The Cellar - View Single Post

iamthewalrus109 · 10-22-2004, 10:14 AM

In regards to the Republican party surviving Dick Nixon, well as I said in a earlier post to this thread, Nixon was more of his own man, therefore leaving a large component of the party that could still govern legitmately. Furthermore, the Republicans, once the conversation of June 23rd, 1972 became public, closed ranks (Goldwater meeting w/Nixon 8/1974) to deal with his abuses. In the current instance I see, with the execption of a few I have named, complete, blind, and unquestioning alegiance. I feel it is more dispersed this time.

Nixon was true arbitor over everthing, hence why he couldn't just get rid of Haldeman and Erlichman and be safe. Accoringly, the downfall of Nixon was at a different time, different cirumstances. The downfall of Nixon had as much to do with him as it did with the fall of the imperial presidency. I think the current situation in the Republican party has the potential to have more of an effect on the party. It's the truth and there's no escaping it. A good proof of this theory is Reagan. He was a contender at the Republcan convention in 1968, his ascendency was just a page from what was left in leadership after Nixon's humiliating resignation in '74. In essence Nixon's resignation is the beginning of the end really. That's when the real whackos took over the party anyway. Hard line conservatives and the Reagan/Bushies took over the party leading to the current form of it, including these Wilsonian neo-con psychos.

Look, it all comes down to this: no matter what, there will be major changes in the Repulican party after the next four years. It may not be the technical death of the party, but definately something different. To be honest from a certain perspective the Republican party died on 8/9/1974. Now there are many dissaffected Republicans that are not just dissastified with a candidate, ie Bush, but have a deeper doubt about the direction of the party leadership as a whole. As oppossed to 1974, where the GOP was able to seal off the fire, due to the way Nixon ran things, which usually was on his own. As Reagan said, he saw Nixon as and oppourtunist, someone who used the Repulican party to further his (Nixon's) geopolitical theories. Reagan, Bush, Bush the lesser all engender a deeper representation of the party, they are the party, they are the GOP and they used the entirety of it in their pursuits.

-Walrus

10-22-2004, 10:14 AM	#18
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Difference between..... In regards to the Republican party surviving Dick Nixon, well as I said in a earlier post to this thread, Nixon was more of his own man, therefore leaving a large component of the party that could still govern legitmately. Furthermore, the Republicans, once the conversation of June 23rd, 1972 became public, closed ranks (Goldwater meeting w/Nixon 8/1974) to deal with his abuses. In the current instance I see, with the execption of a few I have named, complete, blind, and unquestioning alegiance. I feel it is more dispersed this time. Nixon was true arbitor over everthing, hence why he couldn't just get rid of Haldeman and Erlichman and be safe. Accoringly, the downfall of Nixon was at a different time, different cirumstances. The downfall of Nixon had as much to do with him as it did with the fall of the imperial presidency. I think the current situation in the Republican party has the potential to have more of an effect on the party. It's the truth and there's no escaping it. A good proof of this theory is Reagan. He was a contender at the Republcan convention in 1968, his ascendency was just a page from what was left in leadership after Nixon's humiliating resignation in '74. In essence Nixon's resignation is the beginning of the end really. That's when the real whackos took over the party anyway. Hard line conservatives and the Reagan/Bushies took over the party leading to the current form of it, including these Wilsonian neo-con psychos. Look, it all comes down to this: no matter what, there will be major changes in the Repulican party after the next four years. It may not be the technical death of the party, but definately something different. To be honest from a certain perspective the Republican party died on 8/9/1974. Now there are many dissaffected Republicans that are not just dissastified with a candidate, ie Bush, but have a deeper doubt about the direction of the party leadership as a whole. As oppossed to 1974, where the GOP was able to seal off the fire, due to the way Nixon ran things, which usually was on his own. As Reagan said, he saw Nixon as and oppourtunist, someone who used the Repulican party to further his (Nixon's) geopolitical theories. Reagan, Bush, Bush the lesser all engender a deeper representation of the party, they are the party, they are the GOP and they used the entirety of it in their pursuits. -Walrus