And yes I showed a bipartisan representation of later Presidential skullduggery. Mainly because thats what’s most readily available on the Internet. You may assume if you wish that all other presidents were pristine and pure. I believe they were all about the same.

And, of course, you have yet to address the essentially amoral nature of such a standard of judgement.

Ah, you shifty one. I never said that Clinton’s behavior was “so much better” than Nixon’s. I said that of the two reprehensible scenarios Nixon’s is demonstrably worse because of the scale and scope of the abuse and ultimately the damage he did to the political culture of America.

Clinton lied under oath and pressured others to lie as well, according the articles of impeachment against him. If you want to characterize that as the judge does as undermiing the integrity of judicial system, fine.

Nixon not only lied to investigators and pressured other people to lie to investigators, he ordered all manner of malfeasance well beyond that. He endeavored to thwart the Constitution by using his power to fire the special invetigator, destory evidence, defy subpeonas, wiretap political enemies and on and on. Did you not read the articles of impeachment against him? It includes this little gem:

*endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

and this:

*He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security,

and this:

*He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President,

and this:

*In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

You simply cannot compare the scope and scale of Clinton’s malfesance to Nixon’s. Nixon wins hands down. And his actions and ultimate downfall were definitely a watershed in modern American politics.

And you conveniently glossed over the whole point: WHY was Clinton’s conduct, described by Judge Wright as undermining the integrity fo the judicial system, so much better than Nixon’s. Unless you can explain that, you have no case. And keep in mind, Clinton also used governemtn agencies for partisan poltical purposes.

BTW, if you can’t answer or don’t know, we can just let this die. My Diogenes-like quest for some with perspective on Nixon continues.

Oh and do pray tell what sanctions were imposed on Nixon to redress his conduct?

Yes, because everything tells me that there is a massive untapped resevoir of brilliance lying just beneath such sharp observations as this: “this is WAY too soon to be talking about Ford’s place in history.”

Dugger, once again, first, you are comparing Nixon’s behavior to Clinton’s for some kind of retroactive absolution which is, aside from totally bizarre, totally idiotic. I guess you still haven’t looked up what watershed means. It only takes a few minutes on Google.

Second, both Clinton and Nixon acted rephrensibly but Nixon’s malfeasance was far grander, more far reaching and more corrosive to American political culture and American culture in general than anything Clinton did.

Third, what your argument comes down to is that no one should be judged harshly for somthing everybody does (even having failed to show that Clinton did anything near Nixon did). That’s a rather pathetic moral system don’t you think?

I’ll say it again. The key here is the difference between what Nixon did and what other presidents did.

Re Clinton, Judge Wright said:

“Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president’s misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system,” she said.

Now if we take Judge Wright at her word (’conduct undermining the judicial system’)and if we concede Clinton was the number one law enforcement officer in the land, you are going to tell me there’s a huge diffrence betwen Clinton and Nixon. And I say CLinton had a successful presdiency and Nixon one a little less os.

says the Great Karnak.

He has is own library, and they have been studying his life for nearly thirty years.

Are they done?

That’s what you might have learned if you had asked.

But frameone doesn’t ask — frameone knows.

And I won’t even entertain any stupid attempt to tell me that’s not what I meant.

You can just kiss my ass.

Can’t you question anyone?

Can’t you inquire as to the substance of a person’s comment?

Or are your “powers of intellect” so binary as to be limited to “you have not completely agreed with me” versus “you are an idiot.”

Now that is sad.

Find a hole and climb in it, Scut.

But I have.

First of all, you are using the behavior of Clinton and Bush to argue that Nixon’s behavior wasn’t a watershed. Given the definition of watershed that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s really mind boggling how you can accuse me of “anti-intellectualism” when your entire “proof” is based on such a temporal absurdity.

It goes without saying that Watergate had a huge impact on American political culture, not to mention the actual laws of the land. To suggest that the resignation of a sitting president under investigation is not a watershed moment is simply hack work of the highest order.

At the same time, please
review the articles of impeachment lined up against Nixon before he resigned.

You can compare them point for point with the
articles drawn up against Clinton.

There is really no comparison. Clinton was charged with lying under oath and attempting to sway the testimony of witnesses. Not one charge has anything remotely to do with abusing the powers of the presidency (although you could argue that offering someone a job for thier silence rises close but even that’s a stretch).

To suggest that the comparison would reveal that Nixon was only one “iota” more cuorrpt than Clinton is pure right wing idiocy.

I will conclude simply by noting that you have change dyour argument with practically every post.

You even went so far as to attack a commentor for bringin Clinton in the discussion — “You do know that Nixon came first right?” — only to then base your entire argument on Clinton’s behavior.

I guess that’s what you do when “the discussion gets a little deep” and “you get insecure.”

And trust me, it is abundantly evident that you, Jay, Frank, Pedro et. al. are indeed total idiots. Only everytime I think we’ve plumbed the depths of your idiocy you, each one in his turn, seem to reach deep inside yourselves to dredge up ever darker globs of stupidity (Witness Frank’s assertion that 30 years after he left office it’s still too soon to judge Ford as a president).

Really, it’s sad.

I’ve never claimed the presidents did exactly the same thing as Nixon. I’ve really never claimed what Nixon did was not a little worse. I have claimed that there isn’t that much difference between what Nixon did and other presidents have done – especially not enough difference so as to separate Nixon from the pack as a watershed bad president. You have not addressed that point.

By the same token, I believe Clinton was the weakest moral character to ever populate the White House, but that doesn’t interfere with my judgement of his overall successful presidency. Likewise Nixon’s iota more of ‘crossing the line’ shouldn’t obscure what was overall not a bad presidency.

And when you verbally assualt the posters here, frame, does it make you feel good about yourself? If they (we) really are idiots shouldn’t it be apparent by now – so that you wouldn’t have to screech it every time somebody says something that makes you mad? Yet, repeatedly, you call names. In your regular life, do you abuse the people around you who disagree with you or are you just quiet and say nothing – only venting your Walter Mitty-ish anti-intellectual rage on the anonymous Internet?

Dugger, I started out calling you an idiot because your argument has been idiotic since the beginning. Now that you’ve completely changed your argument — from “What was the horrible thing Nixon did..” to “The exact point is not how right or wrong it is” — you are, simply, an even bigger idiot.

Astonishing. Simply astonishing. Dugger you yourself raised the question right and wrong when you wrote this:

What was the horrible thing Nixon did – that other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing.

Your whole point in the beginning was that what Nixon did was not that bad in comparison to the behavior of others. But now you’re telling us that degrees of right and wrong aren’t important at all.

Of course you haven’t actually shown that Clinton or Bus or any president for that matter have abused the power of the presidency in the manner that Nixon did. You’ve just swapped around a few euphimisms and vaguaries as I noted above.

But then again we get a full view of just how moronic you are with this passage:

With a ten second Google, I showed you evidence of Bubba and Bush. So if sanctimonious progressives are going to make the case that Nixon is this watershed bad/evil president, he will have to be differentiated from the competition – something no one here, you included, has come close to doing.

For your education Dugger here’s a good definition of “watershed”:

“an event marking a unique or important historical change of course or one on which important developments depend; “the agreement was a watershed in the history of both nations”

I ask again, you do know that Nixon came first, right?

If you want to argue that Nixon’s behavior wasn’t a “watershed,” which it indeed was, you’ll have to compare his actions to presidential behavior before Nixon.

But setting aside this glaring idiocy, your argument, en toto, so far is that Nixon didn’t do anything that horrible (even though “how right and wrong” doesn’t matter) because Clinton and Bush did things that are sort of like what Nixon did (but not that bad).

Brilliant.

But, anyway, you’ve got it bass-ackwards, per usual, frame. The exact point is not how right or wrong it is, but that most, maybe all presidents do some variation of the same thing: use the power of the office for partisan political purposes. With a ten second Google, I showed you evidence of Bubba and Bush. So if sanctimonious progressives are going to make the case that Nixon is this watershed bad/evil president, he will have to be differentiated from the competition – something no one here, you included, has come close to doing.

And you know what? You won’t be able to do it. You are unable to think without your emotions getting scrambled. We all know when the discussion gets a little deep, you get insecure and resort to vulgar personal tirades. Thats when we know we gotcha’!

All hail Milhouse!!!

UNpacking this bullshit would take a lifetime so maybe you could clarify Dugger, which “partisan political investigation” was illegal?

I think you’ve shown a remarkable lack of principles, basic and otherwise, here Dugger.

You apparently forgot what you wrote above:

Your explanation of what Nixon actually did is to cite treatment of Bill Clinton two decades plus thereafter? Kinda makes my point. You do know Nixon came first, right?

Um, Dugger, all you’ve done here to defend Nixon is to site what Clinton did two decades plus thereafter. You do know Nixon came first?

What you’re now saying is that Nixon’s actions in 1972 are retroactively absolved/diminished because of what Clinton and Bush did over three decades later. Although even here, Clinton and Bush didn’t rise to the same level of criminality — using the office of president to obstruct justice — but rather acted in some vaguely similar way.

What you are now saying is that it was correct to excoriate Nixon for his actions right up until Clinton was elected, after which, Nixon had to be put into the proper “perspective.”

That’s an astonishingly flexible sense of right and wrong you have there Dugger. And in order to even apply in this instance you have to engage an equally astonishing degree of euphemism, replacing “obstruction of justice” with “partisan political purposes.”

It’s astonishing, simply astonishing that you think of yourself as hoilding some kind of moral highground just because you use astericks when you write “fuck.”

And Frank, if we held to your standard timeline of when its appropriate to assess historical importance we’d just now be getting around to judging whether fighting WWII was the right call. What a total moron.

Nixon used the power of the presidency to obstruct an investigation into illegal activities designed to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections.

Question 1. Which “Illegal activities”?
2. In what way were they “designed to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections”?

No one answered those questions in two summers of investigations — but I’m sure you can, right?

And, please don’t use the juvenile tactic of telling of me that if I don’t know, I’m an idiot.

And you called Dugger an idiot already.

Time it took you go from criticizing me for embedding an insult inside a comment to actually doing it to me == less than 2 days.
Congratulations on waiting so long.

In addition Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Juanita Borderick, and Gennifer Flowers were all audited by the IRS.
Billy Dale (remember him) was audited.

‘The IRS’ investigation is a clear act of political censorship. It is apparent that the current administration wants to suppress voices that oppose the war in Iraq and the Bush administration at large. This isn’t the first time an organization has been attacked for its views. After Julian Bond, the NAACP’s chairman, made negative remarks about the president in a speech at the group’s national convention, the NAACP received a letter from the IRS requesting information related to the speech.’

This all with a minimal amount of Googling.

So Clinton and Bush, it appears, used a government agency under his command for partisan poltiical purposes. Nixon used a government agency to try and cover up an investigation of an investigation of an illegal partisan political investigation.
You may be and a huge diffrence between the two sets of actions. I don’t. The basic proincipal is all the smae: using a gov. org. for partisan political purposes.

You know, this really baffles me. Nixon broke the law by obsturcting justice, Dugger. Should we tell children that when presidents break the law it’s no big deal because “All president’s do it.”

Wow. What character. What principles.