Why were Dems back in 1972-74 able remove a corrupt president - yet today can't?

[RiverStone]

Back on June 17, 1972 five dudes were arrested after breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, D.C. A little over 2 years later (August 9, 1974), President Nixon resigned. Ultimately, the attempted cover-up of the break-in reached all the way up the ranks to the president. They nailed him, though as we know Ford gave him a pardon.

Those on the Hill back then did their homework and pulled no punches to see justice was served!

From Wiki:

Investigations conducted by the FBI, Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the press revealed that this burglary was just one of many illegal activities authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff and those loyal to him. They also revealed the immense scope of crimes and abuses, which included campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations.<1> This secret fund was also used as hush money to buy silence of the seven men who were indicted for the June 17 break-in.<2><3> President Nixon and his staff conspired to cover up the break-in as early as six days after it occurred. <4> After enduring two years of mounting evidence against the President and his staff, which included former staff members testifying against them in a Senate investigation, it was revealed that Nixon had a tape recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.<5><6> Undeniable evidence, spoken by Nixon and recorded on tape, revealed that he had obstructed justice and attempted to cover up the break-in.<4><7>

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Certainly, the degree and depth of crimes committed by Shrub's regime today exceed even those from the Nixonian era.

QUESTION: What did the Dems have back in 1972-1974 that the Dems don't have today? Why were folks so successful in bringing a corrupt president to his knees in 1974 and yet almost 34 years later, the BushCo regime commits worse crimes with immunity?

Any ideas?

[magellan]

1. It's not that they can't. It's that they won't. n/t

[karlrschneider]

2. No way to know what would have happened if Tricky Dicky hadn't resigned...

...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

3. GAK! Read history. Jeez! nt

[RiverStone]

8. I did - apparently, history did not teach our current leaders a damn thing...

That's why I asked.

Someone or many someones back then had the guts to call an administration out for multiple crimes. I ask, why can't (or won't) our current leaders do the same thing? Was it that those in opposition leadership back in the early 70's had guts, or is it that our leaders today have none?

[baldguy]

4. Because they weren't alone.

Honorable Republicans joined them in defending the Constitution from it's domestic enemies.

The neocons have spent the last 30 yrs ensuring that will never happen again.

[jaysunb]

5. 2 reasons

They still somewhat believed in the principles of the Constitution and there were lots of "principled Republicans."

[helderheid]

6. Media consolidation. n/t

[Mike03]

7. Republicans helped, believe it or not.

The removal of Nixon was not a partisan effort. A number of very prominent, powerful Republicans led the effort, sorry to report.

Unfortunately, that was a more intricate and positive situation, where back in the days Republicans had some morals, like Dems do now. Those days are apparently gone.

But it's an intelligent question; one for which I didn't know the answer until relatively recently.

[RiverStone]

11. Thanks...seems that's the common denominator

Up-thread a few others said the same thing. There actually were some republicans back then who did not march in lock-step and were NOT willing to be complicit to the crimes.

Maybe that alone is a key difference between then and now?

DU's always good for a quick history lesson! :applause:

[Mike03]

15. I wish I had some good sources for you.

Let me try to find something.

My major source on this is the John Rothmann show, on KGO radio out of San Francisco, on 810 AM.

He worked for Nixon but later became a liberal Dem, but he has a huge library on presidents and politics, and a few weeks ago he did have an author on his program who had written a biography about a repuke who turned against Nixon and led the effort for his impeachment.

Let me try to find the name... BRB

[zanne]

21. It was a time of fewer extremists on both sides. nt

Even though Vietnam raged, the House and Senate wasn't nearly as partisan as it is today. Republicans weren't so extreme that they made even moderate Democrats look like Marxists.

[Mike03]

9. K & R by the way NT

[fenriswolf]

10. because a corrupt congress

cannot police a corrupt administration. they are to busy hiding their own tracks.

[indepat]

19. Because the corrupt and venal Congress is so corrupt and venal,

far too few can be found who love their country and its Constitution more than their own personal/political hides and are willing to uphold their oaths of office by fulfilling their constitutional duties.

[petepillow]

12. technology. it's a whole new game, now! NT

[Richard Steele]

13. In those days, Repubs still had a semblance of HONOR, and respect for the LAW.

It was a very different world in those days.

[WinkyDink]

14. Nobody ever wanted to drink a beer with Nixon.

[enid602]

16. two words

Two words. Barbara. Jordan.

[Botany]

17. Because you had the "rule of law."

And after the facts came out Berry Goldwater & Hugh Scott told Nixon
it was time to "get out." Also an honest Supreme Court helped too.
And the media did it's job too.

[Jacobin]

18. media consolidation

It really is just that simple.
(google who owns the major news outlets)

[DaveinMD]

20. Democrats didn't

A vigilant media and honorable Republicans did. Nixon was done when Goldwater said he couldn't support him anymore.

[OHdem10]

22. Very Simple, There was no DLC. You had real Democrats

and larger number of them.

Also the Republicans made the first moves--Goldwater, etc.

The GOP realized the Dems would not back down so they stepped
forward and took the lead themselves.

[stevedeshazer]

23. They could. They won't. They can't.

Nixon's Republicans were liberals by today's standards. The Sixties, despite all the rumors today, meant something, namely that bullshit in government officials would no longer be tolerated, hence the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976.

All but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are much farther to the right than the liberal Republicans of Nixon's day. I live in Oregon, and then we had two liberal Republican U.S. senators, Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood, and a progressive Republican governor in Tom McCall.

All but the most left-leaning Democratic politicians in this state today are to the right of those guys.

The last 35 years, America has moved so far to the right, I don't even recognize it. But you had to be there to notice.

[pitohui]

24. media today is held by GOP interests

i thought everyone knew that

going after our godly leaders would result in being britney-ized

[jpgray]

25. Stronger majority in Congress in terms of numbers and unity, a more independent media

Without those two things, it's exceedingly difficult.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. For decades repukes have been taking over using every trick in their bag

Carefully cultivating Christians to vote right wing by promising Christians that they'd force Christianity down our throats through laws, slowly taking away our freedoms and giving them to corporations and the rich, through hiring marketing firms to use slogans and tricks to destroy all things lib and demonizing groups that generally voted Dem, by promising corporations all kinds of breaks and special rights in exchange for money to run Repukes for office, and so much more.

Now they're firmly entrenched like a cancer in our country. We have to cauterize them before there's going to be any sort of democracy again.

[zbdent]

27. Nixon didn't have the lapdog press that Bush has now ...

and the Repukes were finally realizing that Nixon was so fucking guilty that they would lose ALL credibility if they kept trying to defend him ...

[Ivan Sputnik]

28. It was "country before party" back then

among Republicans. It's the opposite now. And you really need some bipartisanship to have an impeachment that the public would support, I think.

[HughMoran]

The Tapes

.

[damntexdem]

29. Wasn't that before the spine removal?

Not that they had enough spine back then, but at least they had some.

[AZBlue]

30. Lots of reasons, first one being they didn't remove him, he resigned.

But beyond that, members of his administration and others involved came forward and admitted what had happened. Plus, the media actually did their job then (not just Woodward and Bernstein, although they certainly played a big role). And, the GOP was a totally different party - and GOP members of congress weren't scared to vote for the truth like they are today.