Watergate burglars don't get caught

Paul V McNutt

Banned
They had been there once before on May 28, 1972,and did not get caught. They did get caught because of thier own stupidity. They taped a door and ran the tape so it was visible from the outside. A security guard saw it and called the police. They also fell victim to an act of chance. The dispatcher called the nearest patrol officer, who said I am low on gas can someone else take this call. The dispatcher said no problem there is a squad of undercover narcotics detectives in the neighborhood. I will send them. When the burglar's lookout saw the police, he saw a bunch of casualy dressed men getting out of an ordinary looking car. He thought that there was nothing to report. If Nixon does not have to cover up the burglary, he stays in office. Without the distraction of Watergate he can work on his health care plan. It passes with Democratic votes and angers conservative Republicans. This anger helps Reagan win the nomination in 1976. Reagan loses. He is of the presidents party in bad economic times. His Democratic opponent does not have to play defense. He can attack Reagan for his unpopular views, like his opposition to Medicare. I don't know who the Democrat is. I know it is not Jimmy Carter. He can't win without Watergate.
 

RySenkari

I think possibly Muskie or Jerry Brown would run in '76? I see Muskie as being the most likely and I imagine it would have been pretty close between him and Reagan.
 

galanx

Assuming Agnew still has to resign, Nixon could have a much stronger vice-president: Senators Hatfield ( Oregon); Tower (Texas); Schweiker (Penn); Baker (Tenn); or a Republican Governor.

With a health care plan implemented by a Republican, conservatives are not going to be angry- think President Romney 2009 introducing a free-market system just like they have in Massachusetts, not some Democratic "big-government" scheme.

Given that the 70s oil crisis and stagflation will still happen, it's going to be uphill for a Republican- but barring another massive scandal the nominee is not going to be that wack-job Ronald Reagan (as the R Party powers-that-be will call him).
 

Carl Schwamberger

galanx said:
...

With a health care plan implemented by a Republican, conservatives are not going to be angry- think President Romney 2009 introducing a free-market system just like they have in Massachusetts, not some Democratic "big-government" scheme.

....
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this would actually accelerate the rightward trend in the Republican party, with centrist candidates increasingly rejected in the primaries and new centerist politicians attracted to the Democratic party. One of the things I recall from the 1960s is how Medicare and the other social spending programs of the Johnson administration turned many of the middle class adults I knew into table pounding anti government conservatives.

While medical care would be popular there would also be resentment over another pay contribution and the manditory nature of this. If the medical costs are seen as cheaper due to the insurance scheme then the anti mandate conservatives wont gain much traction, but if the cost is comonly seen as a burden then we could se the trend towards a hard right Republican party accelerate in the 1970s
 

Carl Schwamberger

darthfanta said:
The US will probably return to South Vietnam when the truce breaks down.
Click to expand...

The truce might not even fail. With the US government no distracted Congress might still vote fr further assistance money to S VN & the NVS might cancel or postphone their offensive plans. Much of what happened in 1975 revolved around the heavily motorized ARVN not having the necessary fuel. The oil shock had wrecked the ARVN budget for fuel. Additinal subsidies from the US were necessary if operations were to be kept at the same pace.
 

ivanotter

Would it mean that Nixon will finish his term?

As far as I know he was becoming a bit unstable.

What else would he be up to? Watergate was not precisely constitutional?

Would he spin out of control?

Ivan
 

e of pi

ivanotter said:
Would it mean that Nixon will finish his term?

As far as I know he was becoming a bit unstable.

What else would he be up to? Watergate was not precisely constitutional?

Would he spin out of control?

Ivan
Click to expand...
Well, the same people who were arrested for Watergate were also under assignment from the president to assassinate a journalist:

In 1972 Anderson was the target of an assassination plot in the White House. Two Nixon administration conspirators admitted under oath they plotted to poison Anderson on orders from senior White House aide Charles Colson.[14] White House "plumbers" G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt met with a CIA operative to discuss the possibilities, including drugging Anderson with LSD, poisoning his aspirin bottle, or staging a fatal mugging.[15] The plot was aborted when the plotters were arrested for the Watergate break-in. Nixon had long been angry with Anderson, blaming Anderson's election eve story about a secret loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother[16] for Nixon's loss of the 1960 presidential election.
Click to expand...

So...hey, you know a second Nixon term could have been fun. Back into Vietnam, opposition leaders dropping dead in the streets...grand old time! Or, of course, they could have made their dumb mistake there instead of Watergate ("How could you possibly leave your wallet at the murder site!?") and end up with Tricky Dick linked to murder, not just break ins and such.
 

Carl Schwamberger

e of pi said:
... Back into Vietnam, opposition leaders dropping dead in the streets...grand old time! Or, of course, they could have made their dumb mistake there instead of Watergate ("How could you possibly leave your wallet at the murder site!?") and end up with Tricky Dick linked to murder, not just break ins and such.
Click to expand...

..and when you think things cant get worse. Hopefully Halderman would have stomped on this one & got Colson out of the White House, but we cant be certain. Its not difficult to imagine the damage had Anderson sickened or died.
 

galanx

Carl Schwamberger said:
The truce might not even fail. With the US government no distracted Congress might still vote fr further assistance money to S VN & the NVS might cancel or postphone their offensive plans. Much of what happened in 1975 revolved around the heavily motorized ARVN not having the necessary fuel. The oil shock had wrecked the ARVN budget for fuel. Additinal subsidies from the US were necessary if operations were to be kept at the same pace.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Nixon would push for it; I'm not sure a Democratic Congress would go for it. Still with the possibility of a stronger Nixon hanging the "Who lost Vietnam?" label around their necks, maybe.
 

galanx

Carl Schwamberger said:
One of the things I recall from the 1960s is how Medicare and the other social spending programs of the Johnson administration turned many of the middle class adults I knew into table pounding anti government conservatives.

While medical care would be popular there would also be resentment over another pay contribution and the manditory nature of this. If the medical costs are seen as cheaper due to the insurance scheme then the anti mandate conservatives wont gain much traction, but if the cost is comonly seen as a burden then we could se the trend towards a hard right Republican party accelerate in the 1970s
Click to expand...

True; one of Reagan's major early roles was a spokesman for the AMA.
But of course by the time he got into power Medicare had been fully accepted by those angry conservatives.

A universal health care system would have to include subsidies for the poor, so conservatives would probably divide into the parts that benefit them- "hey, I paid for my medical insurance"- and the part that goes to subsidise "those people"; a la "Keep your government hands off my Medicare".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top