Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Too many good people.
Someone from out of left field, like Agnew was. Maybe Carroll O'Connor...
Well George Wallace didn't look anything like Harry Truman.
Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
Too many good people.
Someone from out of left field, like Agnew was. Maybe Carroll O'Connor...
Well George Wallace didn't look anything like Harry Truman.
On the Airwaves
Nixon Frost Interview – Aired September 10, 1977
David Frost: I should ask you about your choice of Spiro Agnew as your running mate and eventual Vice President. Why did you choose him?
Richard M. Nixon: I chose Ted Agnew because he was the best qualified, in my opinion, to support me and my administration in the difficult issues were going to face.
DF: Really? I mean, he was obscure – at best in 1968, no one outside of Maryland had ever heard of him, and few in that State were impressed by him. Why do you say he was the best qualified? What were those qualifications?
RMN: He was a Governor who had faced civil unrest and urban crises, he was – from the Maryland Statehouse – he was dealing with the key domestic issues of our day, lawlessness, urban blight, radicalism. He brought that perspective to my administration.
DF: So did Governor Rockefeller and Governor Reagan, both from larger states, with, frankly, more of those problems than Maryland. In Nelson Rockefeller’s case he had nearly a decade’s worth of experience by 1968, not to mention his former work in the Federal government, experience neither Reagan nor Agnew came close to having. Why Agnew?
RMN: Governor Reagan wasn’t interested in the Vice Presidency, and frankly I preferred Governor Agnew’s approach. He was the right man for the job.
DF: Alright. But surely your opinion must have changed after what happened in 1973?
RMN: I think, despite the challenges, as President in 1973, Mr. Agnew did a good job in protecting this nation’s interests.
DF: Come now, we have to acknowledge the fact that as President, Spiro Agnew set-off a crippling round of inflation which damaged the economy; he re-ignited the War in Vietnam, which you and Dr. Kissinger had nearly settled during your term. In the Oval Office Mr. Agnew nearly allowed the Middle East War to escalate into a World War; he played chicken with the Soviets and the Chinese for months in the waters off the coast of Vietnam; and his actions set-off an oil shock which, when combined with his reckless spending program, sent the economy into a tailspin it still hasn’t recovered from. Surely, in light of all that, you must have some regret…
RMN: None. Agnew defended Israel against aggression, which I would have done and which President Gavin did when he took office. His actions in Vietnam, while strident, did bring about a victory for us and our South Vietnamese allies. If anything, a free and democratic South Vietnam is the legacy of the Agnew Presidency.
DF: With all do respect, Mr. Agnew simply kicked over the molehill. It was his successor, President Gavin, who shaped that policy to a success, and even that would have been unnecessary if Agnew had continued your policy at the Paris Peace talks. You had by the end of your Administration all but ended American involvement in Vietnam. Agnew re-ignited a war that was resolved.
RMN: Not resolved, no, we produced a framework for peace, but not a final solution. In my Administration we returned the responsibility for the conduct of the war to the South Vietnamese, but we had to pledge a continuing support to South Vietnam, one which Congress was not going to support, as it turned out. The Paris peace accords were a controversial policy, opposed by some, including many who advised President Agnew. History has shown that their alternative, though costly and dangerous, was equally as viable, the peace they fashioned from a re-newed conflict improved on what we had achieved before January 1973. It was a measure of his leadership ability – which I had recognized in him in 1968 - that President Agnew was willing to risk re-engaging and all the popular opposition that came with it - to achieve a better and lasting solution for the South Vietnamese people. That is I think, a fine legacy to come out of both his Administration and mine.
DF: Omitting Agnew’s effect on the economy and nearly bringing us to World War III.
RMN: That’s exaggerated.
DF: On the economy, I would say that thousands of unemployed would disagree with you. You must also be aware that he pardoned himself for his own crimes. How does that sort of behaviour square with your assessment of his having been the best qualified for the job?
RMN: Of course, I didn’t know about his questionable actions in Maryland; frankly I’ve yet to see proof of actual wrong doing on Ted Agnew’s part.
DF: You won’t see the proof because he pardoned himself, which the Supreme Court has indicated in the past is, legally, and admission of guilt. Do you think that was proper?
RMN: The President has that power, under the Constitution. Ted Agnew exercised that power in accordance with the Constitution.
DF: So, you think it was wrong for the Congress to remove him?
RMN: Congress acted in accord with the Constitution. I wouldn’t second-guess their judgment in the matter.
DF: So, deep down, you agree that he deserved to be removed?
RMN: The question was decided by the Senate, acting according to the Constitution. I support the Constitution.
DF: Have you seen his program on television?
RMN: No.
DF: No?
RMN: I don’t watch that sort of thing.
DF: That sort of thing? How do you know what sort of thing it is if you don’t watch it?
RMN: I’ve heard things – from people like you, and others.
DF: Well, I hope what you’ve heard is that he has been making a mockery of himself and television journalism in general?
RMN: He wouldn’t be the first. There are many so-called serious journalists who have made a mockery out of television journalism.
DF: Come now, Mr. Nixon, when all is said and done, you must acknowledge some responsibility for bringing this man onto the national stage. Setting aside what he did as President – which some would regard as bad enough – he has now become a voice of discord distracting – if not overtly misleading - viewers with his nightly diatribes. You must bear some of the responsibility, at least for single-handedly placing him in the position he is in today?
RMN: I didn’t put him on T.V.
DF: If you hadn’t made him Vice President, no one would ever have wanted to put him on T.V. to begin with.
RMN: The American people elected him Vice President – twice – and …
DF: Once. The second time he elected himself.
RMN: I agree with Ted Agnew that our national dialogue is dominated by a liberal elite, one which controls our “mainstream” media. Today, I believe he speaks for a large segment of the American population that has been disenfranchised by the media elites, whose voices have been drowned-out in the liberal chatter. If the former Vice President and the people at Hughes want to provide them with an outlet where their views can be expressed, I’d say its past time they had one. As for Ted Agnew, I think he has found the job he was best suited for all along, even if it has become more entertainment than news. If I helped him along the way, well I guess I can’t be unhappy about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew On Point:
Agnew: Certain of our media elites- the nattering nabobs of narcissistic nonsense – have found my voice not to their liking, and they have tried to force that idea down the throats of others, including the greatest living former President this country has. Well, I say I welcome their scorn, their derision. It means I’m getting to them; it means I am slaying their sand castles of silliness with the sound of truth. It means, my friends, that your voice is being heard, and they don’t like it.
They don’t like it when their liberal pretensions are shown for the callow weakness and intellectual arrogance that they are. They don’t like it when you stand-up and say, “we will not roll-over and follow your rules based on a vision designed to undermine this country.” They froth at the mouth when you say to them “liberals are wrong.” Liberals are wrong, and they can’t stand to be to told that. It shatters them; it tears the smug sanctimony of their sequestered salon apart. It tells them that a real America outside of New York and LA is standing up for its political rights and has said – “ENOUGH! NO MORE! We will have our country back; we will restore our values. We are the real America and we will not rest until our country is returned to us!”
Recently an English socialist, an Etonian snob who looks down his nose with upper-crust disdain at our liberty, at our constitution, as if it were some affront to his champagne and caviar lifestyle, grilled President Nixon and suggested that he should have some shame in having chosen me as Vice President. Of course, it is an insult to all Americans that an Englishman should dare criticize your choice of leaders, since it was against that race of tyrants our Founding Fathers shed their precious blood to bring us liberty. That they chose not to follow us, but writhe in the dark dungeon of Royal despotism, is no excuse for one of theirs to darken our televisions with such a vile attack upon our rights and freedoms, and that in the presence of one of our greatest Presidents.
President Nixon said to this effete pompous poltroon that I stand against the liberal dominated media that would sell you a brand of snake oil designed to dull you to the real import of the issues in a blizzard of pinko propaganda. To this – to being an indefatigable illiberal - I plead guilty. I love America, and I love the American people, and so I will stand forever as your voice, that of the silent majority, of the hardworking American patriots who toil to build a better country, the very people the liberals with their chitter-chatter of collectivism and socialism would like to rule over and lecture to. Well no lectures here, just the truth you need to know, and the facts which will help you defend your freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Kissinger: It is unfortunate that President Nixon feels it is necessary to defend the Agnew record as an extension of his own legacy. While it is true that President Nixon did choose Agnew as his running mate – and so put him in the unfortunate position that he did become President – in light of all that has happened, he could easily admit to a mistake in this one instance.
We achieved a breakthrough that ended American involvement in the Vietnam War, but Agnew plunged us back in. He destroyed one of President Nixon’s greatest achievements while in office. To the extent that President Gavin secured a victory from a hopeless situation speaks more to his leadership than any vindication of the Agnew policy.
I continue to wonder about that show of his; it seems to me indicative of some form of insanity that has worked its way into the national consciousness, a case of the disturbed leading the confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew: You should note that when the liberal elite want to enforce an idea on you it is “enlightenment” and “progress”, but when you seek to throw off their arrogance and stand for true, patriotic values, they brand it as insanity.
All I can say of the arch-appeaser Henry Kissinger is, Henry, when you were serving Presidents Nixon and Gavin, whose payroll were you really on? Was détente really our policy, or did you put into play at the behest of some outside interest, Henry? Maybe the FBI should look into that.
--------------------------------------------
Kissinger: I will not dignify that sort of nonsense with any comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Donaldson – Latenight on ABC.
Recently, one time President Spiro Agnew has taken to the airwaves to advocate what can only best be described as a right wing tirade that seeks to belittle any positive approaches to policy. Rather than reporting the news, or bringing light to the issues, he instead looks for those fissures that divide Americans politically, which he then exploits not for the purposes of informing or educating,, but to create controversy and division. And why? All the better to aggrandize himself.
Make no mistake, Agnew is on Point for the sole purpose of fattening his bank account, and Hughes Entertainment has given him a platform on which to do that, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank as well. It is for profit entertainment and not journalism, and at its heart it seeks to callously exploit the divisions in our society for the sake of ratings and commercial viability.
After all, what does Agnew on Point offer but a failed politician and self-confessed law breaker opining on the issues of the day with a biased vitriol no more balanced than the utterances of Joseph Gobbels’ propaganda ministry. There is no balance to this so-called reporting, no presentation of the issues in order to find the truth. Those who oppose the Hughes approved editorial line are bullied on air; the issues are presented as if there is only one point of view that is valid – theirs.
I believe in the First Amendment, so I cannot knock the one time President’s right to air his views; but I can encourage those who are tempted to tune him in to think of what kind of circus you are really supporting with your viewership, and to ask yourself if what he presents over the airwaves in any way reflects on the kind of America you want to live in, or in which you want your children to live in?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew: I love it when they call me a Nazi. Then I know I’ve gotten under their skin, and you know why that is? Because I’m telling you the truth they can’t stand to have you hear. Is that insanity? No, it’s liberty.
And yes Sam, I will be filing an FCC complaint against you, not because I oppose your right to speak, but because I oppose the license ABC has given you to distort and tell utter lies. See you at the hearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Cavett: How does your father feel about your success?
George W. Bush: He’s happy to see my career prosper, as are all my family.
DC: Rumor has it that he will run for President again in 1980. Would you support him?
GWB: I think he’d be a great President, but you know, I think when he gets elected he has to lighten things up at the White House, make it more of a scene. Maybe he should install a big pool, like Hef has at his mansion, you know?
DC: Playboy parties at the White House? Hmm….
-------------------------------------------------------------
George H.W. Bush: Jesus, junior! Are you sure he’s not Joe Kennedy’s kid?
Barbara Bush: George, really.
GHWB: He’s got to put a break on his mouth.
Jim Baker: He’s drinking too much, and out there in Hollywood, he’s getting involved with other things.
BB: I don’t want to hear that.
GHWB: Let’s not forget he suffered in that prison camp. He has to let off a little steam.
JB: Too bad you’re the one getting scalded by it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon Frost Interview – Aired September 10, 1977
David Frost: I should ask you about your choice of Spiro Agnew as your running mate and eventual Vice President. Why did you choose him?
Richard M. Nixon: I chose Ted Agnew because he was the best qualified, in my opinion, to support me and my administration in the difficult issues were going to face.
DF: Really? I mean, he was obscure – at best in 1968, no one outside of Maryland had ever heard of him, and few in that State were impressed by him. Why do you say he was the best qualified? What were those qualifications?
RMN: He was a Governor who had faced civil unrest and urban crises, he was – from the Maryland Statehouse – he was dealing with the key domestic issues of our day, lawlessness, urban blight, radicalism. He brought that perspective to my administration.
DF: So did Governor Rockefeller and Governor Reagan, both from larger states, with, frankly, more of those problems than Maryland. In Nelson Rockefeller’s case he had nearly a decade’s worth of experience by 1968, not to mention his former work in the Federal government, experience neither Reagan nor Agnew came close to having. Why Agnew?
RMN: Governor Reagan wasn’t interested in the Vice Presidency, and frankly I preferred Governor Agnew’s approach. He was the right man for the job.
DF: Alright. But surely your opinion must have changed after what happened in 1973?
RMN: I think, despite the challenges, as President in 1973, Mr. Agnew did a good job in protecting this nation’s interests.
DF: Come now, we have to acknowledge the fact that as President, Spiro Agnew set-off a crippling round of inflation which damaged the economy; he re-ignited the War in Vietnam, which you and Dr. Kissinger had nearly settled during your term. In the Oval Office Mr. Agnew nearly allowed the Middle East War to escalate into a World War; he played chicken with the Soviets and the Chinese for months in the waters off the coast of Vietnam; and his actions set-off an oil shock which, when combined with his reckless spending program, sent the economy into a tailspin it still hasn’t recovered from. Surely, in light of all that, you must have some regret…
RMN: None. Agnew defended Israel against aggression, which I would have done and which President Gavin did when he took office. His actions in Vietnam, while strident, did bring about a victory for us and our South Vietnamese allies. If anything, a free and democratic South Vietnam is the legacy of the Agnew Presidency.
DF: With all do respect, Mr. Agnew simply kicked over the molehill. It was his successor, President Gavin, who shaped that policy to a success, and even that would have been unnecessary if Agnew had continued your policy at the Paris Peace talks. You had by the end of your Administration all but ended American involvement in Vietnam. Agnew re-ignited a war that was resolved.
RMN: Not resolved, no, we produced a framework for peace, but not a final solution. In my Administration we returned the responsibility for the conduct of the war to the South Vietnamese, but we had to pledge a continuing support to South Vietnam, one which Congress was not going to support, as it turned out. The Paris peace accords were a controversial policy, opposed by some, including many who advised President Agnew. History has shown that their alternative, though costly and dangerous, was equally as viable, the peace they fashioned from a re-newed conflict improved on what we had achieved before January 1973. It was a measure of his leadership ability – which I had recognized in him in 1968 - that President Agnew was willing to risk re-engaging and all the popular opposition that came with it - to achieve a better and lasting solution for the South Vietnamese people. That is I think, a fine legacy to come out of both his Administration and mine.
DF: Omitting Agnew’s effect on the economy and nearly bringing us to World War III.
RMN: That’s exaggerated.
DF: On the economy, I would say that thousands of unemployed would disagree with you. You must also be aware that he pardoned himself for his own crimes. How does that sort of behaviour square with your assessment of his having been the best qualified for the job?
RMN: Of course, I didn’t know about his questionable actions in Maryland; frankly I’ve yet to see proof of actual wrong doing on Ted Agnew’s part.
DF: You won’t see the proof because he pardoned himself, which the Supreme Court has indicated in the past is, legally, and admission of guilt. Do you think that was proper?
RMN: The President has that power, under the Constitution. Ted Agnew exercised that power in accordance with the Constitution.
DF: So, you think it was wrong for the Congress to remove him?
RMN: Congress acted in accord with the Constitution. I wouldn’t second-guess their judgment in the matter.
DF: So, deep down, you agree that he deserved to be removed?
RMN: The question was decided by the Senate, acting according to the Constitution. I support the Constitution.
DF: Have you seen his program on television?
RMN: No.
DF: No?
RMN: I don’t watch that sort of thing.
DF: That sort of thing? How do you know what sort of thing it is if you don’t watch it?
RMN: I’ve heard things – from people like you, and others.
DF: Well, I hope what you’ve heard is that he has been making a mockery of himself and television journalism in general?
RMN: He wouldn’t be the first. There are many so-called serious journalists who have made a mockery out of television journalism.
DF: Come now, Mr. Nixon, when all is said and done, you must acknowledge some responsibility for bringing this man onto the national stage. Setting aside what he did as President – which some would regard as bad enough – he has now become a voice of discord distracting – if not overtly misleading - viewers with his nightly diatribes. You must bear some of the responsibility, at least for single-handedly placing him in the position he is in today?
RMN: I didn’t put him on T.V.
DF: If you hadn’t made him Vice President, no one would ever have wanted to put him on T.V. to begin with.
RMN: The American people elected him Vice President – twice – and …
DF: Once. The second time he elected himself.
RMN: I agree with Ted Agnew that our national dialogue is dominated by a liberal elite, one which controls our “mainstream” media. Today, I believe he speaks for a large segment of the American population that has been disenfranchised by the media elites, whose voices have been drowned-out in the liberal chatter. If the former Vice President and the people at Hughes want to provide them with an outlet where their views can be expressed, I’d say its past time they had one. As for Ted Agnew, I think he has found the job he was best suited for all along, even if it has become more entertainment than news. If I helped him along the way, well I guess I can’t be unhappy about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew On Point:
Agnew: Certain of our media elites- the nattering nabobs of narcissistic nonsense – have found my voice not to their liking, and they have tried to force that idea down the throats of others, including the greatest living former President this country has. Well, I say I welcome their scorn, their derision. It means I’m getting to them; it means I am slaying their sand castles of silliness with the sound of truth. It means, my friends, that your voice is being heard, and they don’t like it.
They don’t like it when their liberal pretensions are shown for the callow weakness and intellectual arrogance that they are. They don’t like it when you stand-up and say, “we will not roll-over and follow your rules based on a vision designed to undermine this country.” They froth at the mouth when you say to them “liberals are wrong.” Liberals are wrong, and they can’t stand to be to told that. It shatters them; it tears the smug sanctimony of their sequestered salon apart. It tells them that a real America outside of New York and LA is standing up for its political rights and has said – “ENOUGH! NO MORE! We will have our country back; we will restore our values. We are the real America and we will not rest until our country is returned to us!”
Recently an English socialist, an Etonian snob who looks down his nose with upper-crust disdain at our liberty, at our constitution, as if it were some affront to his champagne and caviar lifestyle, grilled President Nixon and suggested that he should have some shame in having chosen me as Vice President. Of course, it is an insult to all Americans that an Englishman should dare criticize your choice of leaders, since it was against that race of tyrants our Founding Fathers shed their precious blood to bring us liberty. That they chose not to follow us, but writhe in the dark dungeon of Royal despotism, is no excuse for one of theirs to darken our televisions with such a vile attack upon our rights and freedoms, and that in the presence of one of our greatest Presidents.
President Nixon said to this effete pompous poltroon that I stand against the liberal dominated media that would sell you a brand of snake oil designed to dull you to the real import of the issues in a blizzard of pinko propaganda. To this – to being an indefatigable illiberal - I plead guilty. I love America, and I love the American people, and so I will stand forever as your voice, that of the silent majority, of the hardworking American patriots who toil to build a better country, the very people the liberals with their chitter-chatter of collectivism and socialism would like to rule over and lecture to. Well no lectures here, just the truth you need to know, and the facts which will help you defend your freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Kissinger: It is unfortunate that President Nixon feels it is necessary to defend the Agnew record as an extension of his own legacy. While it is true that President Nixon did choose Agnew as his running mate – and so put him in the unfortunate position that he did become President – in light of all that has happened, he could easily admit to a mistake in this one instance.
We achieved a breakthrough that ended American involvement in the Vietnam War, but Agnew plunged us back in. He destroyed one of President Nixon’s greatest achievements while in office. To the extent that President Gavin secured a victory from a hopeless situation speaks more to his leadership than any vindication of the Agnew policy.
I continue to wonder about that show of his; it seems to me indicative of some form of insanity that has worked its way into the national consciousness, a case of the disturbed leading the confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew: You should note that when the liberal elite want to enforce an idea on you it is “enlightenment” and “progress”, but when you seek to throw off their arrogance and stand for true, patriotic values, they brand it as insanity.
All I can say of the arch-appeaser Henry Kissinger is, Henry, when you were serving Presidents Nixon and Gavin, whose payroll were you really on? Was détente really our policy, or did you put into play at the behest of some outside interest, Henry? Maybe the FBI should look into that.
--------------------------------------------
Kissinger: I will not dignify that sort of nonsense with any comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Donaldson – Latenight on ABC.
Recently, one time President Spiro Agnew has taken to the airwaves to advocate what can only best be described as a right wing tirade that seeks to belittle any positive approaches to policy. Rather than reporting the news, or bringing light to the issues, he instead looks for those fissures that divide Americans politically, which he then exploits not for the purposes of informing or educating,, but to create controversy and division. And why? All the better to aggrandize himself.
Make no mistake, Agnew is on Point for the sole purpose of fattening his bank account, and Hughes Entertainment has given him a platform on which to do that, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank as well. It is for profit entertainment and not journalism, and at its heart it seeks to callously exploit the divisions in our society for the sake of ratings and commercial viability.
After all, what does Agnew on Point offer but a failed politician and self-confessed law breaker opining on the issues of the day with a biased vitriol no more balanced than the utterances of Joseph Gobbels’ propaganda ministry. There is no balance to this so-called reporting, no presentation of the issues in order to find the truth. Those who oppose the Hughes approved editorial line are bullied on air; the issues are presented as if there is only one point of view that is valid – theirs.
I believe in the First Amendment, so I cannot knock the one time President’s right to air his views; but I can encourage those who are tempted to tune him in to think of what kind of circus you are really supporting with your viewership, and to ask yourself if what he presents over the airwaves in any way reflects on the kind of America you want to live in, or in which you want your children to live in?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Agnew: I love it when they call me a Nazi. Then I know I’ve gotten under their skin, and you know why that is? Because I’m telling you the truth they can’t stand to have you hear. Is that insanity? No, it’s liberty.
And yes Sam, I will be filing an FCC complaint against you, not because I oppose your right to speak, but because I oppose the license ABC has given you to distort and tell utter lies. See you at the hearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Cavett: How does your father feel about your success?
George W. Bush: He’s happy to see my career prosper, as are all my family.
DC: Rumor has it that he will run for President again in 1980. Would you support him?
GWB: I think he’d be a great President, but you know, I think when he gets elected he has to lighten things up at the White House, make it more of a scene. Maybe he should install a big pool, like Hef has at his mansion, you know?
DC: Playboy parties at the White House? Hmm….
-------------------------------------------------------------
George H.W. Bush: Jesus, junior! Are you sure he’s not Joe Kennedy’s kid?
Barbara Bush: George, really.
GHWB: He’s got to put a break on his mouth.
Jim Baker: He’s drinking too much, and out there in Hollywood, he’s getting involved with other things.
BB: I don’t want to hear that.
GHWB: Let’s not forget he suffered in that prison camp. He has to let off a little steam.
JB: Too bad you’re the one getting scalded by it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lycaon pictus
Donor
Action hero. Didn't Bruce Willis get killed a while back, in Syria? Bush can replace him.
Spengler
Banned
I was wondering but has Joe Haldeman published the Forever war in this timeline, its after the POD? Also would it make a bigger splash with the United States having been involved in conflicts for 13 years straight? Could we for instance see Ridley Scott make it into a movie (He always has wanted to adapt it)? Also I suspect its portrayal of economic decline in the World state would better resonate with the public.
Last edited:
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Questions that I might have asked before: Was Agnew's anti-Catholic speech years ago based on views that we know he held? Did it alienate Catholics from his show who would otherwise be open to his rants against the left (those in Nixon's silent majority, in other words)?
Now that I think about it, he could be the Stephen Colbert of his age.
It could just be Nixon being Nixon - incapable of admitting that he made a mistake.
Now that I think about it, he could be the Stephen Colbert of his age.
It could just be Nixon being Nixon - incapable of admitting that he made a mistake.
Last edited:
Thande
Donor
Yes, in private Nixon has been much more alarmed by Agnew. I think someone in the latest update said they thought Nixon was defending Agnew partly because Agnew defends Nixon, and partly because Nixon saw Agnew's presidency as a necessary extension and consequence of his own, and thus criticising Agnew would reflect badly on his own choice of VP.
The problem with Agnew's programme is that there's nobody who can make him look silly. The last person who did that was Wallace, who's obviouisly not going to be seeing him while he's in the White House. Everyone else can only argue against him; nobody seems to be able to argue against him while making him look like a buffoon, which is really the only way one can approach his sensationalist faux-journalism.
Here's a thought; maybe George W. could do it? It'd be hilarious if this timeline's version of Dubya went on Agnew's show and made him uncomfortable.
Here's a thought; maybe George W. could do it? It'd be hilarious if this timeline's version of Dubya went on Agnew's show and made him uncomfortable.
While the crack about Reagan being uninterested in the Vice-Presidency is no doubt true - he'd be ineligible under Nixon anyway, as the two are from the same state. The bits about Rockefeller are of course on target. While it's true Frost is a Brit, I suspect he would know that.
Still great stuff, Drew.
Still great stuff, Drew.
Richard Nixon ran while officially residing in New York, I believe, so it's possible he could've picked Reagan. And he could have run from California if he wanted to pick Rockefeller, I suppose.
Moreover, it's not that he'd be ineligible, per se. It's that a state cannot cast its electoral votes for two candidates from their own state.
The 12th Amendment said:
Essentially, if a candidate really wants a VP from their same state, and believes they can cobble together a majority that does not require their state, they can run one slate in the other 49 states, and a different one in their home state, with a different candidate for Vice-President. For practical purposes, this would never happen (as with Dick Cheney, one of them would move to a different state for eligibility purposes), but it technically could.
John Farson
Banned
I don't see anything strange in Nixon's behaviour. As I saw it, he was covering his ass. Who knows, maybe he's still paranoid about being thrown back in jail.
Interesting to contrast this with Nixon's memoirs, where he admits Agnew was in over his head. Does Spiro degrade his reputation further? Or does Nixon simply wait until he's old and/or dead before saying what he really thinks?
I wonder if Frost asked him why, if Spiro was doing such a bang-up job with his legacy, Nixon felt the need to concede to J.J. McKeithen.
I wonder if Frost asked him why, if Spiro was doing such a bang-up job with his legacy, Nixon felt the need to concede to J.J. McKeithen.
OTL George W. ("Junior") had a conflicted view of his father, he wanted to both impress him and win his approval and out do him, essentially prove that deep down he was the better man, which I suspect he believes that he has now done having served two terms as President and had a "historic impact."
ITTL It's not so much fratboyishness as a deep resentment that his old man didn't use his position and power to get him out, even when it seemed possible that the North Vietnamese were going to execute him. What we're seeing here are the first steps to embarrassing the father.
Thande
Donor
Ah, so it's a family upset.
I wonder if we might see something like...I don't know, George W. joining the Democrats just to spite his dad and ending up in some kind of political race in which his Republican opponent is Jeb or something?
To fair, if I'd spent the past few years in a tiger cage, I'd probably party it up when I came back too.
I don't know if TTL's W will enter electoral politics at all -- would be funny if he just becomes a liberal gadfly, an ATL Alec Baldwin.
Wait, did somebody ask about a "left-wing Agnew" earlier?
Those who have commented on that are sort of getting the thread.
In 1973 Nixon still thought of himself as the rightful President who would return in 1976 (remember his musing about Grover Cleveland in the days before he left office). He recognized Agnew as President was a menace, and probably believed he could beat McKeithen in 1976, so he prepared the ground for a statesman-like concession to the former Louisiana Governor, leaving open the ground to argue later that he conceded for the good of the country (given Agnew's behavior) and he would stress that point in 1976.
At that time, if questioned about his judgment in choosing Agnew, he could say he learned a lesson and pick a VP who would stand head-and-shoulders above Agnew as proof that he had learned the error of his ways.
Forward to 1977: He's a convicted felon and a political has-been seeing his record obscured by the fact that he's the only former President ever to go to prison after leaving office. What respectability he can salvage, and any chance of a comeback as an elder statesman, involves focusing on the good qualities of his Administration and building new alliances, mostly within the rightward moving Republican Party.
What he said in 1973 may be his real opinion of Agnew, but at this stage, for the sake of his own reputation he has to defend Agnew's record as an extension of his own -- otherwise he's a convicted felon ex-President who recklessly endangered the country with his own criminal behaviour which could have gotten him impeached (something which was debatable in July 1973 but very clear by 1977) with a bad pick for Vice President.
Now that that former VP has a television platform to hit back at Nixon if Nixon turns against him (If Nixon savages Agnew, Agnew savages him -- they both loose as Agnew's failures are highlighted by his former mentor, and Agnew uses the bully pulpit to tear apart what is left of Nixon's reputation). Agnew could well win that fight by being the loudest.
Put another way, he doesn't need a squabble with the loudest idiot with a megaphone, not while he's trying to appear as "the new Nixon."
- Status