Letterman brings up Liddy with McCain

[chipmunk stew]

Full interview:

 

[gdnp]

Let's be clear, do you think it's unethical of Obama or McCain to use legal methods to obtain inteligence from the opposition?

You better sit down because I've got some bad news for you. Campaigns from both parties routinely gather information about the opposition by using private detectives and that includes trying to figure out strategy and tactics.

Why are you changing the subject? What does this have to do with the point that we were debating, which was whether Liddy's ILLEGAL actions were an attempt to fix and/or steal an election?

 

[RandFan]

Why are you changing the subject? What does this have to do with the point that we were debating, which was whether Liddy's ILLEGAL actions were an attempt to fix and/or steal an election?

I'm not changing the subject. I'm making a perfectly valid point. Obtaining inteligence ISN'T, in and of itself, stealing or fixing an election. Obtaining that inteligence through illegal means doesn't make gathering inteligence fixing or stealing an election. The question becomes if you are consistent with your logic. If we follow your proposition to its logical conclusion then all politicians steal and fix elections.

 

[gdnp]

Let's follow my logic to the logical conclusion: if a football team scouts the other team, watches films, etc. in order to anticipate plays that might be successful, and they win the game, they have legitimately won. If a football team breaks into the other team's stadium and steals the other team's playbook and uses that information to anticipate plays that might be successful, and they win the game, then they have stolen the game--won by cheating--and if caught should be forced to forfeit.

Gathering intelligence is not illegal. Illegally gathering intelligence is illegal. That is what Liddy did. He broke into the DNC headquarters for the purposes of gaining intelligence that he thought would help assure Nixon's victory. He tried to fix the election, not by gathering intelligence, but by ILLEGALLY gathering intelligence.

 

[RandFan]

Let's follow my logic to the logical conclusion: if a football team scouts the other team, watches films, etc. in order to anticipate plays that might be successful, and they win the game, they have legitimately won. If a football team breaks into the other team's stadium and steals the other team's playbook and uses that information to anticipate plays that might be successful, and they win the game, then they have stolen the game--won by cheating--and if caught should be forced to forfeit.

No, they have not stolen anything but information. There is no proof that they have "stolen" the game.

Gathering intelligence is not illegal. Illegally gathering intelligence is illegal.

Yes, committing a crime is illegal. That it is illegal doesn't change the nature of the fact that one is gathering information.

That is what Liddy did. He broke into the DNC headquarters for the purposes of gaining intelligence that he thought would help assure Nixon's victory. He tried to fix the election, not by gathering intelligence, but by ILLEGALLY gathering intelligence.

No, he did NOT try and fix the election.

• There was no guarantee that the information would even ensure a victory.
• There is no surety that the information couldn't have been obtained legally in which case by your logic there would be no "stealing" or "fixing".

Finally, the information wasn't used and Nixon won by a landslide.
An example of stealing of fixing a game would be to bribe a referee or player.

 

[gdnp]

No, he did NOT try and fix the election.

• There was no guarantee that the information would even ensure a victory.
• There is no surety that the information couldn't have been obtained legally in which case by your logic there would be no "stealing" or "fixing".

Finally, the information wasn't used and Nixon won by a landslide.

Starting essentially from these two premises:

1. There was no guarantee that the stolen information would have been decisive
2. There is no proof that the information that he tried to gain illeagally could not have been obtained legally

you draw this conclusion:

He did not try to FIX the election.

With emphasis this time on the word "try" perhaps you could explain your logic, because it escapes me. Earlier you used the example of the Chicago democratic machine stealing the election for Kennedy. Let us assume that this happened. By your logic, since the Chicago democratic machine had no way of knowing beforehand if their manipulations would be decisive, they also were not trying to fix the election.

 

[RandFan]

With emphasis this time on the word "try" perhaps you could explain your logic, because it escapes me.

It's actually very simple. Gathering inteligence isn't stealing or fixing an election. If one acts unethically or illegaly to gather that inteligence that doesn't suddenly translate to stealing an election.

Earlier you used the example of the Chicago democratic machine stealing the election for Kennedy. Let us assume that this happened. By your logic, since the Chicago democratic machine had no way of knowing beforehand if their manipulations would be decisive, they also were not trying to fix the election.

Fair enough.

 

[davefoc]

Liddy was given a 20 year sentence for his crimes (served 5 years before Carter commuted it). He advocated shooting federal agents in the head (because their pesky body armor blocks center-mass shots). Liddy did not say this in the 1960's. He said it in the 1990's.

Mccain has repeatedly taken money from this guy and been on his radio show, where he expressed how "proud" he was of Liddy and the "principles" he upholds.

Obama has repudiated Ayers. Has Mccain had anything to say about Liddy other than fawning all over him on Liddy's radio show?

Those seem like good points to me.

From the Letterman video it looked like McCain's first instinct was to lie about the Libby connection and after he thought about it after the break he came back with a defense of Liddy and a confirmation that he did associate himself with Liddy.

Perhaps this is true of all politicians, but I have seen signs that McCain moves into petty lying mode fairly easy. Gore did also and I didn't like that aspect of Gore either.

 

[rikzilla]

Interesting enough, Liddy was also a good freind of Abbie Hoffman. It's a very strange world we live in.

Liddy is also good friends with Lanny Davis, the former Clinton White House counsel.

BTW: Liddy did 8 years hard time in Federal lockup for what was essentially a "first offense" burglary in DC. If his crime had not been political he'd have been out in 6 months. There have been murderers in DC who did the same basic stretch. Liddy may be creepy...and he is....but he is nothing worse than a potentially violent ideologue,... A "true believer"...just like Ayers...so the comparison is apt.

Some people here find Ayers more palitable than Liddy, but that's only because their own bias has turned the chosen thug into more of a hero. In reality they are both scary nuts who thought they were serving the greater good.

-z

 

[davefoc]

...

BTW: Liddy did 8 years hard time in Federal lockup for what was essentially a "first offense" burglary in DC. If his crime had not been political he'd have been out in 6 months. There have been murderers in DC who did the same basic stretch. Liddy may be creepy...and he is....but he is nothing worse than a potentially violent ideologue,... A "true believer"...just like Ayers...so the comparison is apt.

...

-z

Without looking up any details, my understanding is that Liddy did lots of time because he wouldn't talk. It's routine to give people lots of time if they don't talk. That's how the system works.

Am I right about the reason that Liddy served such a long time? What about the statement above that his sentence was commuted to five years by Carter. Was some part of that true?

 

[rikzilla]

Without looking up any details, my understanding is that Liddy did lots of time because he wouldn't talk. It's routine to give people lots of time if they don't talk. That's how the system works.

Am I right about the reason that Liddy served such a long time? What about the statement above that his sentence was commuted to five years by Carter. Was some part of that true?

That may be, I didn't use any source other than my own memory. It was over ten years ago that I read his book "Will". I remember it was an interesting read,...the memoir of an extremist to be sure. But I may have been incorrect in my post as my memory of the book is not perfect.

-z

 

[RandFan]

Some people here find Ayers more palitable than Liddy, but that's only because their own bias has turned the chosen thug into more of a hero. In reality they are both scary nuts who thought they were serving the greater good.

-z

Happy B-Day dude.

Yeah, I agree. For many, whether thug or hero is a function of ideology.

However, I think many on the left have repudiated Ayers. I think the reason McCain felt he could use this tack is that post 9/11 and Oklahoma bombing folks are none too fond of terrorists.

 

[rikzilla]

Happy B-Day dude.

Yeah, I agree. For many, whether thug or hero is a function of ideology.

However, I think many on the left have repudiated Ayers. I think the reason McCain felt he could use this tack is that post 9/11 and Oklahoma bombing folks are none too fond of terrorists.

Thanks man!

Getting old doesn't even hurt anymore! Time is the great equalizer. Both Liddy and Ayers are simply grumpy old men these days...the passage of time has made them both quite irrelevant. It's pretty weird that they've even cropped up at all...

-z

 

[davefoc]

For the record on Liddy's prison term:

For his role in Watergate, which he coordinated with Hunt, Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, and received a 20-year sentence. He served a total of five and half years in prison, including over 100 days in solitary confinement, before his sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter and he was released on September 7, 1977.

from Wikipedia.

And this seems relevant to the conversation:

At CRP, Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored)...

As an aside, I would put the Republican love affair with Ollie North in a similar category to this stuff. Ollie North was responsible for one of the most embarrassing, stupid and counterproductive episodes in American history but somehow he became a hero to some Republicans. The fact seems to be that partisan identification is a very strong motivator and almost regardless of the issue as long as you are loyal to the party you are ok. I almost said that men sleeping with little boys might be the one exception but Hastert worked pretty hard to keep even that crime from being investigated so maybe there just is nothing that trumps party loyalty for some people.