So, UT, what do you think of the Iraq big picture now?
 

Glad you asked! It gives me a chance to offer up my latest collection of wild ideas. Let me take off the aluminum hat for a moment here...

It's now so painfully obvious that news coverage has gotten the situation in Iraq completely wrong, that media pundits are accepting it as a given and wondering how different media are going to deal with the bias.

The media lacked a "natural narrative" in Iraq, so they reported a Baghdad murder rate lower than that of Washington DC as a terrible morass and quagmire of losing the peace. That turns out to be pretty much wrong, and now people believe it, too late for Time magazine to pull back its cover story tomorrow that repeats the morass mantra.

In the meantime, what nobody noticed was that the White House remained completely silent on these reports. Various people would report back, such as Tobiasly, to say that what they had seen was copacetic and that the US is number one on the pop charts with no bullet. Nobody listened. A few pundits went over and came back with glowing reports, such as Hitchens, and they were largely ignored.

It took a Democrat, US Rep Jim Marshall, to actually go over there and come back with the positive story with urgency, for people to sit up and take notice. What, you mean an important Democrat says it's important to understand that things are going well?

The White House could have played defense here and played up the positive stories in Iraq; they could have given the media a narrative. But it would have looked like spin no matter what -- and more importantly, they knew they were about to make a request for a large number of dollars.

In the "quagmire" narrative, that large number looks like it's needed to straighten out the mess. In reality, there is no mess and things are getting rapidly better. So why spend the money?

Two possibilities. One is that it's a huge payment to US corporations, at least some of whom got no-bid contracts. Two is that the real goal is to absolutely, positively guarantee that Iraq doesn't just recover, but is massively and immediately successful, and a massive and immediate best buddy of its brother, the U.S. of A.

So why go back to the UN? Not because the other countries' money and troops are desperately needed, but because we reclaim lost goodwill. The average Iraqi already HATES the UN anyway, and doesn't want the UN around, because they see the UN as having made the dirty deals with Saddam all along.

But in going back to the UN, we also underline to the Iraqis how the French are truly operating. The average Iraqi wants the US to stick around and their worry is that the US will leave too soon. And that is exactly the proposal that the French offered: for the US to leave as soon as possible.

I bet the Iraqis and French remain bitter enemies after this.

Well, the US made its share of dirty deeds with Saddam, but not so recently.

As for going to the UN, I'm wondering if it's some sort of reverse-psychology thing. As long as Bush is asking the UN for help, the French will try to hold it up. If he'd been publicly decrying the UN as irrelevant and saying the US and Britian and a few others could do it on their own, the French would be trying to get the UN in immediately.

Very interesting and clever perspective. I don't believe it myself, and I still believe that the Iraqi war was an error, but (not having read the article) it's too elegant for me to want to attack it.

So I'll wait and watch.

I've given up trying to figure out what to think.

In the worst of all possible Iraqi situations, there would still be some positive outcomes and positive stories. In the best of all possible outcomes there would still be bad things going on. People who think the media are in the back pocket of the President and his cronies (aka Right Wing Conspiracy) are ignoring a lot of very liberal folks who work in the news racket. People who think the media are just dying for Bush to fail (aka the Pinko Liberal Elite Conspiracy) are ignoring the fact that the media are mostly owned by a bunch of rabid right-wingers and that the pundit class at least (if not reporters) skew heavily right. Who am I, sitting home here in Pennsyltucky, supposed to believe? George Bush? Colin Powell? The NY Times? Instapundit.com? Salon.com? FOX news? Jacques Chirac? CNN? Matt Drudge?

Fuck it. History will decide. Why should I waste my time trying to figure out what's really going on when, as far as I can tell, NOBODY has a complete firsthand picture of the entire Iraqi situation. Especially when EVERYBODY insists that we aren't entitled to simultaneously believe that a) Saddam was a psychotic bastard who should have been taken out years ago and b) we shouldn't have taken him out by ourselves. You were either anti-war (and you now have to answer for all the atrocities of the Baathist regime) or you were pro-war (and you now have to answer for all the atrocities happening in Iraq now).

Re: So, UT, what do you think of the Iraq big picture now?
 

Finally UT leaks what those aluminum tubes were for. Now if we could only find all those other weapons of mass destuction - weapons that must exist because some people are just so honest.

BTW, Saddam could have all the electricity restored in one month. An MBA called George Jr couldn't get it on six months later. Guess we must be patient with Geroge Jr - even if Iraqis are angry. After all, lying comes with his title. He could not help himself. Even worse, that evil press is simply demanding too much. Honesty - and a WMD.

Better to melt down those aluminum tubes into a hat. Then others might forget about that previously promoted myth. How did we know those aluminum tubes were not for WMD? The press (and UN weapons inspectors) must have been lying to us again when they correctly challenged that silly claim using facts.

In a previous thread, prespective was defined as essential to understanding news reports. Some take perspective very seriously by ignoring reams of news reports as biased. Then find the few reports that appear to support a personal bias. But then that is why some still claim those alumunim tubes were for WMD. Perspective.

Pffffttt.


Saddam never finished repairing damage to the electrical system from the 1991 Gulf War.

Well...careful, the ball is in play...the article says he's a freshman Democrat congressman, Vietnam vet, who barely won his seat by a slim 1%, in conservative Georgia, was invited by the White House to fly over to Iraq, then swiftly made high profile rounds of all the major media outlets. I'm sure from a crass political elbowrubbing stance, it was a great opportunity for him, as well as for the White House. I'm cynical. I still dont know who I can trust, but I certainly do hope its going well.

This is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Saddam only supplied electricity to certain areas and friends. He did this with a mish mosh of systems that were incompatable with each other and could not be interconnected. We could have had what he supplied back up in a month but we're changeing the whole network to supply everyone with an equal share.

UT, do you spend the whole movie trying to guess how it will end?:D

What can I tell ya guy! I just really enjoy watching the events play out these days, whether they go how I think they will or not, whether they go ways that I think will be good or not. It's like watching a sporting event proceed at a snail's pace. Except that the outcome is not meaningless - it's creating history and determining the future of the human race.

USS Clueless points to this article in which Iraqi exiles return to their birth country and report back on what they find.

Are the Iraqis going to find their way to Democracy, or are people in that area of the world simply incapable of it?
The best thing reading it, too. Democracy was second nature for Americans, because an independent spirit is practically part of our DNA. The ex-Monarchies of Europe found their way to Democracy. The fascists found their way. The religious warriors of Japan found their way. It seems the Persian/Arab sort can do it too. This is wonderful reason for hope.

The article says maybe it isn't foriegn terrorists making all the trouble, and points out what the coalition did wrong:
Then he verifies (big time!) my theory that the Iraqis will hate the French and all anti-war nations:And oh yeh, tw, for balance, I would be glad to read any articles from expat Iraqis who say things are going poorly. I just can't find any, can you?

Too long to read. Please summarize.

Two weeks ago on 'This Week', an administration representative of the White House would claim how everything was going so well in Iraq. Also in the discussion was a lady from an NGO. She kept accusing this administration man of not walking the streets, hiding behind security, and not even speaking to Iraqis. He could not deny any of this so he kept ducking her repeated accusations. She was blunt and repeatitive which made it obvious he could not deny those accusations. Then she noted how many times she went into those street and lived with those people. And how unhappy those people are.

Polls show they expect things to get better. Polls also show they want the Americans out so they can get things fixed. Aftger all, when did tank drivers become experts on providing electricity?

Then there is one more fact that goes little reported. It is called, "One Man, One Vote, One Time". The great fear of democracy is that democracy leads too often to an extremist taking power and becoming a dictator. "... One Time". This is what Iraqis fear and expect will probably happen.

And since Americans could not get electricity working in one month, then Iraqis have no belief that American can make a working government.

At least Saddam could provide electricity. Where Saddam provided electricity in only one month, the US still has not provided electricity six month later. Iraqis see this. Iraqi 'little people' don't believe the US will fix anything else. It is why so many Iraqis are easily recruited into attacking the oil pipelines. They still don't have elecricity but are giving their oil to the US.

Retired US Generals are again joining the chorus of those contradicting the George Jr administration. Tonight on PBS Newshour is Gen Zinni who says quite bluntly, "We are stuck". He then says he hopes we can find a way to get out of Iraq. He also says, as so many others, that we need more people in Iraq. And we need the Bremmer team to get out of Baghdad; into provincal capitals where the leadership is really needed.

Like a good MBA, this George Jr administration will solve all problem from Baghdad - centralize bureacracy. We have a serious management problem in Iraq. Not the least of it was exposed by that lady from an NGO who many it bluntly obvious - this administration's people will not even go into Baghdad streets to find out what people are really saying. No wonder they think things are going so well. These are the same people who said Saddam has WMD. At what point do we finally say, "They lie"?

C'mon ,Dave. Would you want your chick to say "are you done yet"? He's obviously got a woody here. :D

That, or a swollen head.

Awright fine. I'll just shut up and take my stuff elsewhere. Sheesh

The hell you will. You started this thread. Git back here. :D

To where? Fox? Sky News? World News Daily? :)

Well I suppose I could start a blog view section just for my own stuff for example. But that's pretty presumptuous.

"I'm not readin' that crap--summarize it in one word." --Bender, from Futurama :-)

Plus you would still get a beatdown.

Besides, you consider yourself as just another member of the gang here. And I think that most of the Cellar "establishment" would agree. It's not like you're being held to higher scrutiny b/c you own the place...we established that with the whole Goethean deal in IotD.

Now, whenever I hear the "I toured, I saw good stuff, we're doing okay" reports, I can't help but wonder what the tours are like. Do they actually let the Congressionals walk around wherever they want - the slums and such included? And if they do, how much security is around them? Enough to obscure the bad parts? I don't know what they saw, so I can't make a judgement on whether or not to believe them.

This guy also has another liability - reelection threat:

Warch hit on it. A southern Congressman who barely squirted onto the Hill two years ago, facing a challenge from the same person he barely beat, and he's hitting every major media outlet - conservative and liberal - with his "We're all good" message. I have trouble believing this guy.

Once upon a time, we could not trust anyone over 30. Now we are the establishment. That sure did bloody happen quickly.

Speak for yourself ol' man...I still have 2 years before I hit 30. :)

Bullshit. Well, OK, yes, you're right, it IS presumptuous. But come on, the whole blogging phenomenon is based on nothing if not on presumption. It's based on the idea that all of us wing nuts sitting around nattering on our computers can write stuff just as interesting (if not necessarily more accurate) as what the established Pundictocracy puts out. Hell, even I've considered starting my own blog (called, oddly enough, "Punditocracy"), and I'm a self-proclaimed bubble resident. 20 years ago if a person had self-published a zine devoted almost exclusively to his or her own musings and opinions, with an occasional excerpt from somebody else, it would probably have been considered the height of arrogance and self-absorption. Now, everybody's doing it.

If you don't want to set yourself up with a blog, fine. But don't stifle your impulse to do so because of some sense of modesty. I guarantee you, you wouldn't be any more pretentious than any of the other blogs out there, and probably less so than many.

I was busting on Syc more than anything...

When you read the following, take the word "you" to really mean "any potential blogger".

I think the Cellar offers you more than a blog situation does. The one thing that you can't get here is individual attention, because it's never "you-centric" like a blog is. But you have better readers here than you would get in a blog situation, because they're broader.

More importantly, here you know everything you say is gonna get examined, and people will bring out their differences; and they are on an equal basis to you. If you're right, and you can communicate, you will bring people around to your point of view. If you're wrong, better the chance you'll learn and get smarter, with people trying to disagree with you.

The worst-case blog situation, IMO, is that you're writing to a bunch of people who agree with you. A community of people where we're all the same is no fun.

It's funny to see how, when I titled the thread this way, it was "me-centric" and kind of against the Cellar norm. It was really just a playful sort of thing, to title it that way.

I usually operate on the policy of trusting no one at, over, or under 30. That baby in the stroller over there...man, I don't know what the hell he's plannin'.

Just remember Toad...I know where you live.

Not that I was necessarily discouraging you from creating a blog...it just doesn't seem Sheppslike. But hell, you own the place...

Sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Yer chemically altered...hell, you could be 80 and wouldn't feel it.

BTW, that was a lit quote...not a slam. I tremble in fear of a UT flame....please, in the name of that is good and holy....I throw myself upon your mercy....

Yeah, you're probably right.

In that case "Once upon a time" was like 1966. For those of you keeping score at home, that's 37 years.

IOW, people born *after* "Once upon a time" are now themselves over thirty. Probably better get over it.

At least you're in the "liberal establishment".

Actually I think some people probably would enjoy that... their own sycophantic band of yes-people to hang on their every word and tell them how fabulous and correct all their opinions are. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find some bloggers who get quite put out when they're questioned. (Maybe I'm wrong.)

I remember it. I also remember one of the prime objectives was to get the gumint off our backs and out of our private lives. Guess that failed.:(

That seems more of a give and take situation. For example: the government gives us the Patriot Act, but then state sodomy laws are thrown out.

Wrong objective. Remember the attitude back then as the 60s started. Government could be trusted. Those born in the seventies will never know such a concept. Government, and especially the president, did tell the truth for the most part.

For example, Kennedy admitted his mistake in Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower's big lie was that Francis Gary Powers was not a spy pilot. Eisenhower eventually admitted otherwise. This honesty sharply changed with Johnson - Gulf of Tonkin. Gulf of Tonkin was an outright government lie that even decieved all but one member of Congress.

Nixon took lying to an all time record level that had never been seen in the 1900. His lie during the campaign that he had a secret plan to end the war. His treasonist backchannel communicaton with N Viet Nam to not make peace because Nixon, if elected, would offer a better deal. Nixon was lying so drastically that mail (and newspapers) both from and to the troops had to be censored. That's right. Americans in VietNam had their mail censored so that they did not get a full story from home. Even the troops in Nam universally knew their own brass could not be trusted. The 5 o'clock follies. That was when the older generation still maintained the President would not lie. So much so that Dean (President's personal lawyer) was universally demeaned by those over 30 for only saying what we now know to be the truth.

That was when a vocal minority of under 30 somethings said leadership could not be trusted. And so the younger generation discovered more lies from the 'establishment'. Mariguana was everywhere, in part, because the government even lied about that. Conflict even between age groups that did and did not smoke grass was quite explicit. Outright confrontation would occur between Sophmores who openly advocated mariguana verses Juniors who still believed mariguana was a 1st degree felonious crime. The breakdown in trust was that sharp and sudden. In reality, the vocal minority were problaby more correct they they really knew. But the majority of 30 somethings fully or mostly disagreed with those over 30 because the under 30 group had discovered that government lies - especially about VietNam, Watergate, drugs, and even the murder of students at Kent State.

We now know that minority was correct. Lying was so blatant that the public could not even be trusted with facts from the Pentagon Papers. It would have been business as usual if military troops would have stormed the NY Time and Washington Post offices because of the truth being exposed in those Pentagon Papers. Many actually made preparations at one time or another for a military coup. That really was the attitude created by lies from the Nixon administration. One reason why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wanted a unanimous verdict against the President on the tapes - he feared a military occupation of Washington. Times were that hot because government lied that much.

It was government attitude that the public could not handle the truth. Historical facts demonstrated the war and bombing were waged for reasons that did not exist. But the public could not be trusted. Outright government lying or deception was mostly a weekly occurance. That was the attitude of the 60s.

Most newspaper of that time would not report what Woodward and Bernstein were reporting. Back then, many over 30 editors could not believe that those Watergate stories were even possible. Too many over 30s still believed in a government before the 1960s - where such lying was not business as usual.

It had nothing to do with getting government out of our lives. That became the roll call of the 80s. The 60s were when America woke up to discover that even and especially the president was a crook. A man who would break into anyone's home or office - including Ellsberg's pyschiatrist and Dan Rather's. Watergate was but the tip of an iceberg that included VietNam, J Edgar Hoover, and some say even the murder of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. BTW even LBJ did not believe Oswald was the only shooter.

The 60s were when America learned how corrupt the government could really become. Nixon clearly the star crook. Getting government out of our lives was not a concept back then. The 60s were when Americans learned how much political leaders would lie to advance their own personal agenda - America be damned. Lying on this scale did not occur before the 60s.

(Having read The Fourth Turning...)

During the 30s-40s, the country was in a crisis mode, with the depression and WW2. In order to get through the time of crisis, the society adapted a more singular mind-set. Everyone was encouraged to think alike, and it was considered a good thing as it helped get through the crisis.

During the crisis period, the President might lie to the people -- but the people would not mind, figuring that it was necessary for the good of the country. At the same time though, during the crisis period, the President would actually be trying to do the right thing, with a lot of the stupid politics simply thrown out. During the crisis period, the political nonsense is unacceptable.

When the crisis was over, then, the slow unraveling of this unified mind-set is what led to "Don't trust anyone over 30", because it was important for the society to throw off this mind-set. Partly because it was no longer needed because the crisis was over, and partly because the mind-set was broken in many ways. Such as treatment of minorities for example.

If "Don't trust anyone over 30" was said in 1970, it really meant that the line of trust was those born as baby-boomers: Don't trust anyone who lived through the crisis and was indoctrinated by the unified mind-set.

I can tell you for certain that, by the time I got to college in 1981, "Don't trust anyone over 30" didn't really resonate. 30? Why 30? Since I was early in the first generation POST boomer, the counter-culture had become the culture. We didn't like the Stones because they were revolutionary and liberating. We liked them because they rocked.

Oh, get a grip, TW. You just wrote the entire political history (seamy side anyway) of the 60's. Real people (majority) were only vaguely aware of all this shit going down from the headlines. Coffee break discussions were of headlines, not details and the consequences that would only become apparent in retrospect. People bought the Sunday New York Times for the crossword puzzle not the journalism.

Hey Joe, ya think Nixon's lying?
Yeah probably, all the politicians lie, wanna donut?
Gimme a jelly...Ya know they ought to draft all them long haired hippies....the army would straighten them commie bastards out...who's pitchin tonight?
Dunno, check the paper. Black Panthers too, army barbers would fix them afros..ha, ha, ha.
Well, be thankful congress is too busy with this Watergate bullshit to screw us with more rules and regulations.
Yeah, by the time they're done, they'll have a camera in every bedroom and a white man won't be able to get a job.

There were damn few people who saw the big picture and they didn't sway the masses, they alienated them. They only kept the
press busy covering demonstrations and sit-ins. My parents weren't convinced Nixon lied and the war was wrong until the mid 90s. They weren't stupid people, but there was no "net" or cable. You were lucky to find more than 2 papers at the corner store
and network TV wasn't much help. People that are living comfortably aren't going out of their way to seek bad news that rocks the very foundation of everything they know and believe.

I think that "don't trust anyone over 30" schtick came back to a degree in the early to mid-90s: "I'm so miserable and full of angst...it's because of my parents and their generation and the fucking government! I'm going to go shoot up some smack now and listen to Nevermind and Ten 1500 times because Kurt and Eddie feel my pain. They know me!"

And that attitude by some morons in my generation (the one known as X) inflamed the generation before us. Then Gen X got pissed off at those people...vicious cycle, etc. etc. etc.

I think a lot of that died off with the passing of Kurt Cobain and the fadeout of grunge, but even moreso as Gen X'ers began to do good, particularly in the tech boom of the late 90s.

As I see the countless teenagers that reside in my neighborhood, I wonder if they view Gen X with the same contempt as some Gen Xers did with the generation before us.

So true and very well put.

How could you be that isolated? Back then there were newspapers everywhere. Daytime network TV - all four networks - was completely terminated during those many weeks of Watergate hearings. Every station - even the non-network TV stations - carried nothing but those Watergate hearings all day. That's right. Even the non-network station were hooked into network feeds because Watergate finally became that big. No intelligent person could exist back then and not be confronted by facts that might "rock their belief in government".

When was a Congressional committee meeting so racous as to suspend daytime TV for an entire day! Not today. But that is what happened when Sen Fulbright finally had enough of Dean Rusk. First CBS, then other commercial networks suspended all daytime programs to report the confrontation live. Only an ostrich would not know that something had seriously changed in government. And yes, too many "over 30's" remained so entrenched in their pre-1960s mentality to still believe Nixon was not a crook. They just did not want to believe.

The 1960s was not about keeping government out of people's lives. That movement did not start until the Reagan 80's. The sixties were about government becoming so corrupt as to wage war against a soveriegn nation without any justification - without any smoking gun.

Today a president lies about WMD. Back then the lie was the Domino Theory. Difference was that people back then never before knew government to lie so outrageously. Today, even the "under 40 somethings" know that government may lie because we all learned Nixon was a crook.

The sixties were definitely not about getting government out of peoples lives. Your statement totally misrepresents the 1960s.

[quote]Originally posted by tw
[b] How could you be that isolated? Back then there were newspapers everywhere. Daytime network TV - all four networks - was completely terminated during those many weeks of Watergate hearings. Every station - even the non-network TV stations - carried nothing but those Watergate hearings all day. Quote

That's easy. Most people were at work trying to make a living.

Quote
That's right. Even the non-network station were hooked into network feeds because Watergate finally became that big. No intelligent person could exist back then and not be confronted by facts that might "rock their belief in government". Quote

No intelligent person had a belief in government. Only a moron would think that politicians on any level were boy scouts. Real people weren't nearly as exited about watergate as the media and academia.
Watergate, oh no, constitutional crisis, the federal government virtually shut down. Well, the mail still came, the taxes were still collected, you could still get a passport, the Army was still on guard, so I guess it didn't much matter to real people, did it. They still had to go to work, mow the lawn, care for the kids and pay the bills just like before and after watergate.
Personally I hated Nixon with a passion and followed watergate closely but couldn't discuss it with anyone because nobody wanted to hear it. What really concerned them was the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation that had a direct impact on their lives. Not the abstract notion of constitutional crisis

And that will always remain in diagreement because I lived it and never stopped learning more about it. As America entered the 1960s, virtually everyone believed the government. The nation was that moronic. Even your parents refused to accept that government would lie until 1990s! That belief in government is why Johnson could outright lie about Gulf of Tonkin, so that all but one Congressman would vote for war against N VietNam. Back then, when the president said it was an unprovoked attack, then the nation had absolutely no reason to doubt. We believed the Federal government that completely.

Watergate is a watershed issue. For the first time, government outrightly lied and even tried to corrupt other government agencies (IRS, CIA, FBI) to expand criminal lies and coverup.

We will never agree. The 1960s were never a time when people demanded government out of their lives. The 1960s was the era when government, for the first time, lied *real* lies. Not some silly nonsense about sex with Monica. Lies as in to "destroy the US Constitution". Nixon was so mentally criminal that even his staff would pervert or corrupt this nation's government - as demonstrated by a classic, powerful, confrontation between Sen Sam Ervin and Erlichman. A daytime confrontation in an event so major that people even listened to Watergate hearings while at work. What was more important then? Work or the Watergate hearings? In most cases, people worked while still monitoring those hearings because for the first time in US history, a White House administration tried to subvert the US Constitution. For the first time, government really lied.

What did Erlichman claim? Basically that the Nixon White House was superior to the Constitution. And so that famous confrontation about the 4th Amendment. Even a knife could not cut that tension.

What changed in the 1960s? For the first time, top White House people, such as the president, would lie (everything from Cambodia and outright bribery to petty break-ins) and even violate the US Constitution - because their personal political agenda was more important that the nation. Not about getting government out of peoples lives. Those patriotic demonstrators on the streets of Chicago would be more accurate then anyone knew. The whole world would be watching because, for the first time in US history, a crooked president would subvert the US government. Nobody believed this could happen - until we got to the 1960s. Few today even know about Nixon's treason - to continue the VietNam war so Nixon could get elected in 1968.

In the 1960s, for the first time, government was that 'unworthy'. It is the legacy of the 60s. Not about getting big government out of people's lives. For the first time, government lied real lies. Lies we have not seen until another president lied about WMD - to justify another war.

I don't dispute your accuracy on the happenings in Washington during the 60's. Only that the common man (woman) cared very much because he (she) was to busy trying to cope with changing laws and social mores.
Christ, even my wife voted for Nixon the second time because she thought it would help her business, in spite of (or because of) my rants on what a bastard Nixon was.
So we'll have to agree to disagree, but after all isn't all history a matter of perspective. A shooting star is a beautiful display in the sky to everyone except the one it lands on. ;)

That is the part that always amazed me. The man's administration was fully involved in Watergate. In fact the Nixon inaugeral parade passed by and was watched by jurors who were deliberating the case against Liddy, McCord, etc. Pentagon papers had already demosntrated that we were the enemy in VietNam. Nixon had clearly lied about his secret plan to end the war. The massive deficient spending from VietNam was driging the economy into the toilet with inflation rates never before seen in America. Gold prices were climbing - as happens when government spends itself into a massive hole.

And yet 49 out of 50 states voted for Nixon. Go figure.

Since then, Americans would no longer trust leaders. Something completely new in politics. We actually voted the incumbant out of office - many times. Ford. Carter. George Sr. Only two have been relected - Reagan and Clinton. Maybe the legacy of "I am not a crook" Nixon.

It probably took an adminstration as good as Reagan's first four years to break the trend of voting the incumbant out of power. Reagan's first administraton was probably remains the best we had seen since WWII.

Quote
That is the part that always amazed me. The man's administration was fully involved in Watergate. In fact the Nixon inaugeral parade passed by and was watched by jurors who were deliberating the case against Liddy, McCord, etc. Pentagon papers had already demosntrated that we were the enemy in VietNam. Nixon had clearly lied about his secret plan to end the war. The massive deficient spending from VietNam was driging the economy into the toilet with inflation rates never before seen in America. Gold prices were climbing - as happens when government spends itself into a massive hole.

And yet 49 out of 50 states voted for Nixon. Go figure.
Quote

See, I told you people weren't paying attention. They had other things to worry about that were less abstract.