Watergate's Howard BAKER was just a smart Devin NUNES. Here's dispelling myths & what we need now.
Like many DUers, I lived through the Watergate hearings and then through some of the books and a movie, but speaking for myself, not all of what I thought I knew was true - I thought it was because I saw (the surface) - but now I see it became a fable encrusted with misapprehended events, heroes, and villains. And decades ago it was all behind us, with just John DEAN, BERNSTEIN, and WOODWARD popping up like characters from Lord of the Rings. This long article re-casts what I thought I knew, focusing on one Howard BAKER, who was nothing like the sainted bipartisan image. If anything, this shows that Repukes are Repukes.
*********QUOTE**********
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/03/impeachment-history-watergate-adam-schiff-074844
He sees Howard Baker as a noble, bipartisan impeachment hero. In reality, he was just another attack dog for Nixon. Here’s why Democrats need to get their history right.
By MAX HOLLAND
…. … Baker was a highly sophisticated, even Machiavellian, partisan. His genuine role was one of collusion with the White House ; followed by an attempt at a firebreak that failed ; and finally, in desperation, an embrace of conspiracy-mongering. ….
… The senator had only accepted the committee assignment, Baker’s administrative assistant told Colson, to “go all the way … and defend you and the Republican Party.” He “wasn’t getting off the reservation.” The president was to disregard any seemingly critical comments Baker made in public, as well as any elaborate displays of deference to Ervin in the future. The only purpose behind these utterances was to maintain Baker’s credibility with Ervin in order to negotiate and “control him.” Baker, Colson was told, had to “act like one of the Senate club lest he destroy his effectiveness with Ervin.” ….
The next day, Nixon recounted the meeting to Kleindienst; the president now believed Baker would be working for him inside the committee. “Howard came down for the purpose of telling me what are his plans for the hearings … what he’s planning to do. What he’s going to do is … try to make it appear the Republicans are cooperating … [that] the hearings are honest and the administration’s cooperating.” … ….
Seen in its proper context, Baker’s question—“What did the president know and when did he know it?”—represented a shrewd defense from a highly skilled lawyer who recognized the inherent limits in Dean’s testimony. Baker intended to erect nothing less than an insurmountable firebreak in the conflagration that now threatened the Oval Office. ….
Howard Baker’s reputation, perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, suffered no lasting damage from his role on the Watergate committee. It was as if image, rather than substance, prevailed. As Kutler put it, Baker “projected extremely well on television, combing a boyish smile with the appearance of a diffident, nonpartisan pursuit of the truth.” When the senator’s devastating question was remembered, and it often was, it was misremembered because it was invariably taken out of context. Baker certainly exhibited no abiding impulse to correct the misunderstanding.
So for the Democrats to pine now for another Howard Baker is, at best, folly. Howard Baker was no Howard Baker, and any hope that a Republican champion will suddenly emerge and relieve Democrats from doing the necessary hard work that remains is a historical fantasy. The only sound course open to them is what the Watergate committee actually did: to continue to develop and compile the facts until they have exhausted them. ... ....
*************UNQUOTE**********
= new reply since forum marked as read
... old-style Republican leader, was key in convincing Nixon to resign before the Senate impeachment vote. If the Senate had actually gone for a final vote, I'm pretty sure Scott would have voted to convict Nixon.
