None have made a dent because we are a free capitalistic govt. Oil companies profit from the Cheaper Mid East crude on the world market and we as consumers, enjoy cheaper oil prices because of it. Lowering our dependency would require we take over Exxon like we did GM…with catostrophic changes that most would not like, in their oil product prices and delivery system.
“it involves dominance of this country.”
I’m so glad america killed off the Native American tribes… to build our country into the freedom loving nation that it is. Its so good that re-pubic-lick-uns & the tea party are vigilant & now keep america free from the Muslim tribes.
I always hate voting for the candidate I will think do less harm than for a candidate I support.
@Barkydog, I can relate to that. It’s hard to remember a presidential election that wasn’t a Used Car Dealer’s Election. In my first election, I decided to vote for a crook and not the idiot. You know who I mean.
I was an infant at that time, and looking back, I always wondered what made people vote for Nixon after the Watergate scandal had been exposed. I listed this example as one reason nobody should have been surprised to see to see W. get elected to a second term.
Whitey–I have also wondered why people chose to vote for Tricky Dick, but–as in so many other cases–I suppose that it came down to the classic, “lesser of two evils”, at the time. Or, at least the lesser of the known evils at the time.
He was unquestionably a brilliant man, and in many respects, a good president, but–ultimately–his psychological flaws made him unstable & unsuccessful, thus leading (IMHO) to an era where we now automatically distrust all politicians.
In any event, I think that you have your sequence of events a bit skewed. While the Watergate break-in took place a few months prior to the November, 1972 elections, the actual significance of that event–and its ties to the Nixon White House–did not become apparent until after the election.
It was fully a year after the Watergate break-in when the feces began to hit the fan for Nixon and his administration.
Here is a brief timeline of events:
June 17, 1972: Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex. June 19, 1972: A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation. August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier’s check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports. September 29, 1972: John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports. October 10, 1972: FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports. November 11, 1972: Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.
http://watergate.info/chronology/brief-timeline-of-events
If anyone didn’t know about these events when they voted in November 1972, they must have been living in a cave.
At any rate that's my reading list.
Very short and very one sided reading list.
Try…
No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan.
It’s amazing that when a WHITE CHRISTIAN like William Federer writes a book in Islam…it’s considered good reading…but when Reza Aslan (a world renowned religious scholar) who’s Muslim writes a book on Christ…it’s attacked for it by Fox News. Luckily no one at fox news had the intelligence to debate Reza.
If you read or listen or view news that only has one slant…then you are limiting yourself to the truth. I find that the truth is somewhere between NPR, Fox and NBC. When all 3 report the news the same (which is rare)…you can pretty much guarantee it’s factual. When they differ…you have to dig further to really find the truth. Those that don’t are just ignorant.
“If anyone didn’t know about these events when they voted in November 1972, they must have been living in a cave.”
Well, I think that the election’s outcome does indicate that a lot of people were living in a cave. That, plus McGovern was just not a truly viable candidate.
Yes, you & I (and other news-junkies) were aware of what was going on regarding Watergate, but there are a whole lot of people who don’t seem to have the interest or make the time-commitment to watch/listen/read news coverage. It took a huge amount of continued coverage–in addition to papers like the Washington Post & The NYT–for the public to fully buy into the implications of that break-in.
And, who knows?
Maybe some folks did read the news at the time, but failed to comprehend it.
As an example, I can recall watching LBJ’s evening speech when he announced that he would not seek re-election. I was at a friend’s house, and watched it along with my friend, and his uncle.
When that brief speech ended, my friend & I were stunned as a result of the truly surprising news. When we both uttered something about one of the most politically-important speeches in recent memory, the uncle replied, “Huh? It was just more BS about the shape of the table at the peace talks with the Viet Cong.”
My friend’s uncle heard the same brief speech that we did, and yet he failed to come away with the essence of it. Go figure!
@dagosa The days of cheap Middle East oil are long gone. Today’s oil prices in the paper were as follows: Brent, which is the world price and covers Middle East oil; $114 per barrel, West Texas Intermediate, most US produced oil; $102, Canadian Select blend oil; $82 per barrel.
A refiner on the Gulf Coast can choose which of these he will use as feedstock. Right now he can’t get enough lower priced Canadian oil because of pipeline constraints.
Well, I was old enough to work on the 68 Nixon campaign and if you remember the big issue was the war. Nixon had promised to end it one way or the other (even though secretly he prolonged for his own political purposes). The democrats were is disarray and young people did not support them at the time. By 72, I was already in the Army and had switched support to McGovern and pretty well had figured Nixon out. You had to be careful about showing disrespect to your Commander in Chief so he was feared. Agreed McGovern was a very weak candidate but also things had been kept under cover pretty good until after the election. Not everyone read the post in the rest of the country and relied on AP and Walter Cronkite.
So like I said, I go back and forth so when I say Carter and our current Commander were/are a disaster, It’s not a partisan thing, just the truth as I see it. And looking back, I think Nixon did less damage than the incumbant, and really showed how powerful the people actually are to unseat a President.
When you travel abroad and talk about US politics, Nixon comes off as a respected and even admired president. The French still wonder what this “Watergate Thing” was all about. Nixon is seen , rightly or wrongly, as a president who ended a dumb war, started by Johnson.
The fact that Nixon opened dialogue with Russia and China commanded much respect.
By contrast, foreigners see Carter and Ford as very ineffective presidents.
Let’s not forget Nixon also gave us the EPA and Planned Parenthood.
. . . and the 55 mile speed limit.
Interestingly, Nixon prolonged the war by advising So VN to not accept the peace accords until after the election. Johnson was very frustrated by Nixon and called what he did “treasonous”. It was just backstabbing to get a political advantage for the election. We shouldn’t forget that he had a lot of experience as VP with Ike and had experienced people around him. Carter is the one though that gets the prize for general backstabbing as he ran around and still runs around the world interfering with foreighn policy. Heaven only knows what the history books will say about our current Commander in Chief in 10 or 20 years. It should be interesting reading and hope I’m around then.
@docnick What country were you in under Nazi occupation, if you don’t mind?
“When you travel abroad and talk about US politics, Nixon comes off as a respected and even admired president.”
And, Europeans can’t figure out all of the fuss that was made over Bill Clinton’s infidelity.
To most folks in Europe, this is just the normal way of doing things for a married person.
Obviously they don’t have many Evangelicals on that continent.
;-))
Nixon did not instigate the Watergate break-in, but he did obstruct the investigation. That is what did him in. Villianizing people for being loyal to their friends has rarely happened. I think that most of nixon’s infamy these days is due to forgetting his loyalty and remembering his lies.
And everything that came out of McGoverns mouth was just plain stupid. I was left of center at the time. The comment has no political motivation.
“Nixon did not instigate the Watergate break-in”
That can neither be proven nor disproven, and whatever anyone says on the topic is mere speculation, given the disappearance of conclusive evidence for either position.
Given Nixon’s incredible paranoia (I assume that you recall his compilation of an “Enemies List”), it is entirely possible that he did decide to engage in this wholly unnecessary exercise in attempting to hijack democracy prior to an election that he was sure to win anyway. But, whether he instigated the break-in or decided to obstruct the investigation, what was proven was that his stated policy of, “If the President does it, it is not illegal”, was NOT legal. Yes, that is a direct quote from Mr. Nixon, which provides an incredible amount of insight into the workings of his mind.
My opinion is that, if he did not succumb to the extreme demands of his psychological demons, he would have won the election and stayed in office until the end of his term. Or, in other words, he was done in by his own mental issues, plain & simple.
“Let’s not forget Nixon also gave us the EPA and Planned Parenthood.”
Spell it out, man!
Are you criticizing him or vilifying him?
I read Steven Ambrose’s bio of McGovern’s wartime years. I wasn’t voting, or aware of politics at that time, but McG’s campaign must’ve been inept–or his politics and leadership qualities must’ve changed markedly over the years–because I would have no problem voting for the man in the bio.
Nixon strikes me as a megalomaniac that (ironically) had fairly progressive policies W/R/T China, labor, and certain other domestic issues. Contemporary pundits made him sound like he was to the Right of Atilla the Hun, but his record disagrees.
I’m surprised re: criticism of Carter’s post-presidential career. Seemed like he was a much better ex-president thsn president, and I give hom props for avoiding the “rubber chicken honorarium” thing and actually rolling up his sleeves.
My how the republican party has changed. He made great strides in foreign policy, Am not sure of the foreign policy ambitions of the current republican party but planned parenthood and the epa are certainly on the chopping block. Pres hopeful walker in WI even eliminated state funding for recycling programs.