From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 07:22:08 MST
Ron wrote:
"Max,
May I throw in a question and a comment? First, the question: I was
listening to an interview with a lawyer that worked for the chief counsel of
the Congressional Committee that investigated Watergate and President Nixon.
(I am speaking loosely as I didn't get good mental notes at the time)
The lawyer said that after President Nixon resigned the chief counsel
said they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Nixon on any count. Do
you know anything about this and can you illuminate the subject for me."
I must admit I can't think of the specific comment you're referring
to, Ron. I do know that the chair of the Senate Watergate committee, North
Carolina Democrat Sam Ervin (a decorated segregationist subsequently dubbed
an "American hero" in the press) was quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on
March 10, 1974 as saying:
"No evidence was produced in the Senate Watergate hearings to support
impeachment of President Nixon. I think this is one section of the
Constitution on which Dick Nixon and I agree."
Naturally this comment was subsequently buried in the larger press.
One can only imagine the uproar that would have accompanied Trent Lott
suggesting something similar during the proceedings against President
Clinton. But apparently it is justifiable for the Congress and media to go
after a Republican administration at the cost of "millions of taxpayer
dollars" for two years without finding any evidence.
"The comment: very few recognize how liberal President Nixon was. To
the list of items you volunteer let me add the guaranteed annual wage.
In reading his biography I gather he wanted a liberal government but
added the adjective tough-minded or practical -- I can't remember exactly."
Let me say that I agree with you to an extent on this point, Ron. The term
you're referring to is "Practical liberalism", something the President in
effect borrowed from former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. But let
me also temper that by saying much of President Nixon's "liberalism" was
forced upon him by what was arguably the most "liberal" Congress in our
nation's history during that era. However, Nixon himself said he was "liberal
on health issues", but I would offer that had we had two brothers die of
horrifying illness in our youths we might have reached similar positions.
But most importantly, I think we can agree that President Nixon was certainly
not "a liberal" in regard to foreign affairs. And by that, I mean the foolish
arguments of that era which included unilateral disarmament, appeasement of
the Soviets, and total abandonment of Indochina as authored by George
McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and other members of Congress. Nixon's
decision to draw the Chinese into tacit alliance, his airlift to Israel, and
his attempt to save the people's of Indochina from Communism were the correct
ones, despite the lack of public support for these initiatives. In that
regard, Nixon's legacy is far too complex, and important, to be dismissed and
ignored as it continues to be by those who still unapologetically hate him
and many who simply don't know any better.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 07:29:22 MST