On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:35:45 -0800, Dr. Bipolar wrote:

Woods

I disagree with your disagreement. When anyone in this nation, under
the Constitution's law, commits a crime, they are subject to
punishment. Punishment isn't defined by simply being publicly
'disgraced' while in a lofty power position, but serving out a sentence
pronounced by a fair jury and honorable judge commensurate with the
nature of the crime. If any of us in much lesser societal positions
committed much lesser crimes, we'd often have more than just some
'public disgrace' to face -- we'd face jail, fines, rehab, educational
courses, and/or probation. Nixon's 'punishment', so to speak, was
determined out of the court, essentially by those in the political
arena, many who were close to him. When Nixon died, I could hardly
believe the eulogies, and media coverage, breezing over what he had
done in office. They buried a criminal of high crimes and misdemeanors
that day that never went to court, never served any kind of sentence,
paid a fine...what justice is that?
If the rest of us merely lost our jobs for thumbing our nose at
violating the basic rights of others, we'd have little or no need for
correctional institutions, fines, probationary periods, et al. Are you
suggesting that we can commit crimes against the rights of others,
protected by the Constitution, and then be faced with public disgrace
and unemployment? Well, with the rich elite, unemployment hardly brings
any hardship, and the the public disgrace may make them feel
humbled...but it's simply not enough.

All he did was take part in a cover-up of a burglary, after the fact.
Given that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Little Shrub aren't even getting a slap
on
the wrist, I think resigning from office was adequate for his
participation in that.

Now, if you want to talk about using the FBI as his personal goon squad,
that's another thing, but it wasn't anything being considered at the
time.

This nation, by a

majority according to recent polls, doesn't want

Congress to forge ahead with an impeachment of Bush (and any adjacent
criminal proceedings that may result). I guess we're willing to forego
even a serious inquiry into Constitutional violations of privacy and
executive power and general abuse of power (resulting in much death,
disability, and injury), negligence, and lying and covering, in order
that the nation be spared the purported 'unbearable' spectacle of
having
Bush face 'public disgrace' or be reminded that there exists a
double-standard for the rich and powerful. Clinton got what he deserved
-- a House impeachment vote, even though it failed. Perjury is serious,
but the crimes of this current President reach far beyond that point.
Clinton lied, but no nobody died, as they say. You may feel
comfortable
not having to wade through the daily media obsessing about a prolonged
reexamination of the hypocrisy of our system, but I think that is the
relatively small price we have to pay for true justice and fairness to
be exercised under our constitutional due process. Either the law is
fair and just for all, or it is not. Convenience or what merely 'feels
good' to us that replaces that process is neither fair nor just.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, and crew served sentences...and so should
have Nixon. I say 'Hang 'em HIgh!' LOL!!

Nixon's participation in an ongoing coverup of the Watergate burglary
didn't affect anything. Nor did Clinton's little fling. The same
cannot
be said for Reagan, Bush Sr. or Shrub. They destabilized the world and
got Americans killed. I consider that much more serious and worthy of
extended prosecution than what Nixon did.

And, I don't want to mention that Jerry Ford couldn't debate Jimmy
Carter well at all, and lost points galore on his presentation and
demeanor. He was often portrayed as a rather dull, not particularly
smart man, who was characterized as Nixon's 'revenge.'

Carter was kind of dull, too. Most politicians are kind of dull, now
that I come to think of it.

Yes, he was. There have been few Presidents that have been 'exciting'
and I don't think administrators' prerequisites for the job have to
include a dynamic personality, but voters are beguiled by personal
charisma, historically. For instance, Bush's speeches and general
demeanor represent nothing more than the standard politician's
repertiore...yet the dramatic events of 9-11 have helped increase his
appeal, mainly due to his reliance on simplified idealism and fairly
effective exploitation of the public's fears. I haven't seen a really
charismatic President since Kennedy. Maybe Obama will be the black
equivalent of JFK, but I seriously doubt it. People are naturally
looking for another 'messiah' right now in politics -- they're upset
and
disillusioned. If you notice what I said about Ford regarding his
pre-presidential role in investigating the UFO mystery, I have some
praise for his character. He wasn't a bad guy as President for his
short
term, overall. His act of letting Nixon off the hook stank to high
hell,
though, and I remember well the public's outrage over it. I had a lot
of
company back then, but the passage of decades obscure it now. There is
a
cult of sorts in this culture that protects the priveleged and
powerful,
while they wreak havoc, death, and misery on the populace with their
greed, lies, corruption, megalomania, madness, etc. I'm not a
card-carrying cult member. Nor do I uphold making eulogies ridiculously
lop-sided; the good and the bad should be mentioned so that we resist
the glorification of any human being. We're not glorious, exclusively.
We're a combo plate. LOL!! Dr. Bipolar

I agree. I detest seeing people who were badmouthing someone a month
ago
stand up with tears streaming down their faces and going on and on about
what a perfect person the deceased was. I mean, sheesh!

Woods