Peggy Noonan on the Democrats

[adios]

"The war then dragged on for many more years under a Republican president who claimed he had a "secret plan" to end the war."

Doubtful someone could get elected today on that kind of a "platform." In retrospect, in true Orwellian fashion his plan to end the war was an escalation of the carpet bombing of North Vietnam and widening the fronts to incursions into Cambodia and Laos (if memory serves). The 1968 Presidential campaign didn't offer the voters much to choose from. HHH represented the status quo which was horrible; RMN had a plan to end the war but wouldn't tell the electorate which furthered his reputation as "tricky Dick" and third party candidate George Wallace, with Curtis "bombs away" LeMay as his running mate, spouting "We need to quit pussy footin around over there" as if B-52 carpet bombing, napalm, agent orange, etc. was "pussy footin around." Wallace had some other distasteful ideas as well (huge understatement). In the end I guess the voters thought "tricky Dick" was the best alternative or the least reviled one.

[andyfox]

With the election getting close, the Nixon team sabotaged the Paris peace talks. They privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers than an incoming Nixon regime would give them a better deal than they would get from the Democrats. The South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election. Here is what Clark Clifford said about this:

"The activities of the Nixon team went far beyond the bounds of justifiable political combat. It constituted direct interference in the activities of the executive branch and the responsibilities of the Chief Executive, the only people with authority to negotiate on behalf of the nation. The activities of the Nixon campaign constituted a grosss, even potentially illegal, interference in the security affairs of the nation by private individuals."

Having got away with what I see as this act of treason, the Nixon team may well have felt that this undermining of the Democrat's Vietnam strategy had produced the margin of victory for them in a close election. They got away with it because the matter was never investigated with any degree of rigor by the press or anyone else. As the same men faced the election of 1972, there was nothing in their previous exprience with an operation of doubtful legality to scare them off. Ergo Watergate.

[adios]

After reading your post I was thinking that it's a good thing that USA citizens are much more skeptical of what their government tells them now. The fact that someone could actually win a presdential election with a secret plan that he wasn't willing to go on the record about indicates to me that the electorate is much different now. I can't imagine how much Nixon would have been skewered today by proposing something so outlandish today. My cynicism for "inside the beltway" politics is unfortunate and something that I probably need to think about some more. Anyway I'm fairly certain that an objective evaluation of Republican and Democratic congressional voting would show that there isn't as much difference between the two parties as some might believe. The way I see things is that the congressional Republicans acted poorly (non statesman like) during the Clinton administration (flame away) and that it had a tremendous polarizing effect. Couple that with the presidential election of 2000 and the two parties seem to be almost at war with each other. I don't think the congressional Democrats have acted very well during this administration (non statesman like). Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that much more bi-partesinship is needed, especially in these times. Perhaps Ms. Noonan should take note of the need for bi-partisenship as well.

[andyfox]

Surprise, surprise, I agree with 100% of what you say. I would add that the behavior of the Congressional Democrats during the impeachment was as shameful as that of the Republicans.