Showing posts with label Richard Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Nixon. Show all posts

Monday, December 02, 2019

TRUMP - Impeachment Update

"The latest from the impeachment inquiry, including new transcripts and a court ruling" PBS NewsHour 11/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  More transcripts from closed-door impeachment hearings were released Tuesday, providing new insight into how aid to Ukraine was delayed -- and why.  Meanwhile, a federal court ruled witnesses subpoenaed in the impeachment inquiry must testify, noting that "Presidents are not kings.”  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss these developments and news from the House Judiciary Committee.




"How Nixon, Clinton and Johnson dealt with the threat of impeachment" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Impeachment is a rare event in American politics.  Amid the past few weeks of public hearings, we have wondered how this episode compares to previous instances of impeachment.  Amna Nawaz spoke with three historians, each focused on a former president who had to grapple with that threat: Peter Baker on Bill Clinton, Timothy Naftali on Richard Nixon, and Brenda Wineapple on Andrew Johnson.



Monday, May 02, 2016

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "Getting to Green"

"Can environmentalism become a bipartisan movement again?" PBS NewsHour 4/25/2016

COMMENT:  Fred Rich doesn't understand.  $Big-Money has BOUGHT today's Republican Party (thanks to industry's totally owned subsidiary "U.S. Supreme Court") heart and soul, and $Big-Money' is against anything the hinders their greed.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Though now one of the most politically divisive issues in the country, the environmental movement once enjoyed strong support from both Democrats and Republicans.  In his new book “Getting to Green,” author Fred Rich asserts that a return to those bipartisan roots is key for future success.  Rich joins Hari Sreenivasan for more.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Last Friday, Earth Day was celebrated for the 47th time since its inception in 1970.  From the beginning, the environmental movement had strong support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Returning to the movement’s bipartisan roots is key for future success, says Fred Rich.

I recently spoke to rich for this latest addition to the "NewsHour Bookshelf."

Fred Rich, thanks for joining us.

FRED RICH, Author, “Getting to Green”:  You’re welcome Hari.  I’m glad to be here.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  You have been a corporate lawyer for 30 years and worked with industry that perhaps the green movement wouldn’t find friendly.

And, on the other hand, you have been a conservationist for just as long working with land trusts.  So, where are you coming at this book from?

FRED RICH:  When I criticize the green movement and call them on some of their recent failings, so they know it’s from a position of solidarity, right, I mean, complete sympathy with the goals.

I want to see the green movement succeed.  So they know that I’m coming at it from that side.  Equally, the right at least knows I was a registered Republican until 2012, pretty solid fiscal conservative.  It breaks my heart to see that the conservative movement in America has really abandoned a century of tradition of support for conservation of the environment.

So, I hope each side will have something they don’t like and I hope that there’s something equally that each side sees that it does like.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  I want to pull up a quote from a State of the Union address:  “Shall we make peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our land, to our air, and to our water?  It has become a common cause of all people of this country, clean air, open spaces.  These should once again be the birthright of every American.”

This was 1970.  It was Richard Nixon delivering this.

FRED RICH:  Correct.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  To bipartisan applause.

FRED RICH:  Correct.  It was amazing.

Richard Nixon, who I have to say was no nature lover, but he was a very savvy politician.  And Richard Nixon believed that clean air and clean water was a cause that transcended class, it transcended party.  He was very nervous that the Democrats not get out front on environment.

And he was dealing in 1970 with deep divisions in the country from the civil rights movement and especially at that moment the Vietnam War.  And Nixon had the idea that environment could heal those wounds, that environment was an issue that would bring both sides together.  Pretty ironic, given where we are today.

Monday, August 11, 2014

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 8/8/2014

"Shields and Brooks on Iraq reluctance, Nixon’s legacy" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s top news, including U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq, how Americans are grading President Obama’s foreign policy performance, plus how men and women are hoping for different outcomes in November’s election, and looking back at Richard Nixon.

Monday, April 16, 2007

POLITICS - Conservatism's Failure Revisited

"Conservatism's third failure" by Robert Kuttner, Boston Globe

THREE TIMES in my political adulthood, we have seen the exhaustion of a conservative ideology and presidency. Under Presidents Nixon and Bush II, the ingredients were corruption, corporate excess, and overreach of presidential power. During the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, the hallmark was the failure of conservative economics.

And twice, the electorate ousted Republicans only to get centrist Democrats, who ran more competent administrations but did little to redress the structure of financial inequality in America.

Now, the third era of conservative Republican rule is collapsing -- with the most spectacular mélange of overreach, incompetence, economic distress, and sheer corruption of all. But who, and what, will succeed Bush? The forces of privilege and inequality are now so deeply entrenched in America that it will take a Democratic successor at least as bold as FDR or LBJ to change course.

"But who, and what, will succeed Bush?" IS the question. American voters need to think hard on this..... well, MAYBE NOT unless he/she is brain-dead.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

POLITICS - Interesting Comments From John Dean

"An Interview with John Dean" by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive


Dean was Nixon’s White House counsel for three years and then testified against him. He is the author, most recently, of “Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush.” On March 31, Dean testified in favor of Senator Russ Feingold’s censure bill. The interview was conducted on April 28 by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine. You can listen to the interview at http://progressive.org/radio_dean06.

Q: Tell me what you’re lasting impressions are of Richard Nixon.

Dean: In a way, he’s a comic figure. In other ways, he’s a tragic figure. I have a memory of a very complex man locked in my synapses.

Q: How long did you work for him?

Dean: A thousand days. When you listen to him on the tapes, he would be one person with his chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, he’d be somebody else with Henry Kissinger, he’d be somebody else with me. He had these different personae. I don’t think he ever had great administrative skills for the Presidency. He was slow to interact with his staff. He was very stiff. It was kind of like walking onto a set of an Oval Office when I used to first go into see him. But later on I’d walk in and he’d have his feet on the desk and he’d be talking to me around his shoes.

He was uneasy. In fact, one of the interesting things about Nixon is that we had to prepare something called talking papers for him. Anytime we brought someone in the office to meet the President, because he had a zero gift of gab, you literally had to have a few sentences, buzzwords, thoughts, so he could start a conversation with this person. Alex Butterfield, who ushered more people into the office than anybody else, told me that occasionally if Nixon didn’t have this he was literally speechless.

Q: I’m very interested in the comparisons you make between Nixon and Bush.

Dean: Both mean learned about the Presidency from men they greatly respected: Richard Nixon from Dwight Eisenhower, George Bush from his father. When both men became President, you got the very distinct impression that they don’t feel that they quite fit in the shoes of the person from whom they learned about the Presidency. Nixon would constantly be going down to Key Biscayne, San Clemente, or Camp David—he just didn’t like being in the Oval Office. I saw this same thing with George Bush, who is constantly away. The other striking similarity is that both men talk in the third person about the office of the President. It’s like the royal we. You look at other Presidents, like Reagan and Clinton, who clearly filled that office. You almost had to pry Clinton out at the end of his term. And Reagan, despite whatever weaknesses he had intellectually, filled the role of President and played it to the hilt. So Bush has a Nixonian distance from the White House.

And I was stunned at the secrecy of this Administration. I knew that there’s no good that can come out of secrecy. So I began looking closely at Bush and finding the striking Nixonian features of this Presidency: It’s almost as if we’d left an old playbook in the basement, they found it, dusted it off, and said, “This stuff looks pretty good, we ought to give it a try.” As I dug in, and still had some pretty good sources within that Presidency, I found the principal mover and shaker of this Presidency is clearly Dick Cheney, who is not only reviving the Imperial Presidency but expanding it beyond Nixon’s wildest dreams.

The reason I wrote a book with the title “Worse than Watergate,” and I was very cautious in using that title, is because there was a real difference: Nobody died as a result of the so-called abuses of power during Nixon’s Presidency. You might make the exception of, say, the secret bombing of Cambodia, but that never got into the Watergate litany per se. You look at Bush’s abuses, and Cheney’s—to me, it’s a Bush/Cheney Presidency—and today, people are dying as a result of abuse of power. That’s much more serious.

Q: Dying in Iraq?

Dean: Dying in Iraq. God knows where they’re dying. In secret prisons. To me the fact that a Vice President can go to Capitol Hill and lobby for torture is just unbelievable. Just unbelievable! The fact that a small clique of attorneys in the Department of Justice can write how can we get around the Geneva Conventions so that we can torture during interrogations—I can’t even get their mentally. And when you read their briefs, they didn’t get there mentally.


That last sentence, "And when you read their briefs, they didn’t get there mentally." Of course they don't, they are just power hungry. Their minds are warped by the old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely."