tarheel: You're right Nixon is an incredible egnima, in lots of ways.

Don't absolve Nixon (or Mitchell, or Haldeman or Erlichman, etc...). Watergate wasn't just low-level people taking things upon themselves. The low-level people who hatched the plans simply were not as high as those mentioned above. They were well educated, successful business or government people. Only the burglars themselves might be consider low-level.

Plausible deniability was a specific M.O. of Nixon and Mitchell. It allowed them to say time after time (with Mitchell saying it under oath), "To the best of my ability, I don't recall"

They knew exactly what to say to the people below them to get things moving without implicating themselves. All good bureaucrats do, when they want to push the envelope.

If you don't think so, ask Fred Thompson. He was Co-Chief Counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee.

Above Nixon's accomplishments with China are touted. That looked good for a couple of decades. In the long-term interests of the U. S. does it look so good now? Somebody blew it somewhere in the process. Who do we blame? Nixon? G. H. W. Bush? Clinton? or G. W. Bush?

Nixon only started to end the war in Viet Nam. Half of the U. S. deaths ocurred under Nixon and Kissinger's watch (and Ford, but that was by defult with him having to play with the cards dealt him). Credit to Nixon for ending the war is marginal at best. Having Kissinger as National security adviser and then Sec. of State caused the U. S. more problems over decades than any others in those positions. Rockefeller had it right when he was ready to can Kissinger on one of those ocassions when Kissinger threatend to resign. Nixon should have done it.

"At least the Fox shows offer dissenting and opposing opinion."

Ha! Haha! Hahahahahahahahahahaha! *wipes tears of laughter from cheeks*

Yeah... the Faux News talking heads "invite" a sacrificial liberal/progressive guest so that the host and other (conservative) guests can take turns beating thsm up to make themselves (and their viewers) feel superior.

Nixon was an incredible enigma. Think about it. If Watergate had not happened we'd be taking about the president that ended the Vietnam war, started a relationship with China, created the Environmental Protection Agency, created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, signed the first Clean Air Act, and signed the first Clean Water Act. What a total waste of his legacy for it to be forgotten because some low-level political operatives took it on themselves to spy on the other campaign when all the polls showed it would be a landslide for Nixon. Nixon didn't authorize the break-in but then he tried to cover it up. And that's what he's remembered for, not all the other accomplishments I listed.

Nixon was a good president, aside from Watergate.

He improved our relations with China, and we were respected around the world when he was president.

PJ - Che was fighting for the life and liberty of a people oppressed by the legacy of colonial Spain before you were born. Try reading a little about his life, and see if you can still sneer. Keep in mind, also, that the United States, during the Che years, featured such luminaries as Sam Giancana, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon. Those were different times, and if you would take off those ideological blinders you insist on wearing, you might learn something.
P.S. Che didn't destroy the Cuban economy. The U.S. blockade did a great deal of damage, which was only partially compensated by Soviet aid. To the extent that any one person is to blame, it would have to be Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and of course Castro.
P.P.S. Even though he is a sometimes brutal dictator, the life of the average Cuban is better under Castro than it was under Batista.

Check yo'self, ese...

Hey PJ- the rest of us just scroll past Che's posts (correct me if I'm wrong). Would be smart for you to do the same. After you climb down from Mt. Righteous.

Che was a mass murderer, the executioner of several thousands in Castro's revolution, who destroyed Cuba's economy under Castro and exported violence and death before dying himself in a stupid expedition to foment violence in Bolivia.

It is apropos that the stupid murderer Che is the nom de plume of leftwing crackpots...

"100 million people were killed under Communism and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

I agree that with the possible exception of Obama (who is still relatively unknown to many people), Richardson likely has the most upside potential as he becomes better known. In fact, I'd say it is a decent bet he passes up Edwards after the debates start, provided he does well of course.

I also look forward to Chris explaining at that point how Edwards in fourth position with single digit support is still a top tier candidate.

Yeah, and you gotta remember, Edwards is known, as is Hillary, yet he is still polling low. People have an opinion of him and he has abandoned those in the center for the lunatic fringe (sorry). Obama was unknown, Richardson still is unknown (for polling purposes), and has a lot to gain as people get to know him. Unless Richardson changes a tremendous amount, he will appeal to the middle of both parties. People know Edwards and except where he has done his trial lawyer schtick face to face in Iowa, is not really well liked or supported. I'm getting the feeling that even the Dem insiders find he is more than a little irritating. We in NC think he is a lot irritating.

Solidly agree with those comments about this being way too early to take polls very seriously.

However, Blarg makes a good point that poll results can "legitimize" a candidate, giving more coverage and attracting more campaign money.

Nonetheless, Iowa and New Hampshire are, I believe, at least as much about "retail" politics as they will be about war chests. The big-stakes media states like CA, NY and PA will be where the money makes the difference.

Hello Everyone, did you hear that over 6,000 people came to Washington DC for the Conservative Political Action Conference with face time of various candidates and speaking up for the people they see as GOP contenders for 2008?

Hundreds of the registered CPAC members know me as a CONDI 2008 activist, and asked for buttons, bumper stickers and other campaign items to take home to their states. The NUMBER ONE question was for me to read the tea leaves ..
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF CONDI'S STATEMENT ON ABC SUNDAY?

It was February 2006, similar to this:
"IF" I serve out the remainder of my term, it will have been 12 years since a white male has served as Secretary of State

So the people were curious about the word "IF". We agreed that Condi is a master wordsmith, and she could easily have said "WHEN" instead of "IF". THAT LEAVES WIGGLE ROOM FOR HER TO ENTER THE RACE.

Speaking of polls:
Our group is working to get Secretary of State Condi Rice on state ballots; building support in the early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Our website:
www.thinkcondi.net

Thank goodness for Zogby seeing Condi as a contender for 2008. Here it the latest Zogby poll of Feb. 26th:
Rudy 29%
McCain 20%
Romney 9%
Condi 7%
Newt 7%
Brownback 4%
Tancredo 1%
Hunter 1%

Among conservatives, the Zogby polls shows:
Romney 23%
Newt 22%.

On the second tier of conservatives, Condi wins 13% support, Brownback is
9%, Rudy is 4%, McCain is 3%.

www.thinkcondi.net has been buzzing since CPAC in DC; showing clear interest
in the efforts of our group to promote Condi Rice as a choice for
president in 2008.

The health problems of VP Cheney is also causing more buzz about Condi; quoting Larry Sabato.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT
20070306c.html

For decent reporting on polls, I recommend both pollster.com and RealClearPolitics. I find the best way to get a sense of polling trends (whatever they might mean this far out) is to look at their aggregation of polls.

By the way, Chris's pro-Edwards bias is showing itself once again. He argues that Edwards doing well in Iowa makes him a first tier candidate. Conveniently, he fails to mention Edwards not doing well in states like New Hampshire and Nevada.

Turning to the next paragraph, he says "national profile" is helping Clinton and Obama. And how is the Democrat's 2004 nominee for Vice President doing? How exactly did the junior Senator from Illinois manage to get a higher "national profile" than that guy (whatever his name might be)?

Finally, Chris argues a little later that recent visits by candidates can skew voter polls in individual states. So what exactly does that say about the significance of Edwards camping out in Iowa and then only polling well in Iowa?

Chris, at some point you need to come to grips with reality: your guy Edwards is in deep trouble. As the 2004 VP nominee and with absolutely no distractions from campaigning for the last 2+ years, at this early stage he should be leading this field or at least on a par with Clinton. The fact that Clinton has performed as expected in these polls but Edwards has not, and the fact that Obama has passed him by, shows exactly how weak a candidate Edwards has been so far.

Chris, good to see you comment on the likely voter/registered voter gap. As something of an Obama partisan, I think it's important that while RV polls show him down on average by something like 15%, LV polls show him down in the mid-single digits (the last two I saw were 3% and 8%). Very different spin on reporting between those two stories.

Every time I read the phrase "parse the polls" on here, it makes me feel like throwing my computer out the window.

Can you think of a less cliche phrae please? That one is getting old.

Thanks.

I have never seen or heard "Air America", but I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the others as well. Fox is by far the one with the most inaccurate "stories", if you will. The opinion shows are something else, I prefer Olbermann over O'reilly, but watch both on a regular basis. These early polls are pretty well as CC points out and should not be given a lot of weight, this early.

Thanks Chris for perpetuating everything that is wrong with political journalism. How easy it must be to report poll results as opposed to any substantive reporting. Hack.

Olby's worse, worser, and worst, angrier too. Rush is a marshmellow in comparison! lol

'that angry, wacked out Olberman ' -- you mean like that angry, wacked out OReilly?

Well, I'm sorry, 'reason' but even if, here and there, some integrity creeps out of Fox, by and large it is not credible. There are some very intelligent and rational people on Air america too, but I doubt YOU consider it 'fair and balanced'.

RE: THE HORSE RACE. No poll can in anyway compare to the scientific accuracy of an exit poll. The 2000 and 2004 exit polls showed that Bush lost. But, starting with a phone call from Jeb Bush to Fox TV, that is not the result America got. So please don't make us laugh about polls two years before another dubious election.

I agree with the others who have said that polls are meaningless this far from the election. But they're not just meaningless; they're dangerous.

There are a lot of people in both parties who care more about winning the election than electing the best candidate. So they'll support the candidate who does best in the polls. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: A candidate polls well, so he gets more money and news coverage, which leads to more support and better poll numbers.

The problem is that this shuts out smaller candidates. Take Bill Richardson. He's behind in the extremely preliminary polls, so the media barely interrupts their Hillaryfest to mention him. Same goes for Republican candidates like Hunter and Paul; most people don't even know they're running. If you listen to the current polls, there's no point in supporting anyone but Giuliani. And that focus on celebrity politicians with major name recognition is really hurting the primary system.

Off topic but...Whats with all the Fox News descrimination. Don't count O'Reilly and Hannity and of course Combs as news. They are opinion and analysis shows. Not News and not intended to be new. News is Brit Hume, Shepard Smith, and others, and they are fair and less tilted to the right than CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. are tilted to the left. Do you guys call Hardball and that angry, wacked out Olberman news? At least the Fox shows offer dissenting and opposing opinion. Olby doesn't, and Matthews does so rarley, and shouts them down if he disagrees (even more vehemently than O'Reilly).

I agree with REASON to some extent, Fox News Sunday is one of the most balanced Sunday talk shows.

I do also agree with drindl in the fact that Fox News does represent a conservative spin on the news.

Finally, IT DOESN'T MATTER! Fox News has twice the viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined. Whether or not Fox News is fair and balanced really becomes immaterial, it is the best way to reach the most viewers. All of the news channels will cover a debate... and on Fox News people might actually watch it!

Fox news is not a propaganda machine. You ever watch Fox new Sunday? Juan Williams and Mara Liason are far from right-winged hacks.

I think national polls are important, but at this early stage before the campaign has grown long and dirty, they are certainly no indicator of who may emerge the winner. What's even more troubling than nominating polls, are potential "head-to-head" polls. What a joke!

Hey Judge, I agree. I'll go farther--Tremblay's post is obnoxious, off topic and won't be read by anybody. Links are one thing--I do it myself--but you can't hijack a thread with a tome.

Back to THE issue: just when you thought the way the US chooses a president cannot get any worse. Chris, I adore you, but how can this be called a "horse race" when the primaries are a full year off?

Remember Dean, McCain, Cuomo, Hart, Forbes, Gephardt...all one-time front runners that faded into the abyss. It's a disservice--let's scrutinize the issues as much as we do these semi-meaningless polls. Please.

Now my (short) plug, a different take on Scootergate: "Malice in Wonderland"
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/commentary.php?p=251

...Despite the tawdry behavior of our President's men, I must admit to rolling my eyes at the Wilsons for every time I've gnashed my teeth at the White House. The couple has embraced their celebrity with gusto and in the process provided the right with yet another diversion from the fundamental question...

Fox News is not a media outlet, it is a propaganda machine, bankrolled by an avowed 'conservative' and led by a republican strategist. There is nothing comparable on the left. It is purely political and has nothing to do with any sort of 'jounalism'.

Since what appears on Fox often purposefully contradicts or twists the facts, [like when a screen crawl identified Scooter Libby's verdict as 'innocent' -- I have to wonder why DC pundits legitimize it. But then I don't think there's too much intellectual heavy lifting going on among the pundit class.

So could we please stop pretending they are legitimate? It's a pathetic joke.

"Second, the samples used by nearly every major media outlet (Fox News is the lone exception) are comprised of adults"

Makes you wonder who Fox News is polling?

National Polls at this stage, and any stage really are a waste of time and effort. The way these polls are worded is like this "Out of this list of candidates for the Republican nomination who do you support? John McCain, Sam Brownback, Rudy....."
And then Wow 35% of people know Rudy Guiliani's name. Does that help his fund-raising, sure. But for trying to predict the election you would have a better chance reading Tea leaves.

Geez, I feel like I should apologize for posting on topic.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1837.shtml

Decadence, waste, corruption in the new American Empire [Part II]

By Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer

"The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors." --Plutarch (c. 46 A.D.-127 A.D.)

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." --Plutarch (c. 46 A.D.-127 A.D.)

"It should be no surprise that when rich men take control of the government, they pass laws that are favorable to themselves. The surprise is that those who are not rich vote for such people, even though they should know from bitter experience that the rich will continue to rip off the rest of us. Perhaps the reason is that rich men are very clever at covering up what they do." --Andrew Greeley

Corruption and moral bankruptcy take many forms. They are usually the end results of an insatiable lust for money, power and privilege, above and beyond any common decency. And money in politics is at the nexus of nearly all forms of corruption.

In the United States, for example, big money is so central to politics and to the functioning of political parties that anybody running for high office, even if he or she is personally a millionaire, is obliged to court those who have the big cash. Many good candidates thus refuse to enter into or soon bow out of presidential races, because they do not want to submit to this kind of prostitution. As a consequence of the deals that must be made to raise the huge amounts of money required to be successful, it is difficult for any administration not to get entangled in a web of scandals. Indeed, big cash is the key to influence in Washington D.C., and cash used to bribe politicians ultimately leads to greed and scandals. It happened to the Nixon administration (Watergate scandal), the Carter administration (Lance scandal), the Reagan administration (Iran-Contra scandal), the George H. W. Bush administration (Iraqgate scandal) and now to the George W. Bush administration.

There was the Enron scandal, the Abramoff scandal, and the Tom DeLay scandal. In the aftermath of the Enron scandal, for example, it was made public that Enron spent a total of $5.8m on American federal elections, over a period of 12 years, with 73 percent of the money going to Republicans. Seventy-one out of 100 senators and 188 out of 435 House members benefited from the company's largesse. President George W. Bush himself, a staunch opponent of any campaign finance reform, received $826,000 from this single Texas company over a period of eight years, since he first ran for governor of that state. This seems to be all part of a pervasive culture of corruption.

The revelation that super lobbyist Jack Abramoff offered $100,000 to meet President George W. Bush and top adviser Karl Rove to push for legislation of his liking is an indication how things can degenerate quickly, even in the most solid democracy. Super lobbyist Abramoff was one of George W. Bush's principal fundraisers, making him and honorary Bush "Pioneer." And, in what is typically American, both Abramoff and DeLay said that 'God' was somewhat behind their actions. -For one, Abramoff confessed that "I felt that the resources coming into my hands were the consequence of God putting them there. "And, in DeLay's words, "I firmly believe I'm innocent of the charges against me. We believe that God in fact is in control and indeed he does work all things for good for those who love the Lord." This is an indication that for some, religion and political corruption do mix.

In fact, what money buys in Washington, D.C., is access to those in positions of power, direct influence on the framing of public policies and preferential allotment of jobs and juicy contracts. Corruption of civil servants and Congress by lobbyistsfollows. Political corruption quickly becomes a vicious cycle: The corrupters select the politicians they want to see in office by dumping tons of money into their campaigns, while the politicians thus selected are anxious to pay back their benefactors by opening jobs of influence and by dishing out rewarding contracts to them. And the wheel turns. In particular, why do you think all leading Democratic presidential hopefuls this year aren't against an unprovoked American attack on Iran? It is because the big money contributors they are soliciting are pro-Israel hard-liners. Those who pay make the policy. That may be the overriding reason why 60 percent of Americans do not bother to vote come election time. They are not apathetic; they only know that plutocracy is not democracy and that there is not a chance in hell that the system can reform itself. Plutocracy is government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. This is a far cry from the Lincolnian view of democracy of "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

When Paul Wolfowitz, the principal technical architect of the war against Iraq, went from the U.S. Defense department to preside over the World Bank, the world had a vivid demonstration how corrupt the American political system could be. Wolfowitz had no formation (political science) or experience in finance, but was nevertheless named to be president of the important World Bank for services rendered.

Another example is the curious spectacle of Dick Cheney, a member of the American Enterprise Institute and a former CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, who, in 2001, chose himself to be George W. Bush's vice president (he was Bush's vice presidential search committee) and, as chairman of the president elect's transition team, found himself in charge of naming most of the high officials in the new Bush administration. How could he manage to do that, one may legitimately ask? Also, why did George W. Bush, on March 25, 2003, sign executive order 13292, giving Cheney the power to declassify intelligence and granting the greatest expansion of the power of the vice president in US history? Why did Dick Cheney end up having so much power within the Bush administration that George W. Bush once even joked about 'President Cheney'?No political scientist that we know of has found satisfactory answers to these questions.

Another form of corruption in America may be derived from the first type. It comes from the fact that while the super rich gorge themselves on cost-plus military contracts and tax cuts, the poorest Americans are becoming relatively poorer. Indeed, economic inequality in the U.S. has increased markedly between 1979 and 2006: During this time, more than a quarter century, incomes adjusted for inflation of those at the top increased 34 percent, incomes of those at the median increased by 11.5 percent and incomes of those at the bottom have remained about stagnant, increasing a meager 4 percent over 27 years. Recent reports have also shown that the percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high as the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" has continued to widen.

In 2005, for example, 35 million Americans went without enough to eat. This is due to the fact that 13 million American children, or 17.8 percent, were living in severe poverty. And, with the cost of health care increasing each year by two digits, some 47 million Americansfind themselves in the precarious situation of not being covered by any health insurance, all the while their government is wasting billions and billions around the world.

But perhaps the most insidious corruption in a democracy occurs when elected officials are not truthful with the people and rely on lies and propaganda rather than truth in the public discourse. Then confidence and trust are destroyed, and so is the moral fiber of the nation.

Such public corruption is often accompanied by the corruption that feeds political corruption, the corruption of the media. When the government and the media are both corrupted, all the other forms of corruption follow. The increasingly incestuous relationshipthat exists between large segments of American media and the government is a harbinger of things to come. Indeed, propaganda machines seem to have replaced genuine investigative journalism in many media organizations where a cohort of "useful idiots"and yelling village idiots feel free to engage in public campaigns of disinformation and of outright lies.

When this happens, confusion and disarray result, and this is when the worst mistakes are made. The 2001-2007 episode will go down in history as such an instance when the American people were lied to, both by the Bush-Cheney administration and by the major American media.

This has led, indeed, to a show of massive incompetenceand to the monstrous American moral and financial corruption, which has been observed in Iraq, where the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith-Bremer wrecking crew went on a rampage that did great and irreparable harm, not only to Iraq, its economy and its people, but also to the United States, to Americans and to the international system of law and justice. The gross misuse of money, the suspension of the right of "Habeas Corpus" and the reliance on torture techniques in occupied Iraq (Abu Ghraib) are only the tip of the iceberg of what has the potential to be one of the biggest corruption scandals in American history.
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'"". Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Hugo Chavez paid Rudy Giuliani's Law Firm $250,000: http://www.solidpolitics.com

"Remember that we are still more than 300 days away from the Iowa caucuses, so how a candidate looks today in a national poll isn't terribly predictive of how he or she will finish in the Hawkeye State and beyond."

True, but like a itch you just love to scratch, many of us (including CC) can't help citing such polls as evidence supporting our favorite biases.