Deep throat identified

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

 W. Mark Felt, a former assistant director at the FBI is deep throat.

[A18]

Yes, except it probably wouldn't have been true this time. See: Rathergate.

[opebo]

No, the press is not what it was in the 1970's.

[A18]

Rathergate, Memogate, SeeBS...

[J. J.]

Yes, but Nixon would have "toughed it out."  He wouldn't be removed.
(And, frankly, I'm sorry to say that would be the case.)

[Cubby]

Option 1. The American media today is too scared to do anything that could be construed as unpatriotic. They have given Bush a free pass from Day 1. Example: When Jim Lehrer gave special treatment to W in the 2000 debates.

[Jake]

Definitely, and more "Deep Throat"s would've come out, possibly openly to take down Nixon. It would be a hyper partisan battle ten times the Lewinsky Scandal and subsequent impeachment.

[Palefire]

My guess is that the story would have broken, but the spin machines would have confused people enough that Nixon would have made through. The media today wouldn't go after a story like that hard enough to make it stick and some "news" sources would be putting out flat spin to counter the reality of the situation.

[??????????]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

[nini2287]

The blogs would have picked something up.

[opebo]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Why not?  You and yours would've done the same to Clinton..

[??????????]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Why not?  You and yours would've done the same to Clinton..

If you knew anything about anything you'd know its an open secret that the Clinton impeachment stuff was revenge for Nixon.

[opebo]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Why not?  You and yours would've done the same to Clinton..

If you knew anything about anything you'd know its an open secret that the Clinton impeachment stuff was revenge for Nixon.

Yes, both sides do the same thing.  In this way the two parties do to some extent keep a check on the other.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, I doubt Nixon would have resigned in today's climate.

While I'm on the subject of Nixon, I actually liked him- despite Watergate and being a bit of a 'shifty' character - I actually think there was a lot of good in the man

Would I have supported him in 1972? An unequivocal yes - but out of utter disdain for the dovish McGovern

Dave

[J. J.]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Nixon never should have covered up a third rate burglary (that he probably didn't authorize).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Nixon never should have covered up a third rate burglary (that he probably didn't authorize).

If that's all it was, I don't think he would have bothered covering it up.

[MasterJedi]

No he would have stayed in. If it was a first term I doubt he could have won re-election though in todays atmosphere.

[J. J.]

Nixon should have never been brought down over a third rate burglary anyhow.

Nixon never should have covered up a third rate burglary (that he probably didn't authorize).

If that's all it was, I don't think he would have bothered covering it up.

The first article of impeachment was the obstruction of justice, which was pretty massive.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

The second article, abuse of power, was weaker, because you could make an argument that this is just the nature of the incumbency.

The third article, contept of Congress, is hard to justify, as Nixon surrendered the documents Congress wanted, after court action.  He basically claimed that he had a right, in the Constitution, to Executive Privilege.  So far as I can remember, it was never tested in a criminal action before.

Now, while the second one was weak, and the third one, exceptionally bad, constitutionally, the first one was probably the strongest and I would have voted impeachment/conviction on that one.

[opebo]

Would I have supported him in 1972? An unequivocal yes - but out of utter disdain for the dovish McGovern

Really?  You liked the Vietnam War?  I thought Nixon lost it anyway, in spite of being a hawk.   Turns out McGovern was right.

[PBrunsel]

Are you kidding? In todays media the media would so over kill Watergate that it would become a joke and Tricky Dick would get off scratch free.

[Rob]

Really?  You liked the Vietnam War?  I thought Nixon lost it anyway, in spite of being a hawk.   Turns out McGovern was right.

No. I know that you're a pacifist and you don't believe in nationalism, but it should be obvious to even you that a McGovern presidency would have been disastrous. He probably would have publicly apologized for America's "sins" (did you know that McGovern was "a religious", BTW?) and sent reparations to the North. If all of his pet policies had been enacted, America would now be a Third World country.

[minionofmidas]

Are you kidding? In todays media the media would so over kill Watergate that it would become a joke and Tricky Dick would get off scratch free.

Exactly. While the more damning details would probably not be mentioned except on weblogs and such.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Judging from the article in the Nation I read from him McGovern is definately a "religious", but there was nothing wrong with him. He was against the Vietnam War. Therefore he was in favor of bringing American kids home and not letting them die there. He was right. The Vietnam War was wrong, so he was right. Period, end of story.

[Rob]

No. He was in favor of a limp-wristed foreign policy and insane domestic measures that would have destroyed the economy.