From: erics@infoserv.com (Eric S. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have some respect
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 17:09:15 PDT
Organization: Reigning Cats and Dogs
Reply-To: erics@infoserv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow) writes:

> erics@infoserv.com writes:

> >Well, in fairness to the American people, the series of scandals known
> >collectively as "Watergate" mostly either became public knowledge or
> >else occurred after Nixon's re-election. The Watergate break-in occurred
> >before the election, but it wasn't until after the election that the
> >break-in and subsequent cover-up was traced to key Nixon aides and to
> >Nixon himself. Other Watergate-related scandals such as the break-in of

> This is true enough if you demand "proof" that Nixon aides were invloved,
> but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who was responsible
> for the break-in.  Who stood to gain anything by it?  No cash or objects
> of value were removed, only documents relating to campaign strategy and
> things of that type were tampered with.  I went to bed the night of the
> election with joy in my heart that no-one could possibly not clearly
> understand that Tricky Dick (or at least his closest pals) was/were
> crooks, and hence, not to be voted for.  Imagine my shock the next AM
> at a 49-1 landslide (electoral, not a big plurality, though).

I'd say that in America we do demand proof before assigning responsibility
for crimes. I'd agree that there was never any question who reaped the
ultimate benefit from dirty tricks and criminal activities directed
against Democratic party candidates, and while that may figure into
the decision about who to vote for, it's not enough to hold the top
people ultimately responsible without clearer evidence.

If you went to bed the night before the 1972 election thinking there
was a chance that Nixon would lose, then you must be one of about five
people who felt that way. Don't get me wrong; I opposed Nixon as much
as anybody. I voted for the first time in 1972, I made my first ever
campaign contribution to the McGovern campaign even though I couldn't
afford it, I campaigned for McGovern in the Michigan primary (which
George Wallace won with 50% of the vote) and voted for him in the election.
But by the end I had no allusions as to the final outcome and it was
quite obvious that no one, including anyone in the McGovern campaign,
did either. The next day was one of the worst of my life (comparable only
to a similar one in 1980) and I remember our student newspaper printed
a black page, headlined simply "Four More Years". And I don't know what
you mean by "not a big plurality", but Nixon got almost 62% of the vote,
and won by 18 million votes.

But with regard to Watergate, I stick to my point that no one knew the
magnitude or the true dimension of the scandal at the time. The first
inkling of what had really happened came out in John Dean's testimony
to the Senate subcommitee in 1973. What facts about Watergate were
available before the election were not in the nature of an "October
surprise" either. The break-in occurred in June and the polls clearly
showed that the investigation was a non-issue as far as the campaign
was concerned; it was just a back-page story nagging at the Republicans
until more facts started coming out after the election. In my opinion
there's no way that Nixon would have been re-elected if the voters had
known all the facts before the election, just as there was no way for
him to have saved his presidency once the facts did become known.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle