrong, or you may think I'm evil (as I've often remarked, one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil). That's fine. But only in liberal cocoon-world would anyone say that there is nobody at all who can "seriously dispute" these things.

Posted by Al | July 3, 2008 1:14 PM

Only a philosophy major doesn't understand the difference between breaking the law for pure political gain, and maybe breaking the law for the purpose of doing the job that you were elected to do - (hopefully) protecting the citizenry.

But, then again, Harvard graduates who have never written a paycheck to another person or done anything substantive with their lives aren't prone to understanding much about reality.....

Posted by robertl | July 3, 2008 1:20 PM

It's simple. The GOP has no shame. Gov. Spitzer with a hooker? Gone. David Vitter with multiple hookers in two different cities? Hey, god and his wife forgave him.

Gov. Jim McGreevy of NJ gay and living a lie? Gone. Larry Craig? "I am not gay, I never have been gay..."

Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman?" IMPEACHMENT! George W. Bush saying "we do not torture?" Eh, not so much.

No shame. Which is interesting for the supposed party of values.

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 1:21 PM

What happened? 9/11. People got killed on the mainland of the USA. Suddenly everyone forgot about truth, justice, and the American way. The whole country got scared and acted like assholes.

Posted by map106 | July 3, 2008 1:25 PM

Al, please: as a lawyer, you should be embarassed. if you know nothing else, you know that the FISA bill incorporates immunity for the telecoms as long as they can show that they violated the 4th ammendment at the government's behest. that was the whole point of telecom immunity. it's not an open question, and you don't need any classified documents to know it.

as for the broader question, please again: i urge you to stick to sports because your sports opinions are sound. your political ones aren't. but that's not a function of evil (in your case, it's willful ignorance and/or stubborness).

and don't make me laugh with the notion that conservatives never call liberals "evil" or any variation thereof: what do you think the right wing's favorite pre-iraq-invasion epithet for those of us who saw in advance what a fiasco this little adventure would mean - "objectively pro-saddam?"

that's supposedly an expression of saying "you're wrong?"

Posted by howard | July 3, 2008 1:31 PM

I think it's what you said, Matt - plus one or two more things.

I was born in 1954. In those post-war times, the country was at peace with itself, unified and still basking in the afterglow of victory in WWII. Everything about the American experience had just been validated (we felt) at the highest possible level. Yes, the country was racist and reactionary, but those impressions barely registered. No "serious" person could deny that we were the biggest and the best. The American way became the only way, and that was the beginning of "American exceptionalism." Prior to that (think WWI and the Spanish-American War) America's ventures on the world stage had been tentative; our powers untested.

That all changed after WWII. The entire nation mobilized for the war. We were all fighters. We were all winners. In the post-war decades, the wealth and power of our elites expanded greatly, but that was okay. Even the lowest American felt somehow superior to every non-American world citizen.

That sense of pride and exceptionalism might seem like hubris today, but in large part it was justified by the magnitude of the victory. It also had another benefit: the expectation that - if American was special - it would behave in a special way. We had beaten the (very) bad guys. We were the good guys. We would live up to certain lofty ideals.

I can absolutely confirm for you that through the time of Nixon and Watergate there was a sense of civic duty - a feeling that there were certain lines that a public servant would not cross.

Yes, Agnew took bribes. He pocketed envelopes of cash while sitting in the White House, but after he was caught ... he resigned! In disgrace! If that were Dick Cheney today, he would still be in office. In fact, blatant Halliburton bribe-taker Cheney is still in office, isn't he?

So much of civil society functions because of this implicit consensus: that certain things are just wrong. The system won't work, if you need a cop on every corner, a hall monitor in every public corridor. Things break down, unless we all share something - a sense of public duty, ethics, morals - that binds us together and makes us a nation.

In the 40's and 50's, we had that sense of unity and shared purpose. We fought a war in Korea without a peep of protest that I recall, but afterwards our President - a Republican! - presciently warned us of the rise of a military-industrial complex.

In the 60's, our unity began to break down under the strain of another border war in Vietnam that our elites desired greatly but our people did not much want to fight. Protests against the war became the catalyst for other demands to address needs unmet by the current "establishment" : equal rights for blacks, for other minority groups, and for women; sexual and reproductive freedom; environmentalism; privacy and the right to choose non-traditional lifestyles.

There were still public servants with a sense of honor. There was still such a thing as a moderate Republican (even liberal Republicans!). Our leaders had clear memories of WWII, and they still recalled the sense of common purpose that had been our only defense against evils in the world far greater than petty domestic squabbles.

There was a sense that certain lines one does not cross. All of our leaders - the good and the bad - understood this. It was accepted for example - I remember having this explicit conversation more than once during the Nixon years - that when our President addressed the nation on matters of national security and war, regardless of his politics or party affiliation, we could trust him. He would never lie to us. The dignity of the office, if nothing else, forbade it. The greatest shock of Watergate - the hardest thing for so many Americans to swallow at the time - was the realization that our President in fact had lied.

How "quaint" that seems today.

The problem is that, once these lines are crossed, it is hard to find your way back. Trust is lost - faith in the system is lost. When the people lose trust in their government, the seeds of revolution are sown. That has been my agony for the past 8 years: watching the Bushistas cross one bright line after another into increasingly forbidden territory - the zone where all bonds of civil society are lost, things fall apart and a nation needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

What is wrong with Broder?

Perhaps he is senile. More likely, he is simply corrupt. The elites began to expand their wealth and power after the War, and nothing has happened to slow that down. They are, however, old money: the extractive industries (oil, coal, mining), the industrialists, the weapon makers, the purveyors of junk-mail consumerism. These people have been in power since the Civil War.

Our wealthy elites now sense that the world is changing, and the future may not belong to them. The environment is changing. The economy is changing. The balance of power is shifting in the world, and here at home they are no longer loved as they once were - our Horatio Algers and the Henry Fords - in spite of all that they do to whip us into patriotic frenzy, drive us into hysteria with fear, and enforce a drab conformity of religious fundamentalism, sexual repression, and blind, servile submission to authority.

These wealthy elites would gladly destroy our country before surrendering control of it. They sense the nation becoming more liberal and less beholden to them. They welcome the disintegration of a society that - with its courts of law, civil institutes, universities and traditions - threatens to move beyond their control. In Aa state of chaos, they imagine that they will be able to exercise their powers with less restraint.

Broder also welcomes this disintegration, because - along with so many of his colleagues - he is their boy. This is not the Watergate Broder, only the shell that is left of a man who sells his soul. Most of our leaders now are shells like this. They find it impossible to fight for their principles, because they no longer have any principles. They can't defend what is Right and Good, because they no longer recognize what is Right and Good.

Posted by ken1954 | July 3, 2008 1:32 PM

The GOP's point in pursuing the Lewinsky impeachment was to destroy the process of impeachment, by making it a joke, and a transparently partisan joke. The desultory efforts of the Republican Senators in actually trying the impeachment is the tip-off.

Actually getting Clinton would have been lagniappe. Impeachment was the target.

After all, it was used against Nixon - Watergate -- and threatened against Reagan and Bush -- Iran-Contra.

The GOP knew that given their history, the rule of law would guarantee it being employed again the moment they got the White House back, which would have restricted their freedom of action, so it had to be rendered harmless.

The Clinton impeachment guaranteed that impeachment wouldn't be used again.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 3, 2008 1:32 PM

as I've often remarked, one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil

This, of course, is why liberals have books like What's the Matter with Kansas?, while conservatives have books like Treason and
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (the latter by Sean Hannity).

But only in liberal cocoon-world would anyone say that there is nobody at all who can "seriously dispute" these things.

It's difficult to imagine the situation where an unfriendly government literally asphyxiates you (by drowning, no less) that does not constitute a threat of death. Meanwhile, the best writing I can find by people that have undergone it (such as commie-pinko Christopher Hitchens) speak to the severe mental anguish that it produces, even when one has the comforts of being able to ask that it stop.

Posted by Brad L | July 3, 2008 1:36 PM

Matt describes my own puzzlement as well.

My mostly unhelpful take, which echoes some of the prior comments, is that the counterpoint to the conventional wisdom about Watergate ("it's not the crime that brings you down, it's the coverup"), the unconventional wisdom if you will, is that you can get away with murder if you really stick to the coverup story.

Empirically, Bush & company saw this work with Iran-Contra (which gave birth to "plausible deniability"), and just took that ball and ran with it.

More abstractly, the whole idea of adversarial debate (political parties, litigation, etc.) is that there's some arbiter that'll decide that one side or the other has the better argument, or makes the valid point. In politics, this role might be filled by the rationality of the opponent (who concedes the point), or the media (the journalists report the point with supporting facts), or the elites (the pundits concede the point), or "the people" (the opinion polls convince the politicians to concede the point).

If all those potential arbiters are impugned, indecisive, or unwise, whoever's in power can do whatever they want. Any outcry or opposition can be met with sheer stubbornness, and there's no authority to make you submit to reason or punish your transgressions.

The first and last potential arbiters (the opponent's fair thinking and the public) are pretty idealistic concepts, and have been ignored routinely by politicians throughout history, usually without repercussion. (Note, however, that even though he knew it would be disastrous, Nixon didn't burn the tapes. Maybe even his understanding that there was the rule of law, or at least no justifiable reason not to turn over the tapes, was what led to the truth coming out and the requisite consequences. Have some politicians concluded from this that they need to ignore their reason in the pursuit of power?)

In my opinion, a large part of the "difference" between 1974 and now is due to the failures of the other two arbiters (reporters and pundits). If every news network were running McClatchy's stories, and Broder and his peers were agitating for impeachment...

The failures of the media (reportage and commentary) are ample fodder for the blogosphere, but my notions about why they're failing so spectacularly now are ill-formed and naive. Clearly the qualification process for punditry (and journalism) has broken down, and most importantly, wrongheaded thinking and/or meaningless coverage isn't resulting in loss of audience, at least not enough to provide economic pressure to get rid of lousy news & opinion.

But I don't know why that is, or why it hasn't been such a problem until now. Maybe James Watt put stupid juice in the water supply under Reagan, and their brilliant plan has finally come to fruition. (I did say "ill-formed and naive", right?)

Posted by Bob | July 3, 2008 1:38 PM

nixon -- smart guy & devious & a juicy coverup with "plumbers" ==> bad guy that needs to be hounded out of office and burned perpetually in effigy.

bush - idiot & too naive to know it & did it while everyone was watching (and many were cheering) ==> simpleton that everyone would rather just wait out.

Posted by mikec | July 3, 2008 1:39 PM

robertl:

"Only a philosophy major doesn't understand the difference between breaking the law for pure political gain, and maybe breaking the law for the purpose of doing the job that you were elected to do - (hopefully) protecting the citizenry."

Here's the President's oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Your argument seems to be that the duty to "faithfully execute the Office of President" trumps "the best of my ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..." I think you have that backwards.

It never ceases to sadden me that the people who are most against the "nanny state" demand a "daddy state" in which we exchange our rights for the illusion of security. Old-school conservatives had bigger cojones than today's couch-potato keyboard conservatives.

Posted by west coast | July 3, 2008 1:39 PM

One answer is that times change. You can't argue that people are working more hours and for less now. I think that the general population operates in a haze of semi-consciousness between work, family, TV and beer - and that most people think most politicians are just that - politicians that will do and say anything to please anybody and don't get anything done anyway. Most people don't care - sure, I am outraged, you are outraged, but we're in the minority. The beltway is its own universe - and it is now completely divorced from day to day life in America...

Posted by Anthony | July 3, 2008 1:40 PM

You may think I'm wrong, or you may think I'm evil (as I've often remarked, one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives think liberals are wrong, while liberals think conservatives are evil).

How about "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg?

Or "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" by Ann Coulter? Godless certainly sounds evil.

Compare that to "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken.

Hey, Matt, this sounds like the makings of a contest. How many book titles and quotes can we find that show the right wingutosphere calling anybody they consider to be left evil?

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 1:45 PM

One answer is that times change. You can't argue that people are working more hours and for less now. I think that the general population operates in a haze of semi-consciousness between work, family, TV and beer - and that most people think most politicians are just that - politicians that will do and say anything to please anybody and don't get anything done anyway. Most people don't care - sure, I am outraged, you are outraged, but we're in the minority. The beltway is its own universe - and it is now completely divorced from day to day life in America...

Posted by Anthony | July 3, 2008 1:50 PM

I remember 1974 well, and what's changed the most is income/wealth inequality, which was much, much less pronounced then than now. We now have a tiny, incredibly rich elite that has leveraged their wealth into enormously disproportionate political power, via buying the Republican Party, developing its own news media and think tanks, and intimidating and buying off the mainstream news media. None of this existed in 1974; the GOP actually behaved quite responsibly during the Nixon investigations. Nixon, however, wasn't a tool of a wealth/GOP machine, as Bush is now. The reason these people distrust McCain is that they've seen him in the past fail to be a completely compliant tool, and so they're putting enormous pressure on him to get with the program. These are the people who backed the Clinton impeachment and the Bush "election," and have been protecting Bush ever since. Additionally, the Clinton impeachment (I think accidentally, but who knows) immunized Bush, since the Dems couldn't impeach him without it looking like payback (especially since, unlike 1974, the GOP would never cooperate with a possible Bush impeachment). In other words, we're acting like another decadent, declining empire, which is what we've become.

Posted by beckya57 | July 3, 2008 1:52 PM

I remember 1974 well, and what's changed the most is income/wealth inequality, which was much, much less pronounced then than now. We now have a tiny, incredibly rich elite that has leveraged their wealth into enormously disproportionate political power, via buying the Republican Party, developing its own news media and think tanks, and intimidating and buying off the mainstream news media. None of this existed in 1974; the GOP actually behaved quite responsibly during the Nixon investigations. Nixon, however, wasn't a tool of a wealth/GOP machine, as Bush is now. The reason these people distrust McCain is that they've seen him in the past fail to be a completely compliant tool, and so they're putting enormous pressure on him to get with the program. These are the people who backed the Clinton impeachment and the Bush "election," and have been protecting Bush ever since. Additionally, the Clinton impeachment (I think accidentally, but who knows) immunized Bush, since the Dems couldn't impeach him without it looking like payback (especially since, unlike 1974, the GOP would never cooperate with a possible Bush impeachment). In other words, we're acting like another decadent, declining empire, which is what we've become.

Posted by beckya57 | July 3, 2008 1:54 PM

I remember 1974 well, and what's changed the most is income/wealth inequality, which was much, much less pronounced then than now. We now have a tiny, incredibly rich elite that has leveraged their wealth into enormously disproportionate political power, via buying the Republican Party, developing its own news media and think tanks, and intimidating and buying off the mainstream news media. None of this existed in 1974; the GOP actually behaved quite responsibly during the Nixon investigations. Nixon, however, wasn't a tool of a wealth/GOP machine, as Bush is now. The reason these people distrust McCain is that they've seen him in the past fail to be a completely compliant tool, and so they're putting enormous pressure on him to get with the program. These are the people who backed the Clinton impeachment and the Bush "election," and have been protecting Bush ever since. Additionally, the Clinton impeachment (I think accidentally, but who knows) immunized Bush, since the Dems couldn't impeach him without it looking like payback (especially since, unlike 1974, the GOP would never cooperate with a possible Bush impeachment). In other words, we're acting like another decadent, declining empire, which is what we've become.

Posted by beckya57 | July 3, 2008 1:55 PM

Anon has much of it right. The other development is that the GOP has learned how to manage the public relations and public hearings.

The Watergate hearings were fascinating because they were largely fact-finding operations. People like Sam Ervin or Sam Dash asked questions and the witnesses answered them. The second thing that happened is that someone on the inside (John Dean) decided to tell the whole story.

By the time Iran-Contra rolled around, the GOP was ready. Oliver North wrapped himself in the flag and all witnesses insulated Reagan from illegal activity.

Now with a GOP-dominated congress the administration has perfected the art of defy, deny, delay, and forget. Unless Congress is willing to use its powers, GOP administrations will not provide information to the public. Without information, the media has no stories. Without news stories, the general public develops no interest or outrage.

Posted by rk | July 3, 2008 1:57 PM