Tag Archives: President Richard Nixon

Did Roger Ailes Dupe James Rosen, Or Did Rosen Dupe ‘Merka?

, , , , , , , , , ,
My remaindered copy of The Strong Man

Five years ago James Rosen, Fox “News” Chief Washington Correspondent, published a book on Watergate with a gigantic lie in it (surrounded by all kinds of smaller falsehoods). This lie continued the cover up of Richard Nixon’s treason during the 1968 presidential campaign.

Rosen is unjustifiably proud of his revisionist history called “The Strong Man,” which purports to tell the truth about John Mitchell, Richard Nixon’s Attorney General and, later, head of CREeP, the unfortunately accurate acronym for the Committee to ReElect the President.

Back in May I told the HIGH-LARRY-US story of my electronic bun fight with Rosen, but only hinted at The Big Lie. Even though I promised a full book review, I got bored with poking Rosen with a stick and let the topic die. However, it needs to be asked: Why did Rosen include this massive lie in his book when the truth was already known?

To understand this story one must go deeply into the Watergate Weeds. While most people use the term “Watergate” to refer only to the break-in at DNC headquarters that brought Nixon down, there was a whole litany of wrongdoing that falls under the rubric of Watergate, including this story. It goes back to the 1968 presidential election. President Johnson had already decided he would not run for office and Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic candidate. Meanwhile, LBJ had been pushing all parties involved to come to the Paris Peace talks in an effort to end the war in Vietnam.

An early picture of Anna Chennault,
nicknamed “The Dragon Lady”
by the Nixon White House.

Nixon didn’t get the nickname Tricky Dickie for nothing. Using a woman named Anna Chennault, a member of the so-called China Lobby, Nixon went around President Johnson to the South Vietnamese leader to scuttle the peace talks. She carried word from Nixon who said, in essence, if you don’t go to the Paris Peace Talks you’ll get a better deal from Nixon when he’s elected.

The broad outline of this treason has been known for decades (but more proof keeps coming to light). That’s why it was so puzzling that Rosen, in his laughable rewriting of history, would write:

James Rosen, historical revisionist

“A source close to the [Anna Chennault] affair–who demanded anonymity–strongly challenged the veracity of the prime witness.”

The demand for anonymity is backed up by end note 66 on page 514, which reads: “E-mails from [a confidential source] to the author, January 21, 2003, 6:16 p.m.; and Wednesday January 22, 2003, 3:25 p.m.”

Here’s the full quote from the book [Pages 61, 62]:

A source close to the affair — who demanded anonymity — strongly challenged the veracity of the prime witness. “Simply do not trust what Anna Chennault says about this incident,” said the source, a senior policy adviser to Nixon and other GOP politicians in later years. “She manufactured the incident, then magnified her self-importance.”

She caused untold problems with her perpetual self-promotion and, actually, self-aggrandizement, because she was only interested in the money. I do not put it in the realm of fantasy that she was paid by the SVs [South Vietnamese]; she had them bamboozled, believing she was an authentic and important “channel” to the campaign. John Mitchell . . . did not have the bullocks to kiss her off, a tough and persistent woman who could grind you down. . . . . Anna thought of herself as a puppet master. She had no assignment, no tasks, and was an over-the-transom type that can never be suppressed in a campaign.

Yet the Chennault affair continued to haunt Nixon’s presidency. His infamous orders to burglarize the Brookings Institution, issued in the summer of 1971 following publication of the Pentagon Papers and never carried out, stemmed from the president’s concern that the Washington think tank possessed documents related to “the bombing halt” — a euphemism for Nixon’s and Mitchell’s own back-channel machinations to counter it.

Keep in mind that James Rosen challenged me to read his book for myself and not “let @JohnWDean (x-felon) bully” me about it being revisionist history. Rosen’s mistake is that I know almost as much about Watergate as I do about Beatles trivia. The minute I came to that passage on Page 61 I knew that he was hoodwinking his readers. The broad outline of the Anna Chennault story has been known for decades, but the actual proof has only come in drips and drabs over the years. However, by the time Rosen wrote “The Strong Man” it was generally acknowledged that Chennault was telling the truth and Rosen’s secret source was lying through his teeth.

Corpulent liar Roger Ailes [right]
with his evil overlord Rupert Murdock

As soon as I read that passage I started to think, “Who the hell is still around that would still want to cover up Nixon’s treason? Who’s left? The only people who would want to cover it up are all dead.”

Then suddenly it struck me. There is still one person who needs to cover it up. Just to confirm my hypothesis I jumped to the index to look for “Ailes, Roger.” Well, whaddaya know about that? Roger Ailes, Nixon’s media man and John Mitchell’s behind-the-scenes right-hand media man in the ’72 reelection campaign, is NOT mentioned anywhere in the index. Nor does his name ever come up in the 498 pages of the book.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roger Ailes is the “senior policy adviser to Nixon and other GOP politicians in later years” who Rosen so blithely quotes calling Anna Chennault a liar. And, if I knew that the passage was a lie when I was reading it, why didn’t James Rosen know it was a lie when he was writing it? Did James Rosen help cover up his boss’ treason? Because, make no mistake, covering up treason is a treasonous act in and of itself. Therfore, James Rosen, if he knew the truth — but printed the lie — has also commited treason.

When I started asking Rosen uncomfortable questions on Twitter as I was reading his book, he very quickly blocked me. He claimed he did it because I wrote negatively about him for NewsHounds, which, if true, just shows he’s as thin-skinned as Bully Boy Bolling. However, I have always believed it was because he knew I wasn’t buying the bullshit he was selling in his book. Over the last 10 months, since I first wrote about my bun fight with Rosen, I have left many phone messages at Fox “News” for him. All I want to do is clear up the mystery of who is his secret source on Page 61 of The Strong Man. Rosen never returns my calls.

There’s only one conclusion I can come to: James Rosen is a treasonous coward who is covering up for his treasonous boss Roger Ailes. Now, go ahead and sue me. I double-dog dare you.

Unpacking Aunty Em ► My Shocking Confession

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Hanging” Chad. Despite his
name, Chad’s a wonderful dancer.

I have never voted in an election in my entire life. In fact, it’s somewhat of a family tradition. I am a Second Generation Non-Voter™. 

I had always assumed that Pops voted before I moved back in with him to help him out. I was shocked to learn he never voted in his life. I’ve asked Pops why he doesn’t vote and simply put: he thinks they’re all crooks and doesn’t want to encourage them. People ask me why I’ve never voted and I say, “It’s complicated.”

Get comfy, kidz.

When I became of a voting age, I was already living in CanaDuh, where I moved after growing up in ‘Merka. However, I wasn’t a Canadian citizen. I was merely a “Landed Immigrant,” which is the equivalent of having a Green Card. You must be a Canadian citizen to vote in a Canadian election, just as you have to be a ‘Merkin to vote in ‘Merka.

I lived in Canada as a Landed Immigrant for quite a while. During that period I covered several elections for several publications. I also worked for the #1-rated tee vee newsroom for a decade, which had me working during several long election nights live — some in the newsroom and some as a Field Producer producing, err, out in the field at an election headquarters.

Having no stake voting in Canadian elections, I looked at them from afar, the same way I get to look at the Christmas hysteria every year. It’s a very different experience when watching the sausage get made, especially when one can’t even vote. Having no stake in ‘Merkin elections, I looked at them from even more of an afar, the same way I get to look at the Super Bowl hysteria every year.

If truth be told, I could have voted absentee in ‘Merkin ‘lections. I became eligible to vote there in 1971. Since then there have been no matchups exciting enough for me to go through the process of learning how: Nixon-McGovern; Carter-Ford, Carter-Reagan, Reagan-Mondale, GHW Bush-Dukakis, GHW Bush-Clinton, Clinton-Dole, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry. Sorry, but in my opinion none of those races were worth getting out of bed for. Besides, I lived in Canada and never anticipated moving back to ‘Merka. What did I care?

John and Sandra are not related.
Anne and Pierre are cousins.

However, ‘Merka could learn several things from the elections of those crazy Socialists to the north. Lesson Number One: Ballots are uniform across the country. What’s more, they couldn’t be simpler to understand. Make an “X” in a circle on a piece of paper. That’s it. No butterfly ballots. No hanging chads. If there needs to be a recount, all those paper ballots are right there to be recounted. If there’s a dispute? All those paper ballots are right there to be examined.

In Canada electronic voting machines are not owned by one of the candidate’s sons. I put no trust in electronic voting. If entire countries can be hacked, so can your vote. Besides, electronic voting has no paper trail. If you get a receipt for a donut, why not for something as important as your vote?

Lesson Number Two: The Suspense. ‘Merkin ‘lection campaigns always seem to be happening. And, the elections come like clockwork. Senators serve 6 years. Presidents serve 4 years. Congress critters serve 2 years. There always seems to be an election of national import going on in ‘Merka. It seems no sooner that one election is finished, the signs go up for the next election. Those who serve in Congress have it worse. They begin their next campaign on Wednesday.

Suspense is one of the best parts of the Canadian election system. In Canada elections tend to happen every five years, because that’s as long as a government can sit legally without calling one. UNLESS one is called before 5 years have passed. Under the parliamentary system, a Prime Minister
can call an election at any time. If he thinks the party could pick up
more seats in the House, he might call a snap election. But, since Canadians hate being asked to make a firm decision about anything, especially politicians, he better have a good reason to call an
election. He could be punished at the polls if he misreads the mood of the public. Another case in which a snap election can be called — in fact, must be called — is when a minority/coalition government loses a “vote of confidence” in the House.

Lesson Number Three: Most of my ‘Merkin friends would love how there are three viable parties in Canada, as well as a few rump parties that also garner votes. Consequently, if a candidate wants to win, she cannot just appeal to the extremist wackadoodles on one side or another, like what happens in ‘Merkin ‘lections. Having multiple political parties also means that minority/coalition governments are possible. A minority government is the circumstance best for the public in the long run. Political parties have to compromise and work together to get any laws passed. If a government falls due to a vote of “non-confidence,” the party that showed the most intransigence leading to the snap election could be punished at the polls. 

My Majesty’s a pretty nice girl,
but she doesn’t have a lot to say.

Lesson Number Four: The election cycle in Canada is mercifully short. The
legislated minimum length of an election campaign is 36 days. While there’s no maximum legislated length, other laws about
when a government MUST sit in the House would kick in.
This would effectively limit an election campaign to a year. However, and this is the blissful part, Canadian election campaigns generally only last about 5 weeks, TOPS! Then it’s done. Finished.
Kaput. Over. And Canadians forget all about politics until the next election.

However, this essay is supposed to be about me not voting. I digress.

All the time I lived in Canada, it bothered me that I couldn’t vote. All I would have needed to do was become a Canadian Citizen. However, somewhere deep in my heart and psyche I was still a ‘Merkin. There was something about having to swear allegiance to The Queen — a MONARCH, fer fuck’s sake!!! — that went against the grain. Charles Roach — a man I respected who passed away last month — took the same stance as I did. He went further and wanted to abolish the entire monarchy. I didn’t care that much. However, as a ‘Merkin I still couldn’t bring myself to pledge allegiance to a MONARCHY!!! Ain’t that what ‘Merkins spilled blood over way back when, or did I confuse my wars again? They all look alike.

Pics in the Public Domain stitched together by author.

However, it was decades of watching ‘Merkin ‘lections, while fully immersed in a Canadian news stream, that made me 100% cynical about ‘Merkin politics. What can you say about a populace who elected Richard Nixon twice, despite the fact that he was always Tricky Dickie, and always would be? ‘Merkins elected Dubya — not once, but twice!!! That’s when I finally gave up on ‘Merka and decided to take out my Canadian citizenship — oath be damned — just in time to return to ‘Merka to take care of Pops.

That was the supreme irony. While I hold dual citizenship, there were other parts of that
solemn oath I swore to The Queen, and all her heirs and assigns. I also swore
that I would not vote in another country’s elections, nor serve in
another country’s armed forces. I took that part of the oath seriously. Therefore, I am still prohibited from voting. I wonder if I can vote absentee in Canadian elections?

When I returned to ‘Merka, after 3.5 decades outside the country, I decided to adopt the nom de plume “Aunty Em Ericann.” It seemed to fit because I felt almost like a “Stranger in a Strange Land.” The country was familiar on the surface, but once I started digging deeper, I didn’t recognize ‘Merka anymore. She was uglier and meaner than I ever expected her to be. There was far more of “I got mine, Jack. Fuck off” than I ever would have imagined.

However, after careful consideration, I realized the fault was all mine. I came to realize that I had retained an idealized, halcyon, childhood, rose-coloured image of ‘Merka in my mind all of those years in Canada, where there are enough safety nets to catch almost everyone.

I watched the election of Barack Obama from Florida in 2008 with alarm. There was far more racism than I ever could have imagined. Little of that was reflected in the mainstream media news stream (which includes Fox “News”). It was the deeply racist rumblings in some of the circles I found myself immersed in, on the patio at Starbucks, overheard in line at the store. Because people thought I belonged to the same White Skin Club, they’d say the most outrageous things to be unbidden.

‘Merkin racism has only gotten — Yannow, I was going to say “worse,” but I’m not sure it’s worse. I think it has just become more acceptable to express, so it is just out in the open these days. Some people believe because there is a Black president, racism ended. Therefore, they feel more comfortable blurting out the stupidly racist shit that’s dangled at the end of their tongue unexpressed all those years.

Edward Everett Hale, 1865

But I digress and am about to do so again, but I’ll connect it all up at the end.

When I was growing up, there was a short story that deeply affected me. It always brought me to the verge of tears. I recently re-read it and my reaction was even more visceral. How did I know as a child how deeply it would affect me as an adult? But I did.

The Man Without a Country was a short story originally published anonymously in The Atlantic Monthly in 1863. The author was later revealed to have been Edward Everett Hale and it purports to be a true story. However, it is not, something I only learned while researching this paragraph. Yet, that doesn’t change the way I feel about this story. It seems to describe me in a way that I never could have imagined when I first read it as a child.

When I am finally allowed to vote, I will no longer feel like Philip Nolan, whose obituary begins The Man Without a Country.

A Watergate Interlude ► The Saturday Night Massacre

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Watergate complex

DATELINE October 20, 1973 – President Richard Nixon fires Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelhaus resign rather than have to carry out the job. The press immediately dubbed this The Saturday Night Massacre.

Archibald Cox

Cox and Nixon seemed destined to come to loggerheads. Archibald Cox had been the U.S. Solicitor General under President Kennedy, who was a sworn enemy of Nixon, long before he defeated him in the 1960 presidential election. After serving in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations Cox returned to private life and Harvard Law School in 1965, where he had been before serving in government. When, in May of 1973 the government was looking for someone squeaky clean to look into the growing Watergate Scandal, Cox was tapped for the job. However, it wasn’t as smooth as that makes it sound.

Richard Kleindienst had been Nixon’s Attorney General, but resigned on April 30, 1973, the same day that John W. Dean was fired and H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were allowed to quit. When Elliot Richardson was nominated to become the new Attorney General the Senate made Cox’s appointment a condition before confirming Richardson.

Special Prosecutor Cox learned of the extensive White House taping system at the same time the rest of ‘Merka did, at the Watergate Hearings. He knew the tapes might settle some of the questions of who knew what when. That’s when a 4 way power struggle began; with Nixon on one side, and the Senate Watergate Committee, Judge John Sirica — who had issued a Grand Jury subpoena for the tapes — and Cox on the other. All wanted the White House tapes and President Nixon stalled for months rather than turn them over.

President Nixon posing with the rejected transcripts

At first Nixon claimed Executive Privilege. Finally Judge Sirica ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. Nixon stalled again by offering a compromise. He’s have Democratic Senator John Stennis listen to the tapes and prepare a summary of the tapes, based on transcripts prepared by the White House. This was rejected by Special Prosecutor Cox on October 19, who held a press conference the following day to outline his reasoning.

That evening Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than do so. That left it to Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to carry out Nixon’s order. Ruckelshaus resigned as well. During the Watergate scandal there were not many acts of integrity from the Nixon administration. That is why these stood out in sharp contrast.

In the end it was left to Solicitor General Robert Bork, who was now acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Archibald Cox. And the shit hit the fan. There was far more at stake than just the tapes and Nixon’s presidency. As the Washington Post of the following day noted:

The action raised new questions as to whether Congress would proceed to confirm House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan to be Vice President or leave Speaker of the House Carl Albert (D-Okla.) next in line of succession to the highest office in the land.

It was all downhill for Nixon from here on in. As the WikiWackyWoo reports:

On Nov. 14, 1973, Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ruled that the dismissal of Mr. Cox was illegal, in the absence of a prior finding of extraordinary impropriety as specified in the regulation establishing the special prosecutor’s office.

Congress was infuriated by the act [of the Saturday Night Massacre], which was seen as a gross abuse of presidential power. The public sent in an unusually large number of telegrams to both the White House and Congress. And following the Saturday Night Massacre, as opposed to August of the same year, an Oliver Quayle poll for NBC News showed that a plurality of American citizens now supported impeachment, with 44% in favor, 43% opposed, and 13% undecided, although with a sampling error of 2 to 3 percent. In the days that followed, numerous resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress.

Nixon was forced to allow Robert Bork to appoint a new Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. If the White House thought Jaworski would be more amenable to pressure, it was sorely mistaken. Jaworski continued to press for the release of the tapes, as well as the expansion of the investigation beyond the original Watergate burglaries.  Later Nixon released transcripts of the tapes, which satisfied no one and made “expletive deleted” a national punchline. It still took another 10 months until Nixon finally resigned to avoid impeachment and possible conviction.

Some of my books on President Nixon and
Watergate. Behind those books are more books.

Richard Nixon has long been a fascination of mine. For further reading try my other posts on Watergate:

Aunty Em Ericann’s Bun Fight With James Rosen of Fox “News”

Unpacking The Aunty Em Ericann Blog ► Part New 

Watergate ► The Beginning of the End

Watergate ► The End of the End 

Nostalgia Ain’t What It Used To Be ► Happy Birthday Martha Mitchell

Nostalgia Ain’t What It Used To Be ► Vice Presidents We Have Known

Nostalgia Ain’t What It Used To Be ► Vice Presidents We Have Known

, , , , , , ,

It seems only fitting this morning, after last night’s Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congresschild Lyin’ Ryan, to remind people that on this day in 1973 President Richard Nixon nominated Gerald Ford to replace Spiro Agnew as VP. Agnew was forced to resign ahead of pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to charges that he accepted bribes as governor of Maryland and tax evasion before becoming Nixon’s one-breath-away-from-the-presidency pick as Veep.

After Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Gerald Ford, who had been a Congressman, was elevated to the office of the presidency, despite having not been elected to either office.

“Some people say” that Ford’s massive gaffe during the Presidential Debate against Jimmy Carter doomed his reelection. There are others that say it was his own clumsiness, or perception thereof, that doomed his reelection. Then there’s a whole passel of people who blame Chevy Chase’s portrayals of Ford on Saturday Night Live as the reason Ford wasn’t reelected. I’ve never listened to those “nattering nabobs of negativity” because I’ve always believed Ford lost reelection because he pardoned Richard Nixon.

This turn of events made Gerald R. Ford the only appointed President of the United States, until George W. Bush in 2000.

Another Magical Tee Vee Moment ► Richard Nixon’s Checkers Speech

, , , , ,
Jackie Gleason keeping Richard Nixon from falling in the
drink in Inverrary, Florida, a few miles from where I live.

Dateline September 23, 1952 – Under fire for taking money from his private backers to pay expenses, Richard Nixon went on national tee vee and delivered what has come to be known as The Checkers Speech.

At the time he was Senator Richard Nixon, having won over Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950 after accusing her of being a Communist, who was “pink right down to her underpants.” Tapped to be General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice presidential running mate, Nixon ran into trouble two months later when the press learned of a fund that ‘topped off’ Nixon’s salary of $12,500 (which was about $150,000 in 2009 dollars, according to the WikiWackyWoo). As demands grew for Nixon to resign from the ticket and his senate seat, Eisenhower started to distance himself from the party’s GOP pick. To save his position on the GOP ticket, not to mention his seat in the Senate, Nixon convinced Ike to allow him to go on tee vee and make his case directly to the ‘Merkin people. However, Nixon wanted Eisenhower to make a decision on whether to keep him on the ticket immediately after the broadcast. Eisenhower wouldn’t agree to that, so Nixon famously said to the General who saved Europe for democracy, “[G]eneral, there comes a time in matters like this when you’ve either got to shit or get off the pot.” Even at that, Eisenhower said it would take a few days to determine which way the wind was blowing.

At 9:30 PM EST Nixon gave the following speech to all of ‘Merka:

The speech was both maudlin and heart-warming. It became known as The Checkers Speech, a term Nixon hated, for this passage:

One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don’t they’ll probably be saying this about me too, we did get something—a gift—after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was?

It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl—Tricia, the 6-year-old—named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we’re gonna keep it.

Nixon ended the speech with direct appeal to the ‘Merkin people to let their views be known:

I am submitting to the Republican National Committee tonight through
this television broadcast the decision which it is theirs to make. Let
them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I
am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican
National Committee whether you think I should stay on or whether I
should get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide by it.

But just let me say this last word. Regardless of what happens I’m
going to continue this fight. I’m going to campaign up and down America
until we drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them
out of Washington.

The ‘Merkin people did as Nixon had asked. They inundated the GOP with letters and telegrams, Eisenhower decided to keep him on the ticket, and Senator Richard Nixon lived to fight another day, going on to become Vice President of the United States for the next 8 years.

Nostalgia Ain’t What It Used To Be ► Happy Birthday Martha Mitchell

, , , , , , , , , ,
John and Martha Mitchell before their 1973 divorce

Today would have been Martha Mitchell‘s 94th Birthday, had she not had the misfortune of dying in 1976. It’s a good thing she’s not around today, since that spared her the ignominy of having to read, or hear about, the book “The Strong Man; John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate.” This doorstop of historical revisionism, written by Fox “News” personality James Rosen, goes into painful detail, over and over and over again, about Martha Mitchell’s alcoholism, unseemly recounting marital fights and screaming matches observed by others. These details could have been omitted in favour of a few paragraphs here and there in the authors own words, informing the reader that Martha Mitchell suffered from alcoholism, a disease that affects an estimated 76 million people worldwide.

However, that would not have served Rosen, who used Martha’s alcoholism as the main excuse for John Mitchell having taken his eyes off the ball and getting trapped by the Watergate scandal. To read Rosen’s spin of the story, John Mitchell had nothing whatsoever to do with Watergate and it was all the fault of that rapscallion John Dean. This despite Mitchell being found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. He served 19 months of a two and a half years sentence, but went to his grave covering for President Richard Nixon.

Further reading:

Aunty Em Ericann’s Bun Fight With James Rosen of Fox “News”

Unpacking The Aunty Em Ericann Blog ► Part New 

Watergate ► The Beginning of the End

Watergate ► The End of the End

***

***

Watergate ► The End of the End

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dateline August 8, 1974 – President Richard Milhous Nixon tenders his resignation, effective noon the following day, and becomes the first — and so far only — President of the United States to resign in disgrace. This was the culmination of events that began on June 17, 1972 when police arrested 5 men for Breaking & Entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. At the time White House Press Secretary Ron Zeigler dismissed it as a “third rate burglary.” While it might have been “third rate,” it was the third rate burglary that brought down a president. The story didn’t get much traction until August 1st, when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein wrote their first story for the Washington Post. From that moment on the drip, drip, drip of stories in the Post and other newspapers isolated President Nixon. Once it was proven that Nixon participated in the Watergate cover-up, it was all over for his presidency.

There are so many ironies in this story, but here are just three:

President Nixon posing with the
“expletive deleted” transcripts.

► The “Smoking Gun” tape of March 21, 1973 that proved Nixon was up to his ears in the cover-up, was made by a secret automatic recording system that Nixon had installed to preserve his historical legacy. Once the existence of the recordings were made known, Nixon could have had them destroyed; they had yet to be subpoenaed and therefore were not yet evidence. Once they were subpoenaed Nixon tried to tough it out, first claiming Executive Privilege, and then trying to get away with just releasing poorly edited transcripts of the Oval Office conversations. That’s when the words “expletive deleted” became a national punchline.

► Nixon’s resignation letter (above left) was addressed “Dear Mr. Secretary,” which was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. However, it was Kissinger’s apoplectic reaction to earlier leaks, such as the New York Times printing the Pentagon Papers, that led to the creation of the infamous “Plumbers Unit” created to stop the “leaks.”

► Nixon’s presidency was brought down by Frank Wills, a minimum wage Security Guard at the Watergate Hotel Complex. Wills discovered duct tape on a door in the building while making his rounds, so he removed it. One of the “third rate” burglars saw the tape had been removed and, instead of it alerting them to the fact that the jig was up, replaced the tape. On his next round Wills noticed the tape was back and called police, who arrested the “third rate” burglars in the middle of their “third rate” act. Harry Nilsson dedicated “A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night” to Frank Wills and included a small picture of Mr. Wills on his lapel in the cover photograph. [The other picture is Harry’s son Zak, who I am proud to call a friend.] Frank Wills was also memorialized in the song “The Ballad of Frank Wills” by folk artist Ron Turner.

Further Reading on The Aunty Em Ericann Blog:

Watergate ► The Beginning of the End
Aunty Em Ericann’s Bun Fight With James Rosen of Fox “News”

***
***

A Musical Appreciation ► Louis Armstrong

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Dateline August 4, 1901 – A Black boy is born into a world of extreme poverty and Jim Crow laws in New Orleans, Louisiana. By the time Louis Armstrong died in 1971, in Queens, New York, he was one of the most recognizable musicians on the planet. Along the way he entertained millions and became one of the greatest performers in all of Jazz. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

While I’ve been a fan of Louis Armstrong for many years, I became a huge fan all over again by what Jazz historian Gary Giddins said in Ken Burns’ (amazing multi-part) Jazz documentary. Giddins was asked whether Armstrong was a genius. Giddins replied (paraphrasing), “We tend to throw the word ‘genius’ around. However, if by ‘genius’ you mean that after him nothing was ever the same again, then by that measure Louis Armstrong was a genius.”

“You can’t play anything on a horn that Louis hasn’t played”
~~~~~Miles Davis

It was Louis Armstrong’s praise of Bing Crosby talents that made me reassess everything I ever thought about Der Bingle. Here they are together in one of my favourite Louis Armstrong clips, a terrific Cole Porter tune from the movie High Society:

“What was the greatest band of the 20th century? Forget the Beatles – it was Louis Armstrong’s Hot Five and its subsequent incarnation, the Hot Seven… these bands altered the course of popular music.”
~~~~~Playboy magazine

 There are two things that have always impressed me about Louis Armstrong and neither have to do with his music.

Armstrong being fitted by Toronto’s world famous hatter Sam Taft

1). In the mid-’40s, when he was just starting to make some really good money, he bought a house on 107th Street in Corona, Queens, NYC. He lived there the rest of his life, long after he could have afforded to move to better and more expensive digs. When he wasn’t touring he was known for sitting on his porch and greeting the neighbourhood kids, who all called him Pops, and giving them apples and unconditional love. That house was made a National Historical Landmark in 1977 and is now the Louis Armstrong House and Museum.

2). During his lifetime Armstrong was criticized for being an Uncle Tom for playing to segregated audiences, accepting the title “King of the Zulus” in the 1949 Mardi Gras parade, and not doing more for ‘his people.’ Billie Holliday was even quoted as saying, “Of course Pops toms, but he toms from the heart.” Aside from the fact that being named King of the Zulus was a singular New Orleans honour misunderstood elsehwre in the country, when Louis Armstrong made his views on race relations known, the entire world listened.

In 1957, during the desegregation controversy in Little Rock, Arkansas, Arstrong sppoke out loud and clear. He called President Eisenhower “gutless” and “two-faced” for sitting on his hands and doing nothing. And, to put his money where his mouth was, Armstrong cancelled a tour of the Soviet Union he was about to do on behalf of the State Department. Uncle Tom would never have said, “The way they’re treating my people in the South, the government can go to hell.”

“Louis Armstrong is the master of the jazz solo. He became the beacon, the light in the tower, that helped the rest of us navigate the tricky waters of jazz improvisation.”
~~~~~Ellis Marsalis

Louis  Armstrong also helped change Jazz singing. He wasn’t the first to Scat, but he helped popularize the genre with his joyful Scat singing, which was as revolutionary as is trumpet playing.

As for honous: 

  • When his version of “Hello Dolly” knocked The Beatles off the top of the charts in 1964, he became the oldest person to have a #1 hit on the Billboard charts; 
  • The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame listed his 1928 version of “West End Blues” as one of 500 songs that shaped Rock and Roll;
  • On what would have been his 100th birthday New Orleans renamed its airport Louis Armstrong International Airport; 
  • Also on his centenery the United States Postal Service put Armstrong on a First Class stamp;
  • He was given a postumous Lifetime Grammy Award in 1972;
  • Eleven of his songs have been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame;
  • President Richard Nixon released a statement upon Armstrong’s death calling him Mr. Jazz. 

“I’m proud to acknowledge my debt to the ‘Reverend Satchelmouth’ … He is the beginning and the end of music in America”
~~~~~Bing Crosby

However, it’s always been about the music. Louis Armstrong recorded hundreds, maybe thousands, of sides in his lifetime. Here is just a small sample of what made Louis Armstrong one of the greatest musicians ever.

“If you don’t like Louis Armstrong, you don’t know how to love”
~~~~~Mahalia Jackson

***
***

Watergate ► The Beginning of the End

, , , , , , ,
Then

It hardly seems like 40 years. However, four decades ago today the Washington Post published the first article by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on what was to become known as Watergate. The White House tried to dismiss the break in at the Watergate Hotel as a “third rate burglary.” However, this would roil the country for more than 2 years, until President Nixon could no longer run from the cover-up in which he participated. He resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.

No evidence has ever surfaced that Nixon knew of the break in beforehand. However, his loyalty to his staff, and blindness to what was the right thing to do, enmeshed him in the greatest political scandal ‘Merka has ever known. Once it was learned he participated in the cover up it was just a matter of time before he resigned, which he did as Articles of Impeachment had already been passed by the House of Representatives.

Now

By 1972 I was already a long-time Nixonophile. Nixon had become Vice President to President Eisenhower in 1952, the year of my birth. From that moment on he was a presence in my life, whether I was aware of him or not. It seemed stunning to me that he won the ’68 election, especially after his defiant “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” speech after he lost the race to become Governor of California in 1962.

Just some of my books about and by Richard Nixon

My fascination never really ended. I collected books and read as much as I could about Watergate and Richard Nixon in order to better understand what made him tick. That turned out to be an impossible task. Nixon is a knot of contradictions which no author has completely unraveled.

James Rosen of Fox “News”

Nor have all the secrets of Watergate been unraveled. It’s that grey
area that allows revisionist authors like Fox “News” reporter James
Rosen to muddy the waters on who was responsible for Watergate and who
bears no responsibility for Watergate. In his book “The Strong Man”
about John Mitchell, Nixon’s chief law man, and the head of Nixon’s
re-election campaign (with the ironic acronym CREeP), Rosen pins
Watergate on everybody BUT John  Mitchell, who was such a misunderstood individual. I’ve written about my fight with Rosen, and it wouldn’t hurt you to take a look.

However, it was “Woodstein,” as they were sometimes known, the two dogged reporters who kept at the scandal until the whole house of cards came falling down. There’s been a lot of Watergate navel-gazing this year. However, if you only read one recent article take a look at Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought.

Woodward and Bernstein donated their Watergate papers to the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin. If you’re as obsessed as I, or just a casual reader, this is a fascinating look at a unique moment in ‘Merkin history.

Unpacking The Aunty Em Ericann Blog ► Part New

, , , , , , , , , ,
A moment in time

While I use this occasional series to peel back the layers and reveal some of the behind-the-scenes aspects of my blog, the more astute among my readers have already figured out that there is a hidden motive: This is my subtle way of trying to get people to click on the advertising on my blog.

Wait! That wasn’t subtle at all.

No, you’re right. Subtle can be over-rated. My need for people to click on the ads is not subtle either. I spend hours upon hours researching and writing some of these posts, yet the only compensation I receive is from the advertising…and only if you click on those adverts. If you liked something you’ve read here, why not help a blogger out?

Take a closer look at that column of ads over there on the right? Choose something that sounds interesting (but it doesn’t have to be interesting). Then click on it. That’s it!!! While it costs you nothing, dear reader, each click sends a few pennies (and I do mean “few”) my way. I bet that every time you click on one of those adverts, you will feel better. Go ahead, try it! See? Now try it again. Feel even better, doncha? It works every time.

A moment in time on the The Aunty Em Ericann Blog

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed some interesting things in the latest set of statistics. For the longest time — from almost the very day it was posted — Aunty Em Ericann’s Bun Fight With James Rosen of Fox “News” was my most popular all-time article. It was written on May 15th and remained at the very tippy-top of my All Time Popular Posts right out of the gate. However, it was recently overtaken — by a very wide margin — in just this last week by my Musical Appreciation ► Brian Jones post. The Brian Jones post went up on July 3rd, almost 2 months after the Rosen post, yet has jumped to the top of the leader board.

It probaly didn’t hurt that The Rolling Stones celebrated their 50th Anniversary since I posted the Brian Jones appreciation. Most people arrived at the Aunty Em Ericann Blog through a Google search. I wonder if yesterday’s birthday of Mick Jagger will boost the latest numbers.

NUMBER 6 WITH A BULLET: It’s also gratifying to see my Coconut Grove series rising in popularity, especially the post Unpacking Coconut Grove ► Part Two ► E.W.F. Stirrup House. This is the article in which I lay out the history of Ebenezer Woodbury Franklin Stirrup and why his house and legacy should be saved. I would be gratified if you will pass this along to people who are interested in historical preservation.

Stay tuned for Part Three of this series. In the next installment, which is almost complete, I will expose who controls which properties surrounding the E.W.F. Stirrup House and who is responsible for the Demolition by Neglect that the house is currently undergoing. This could get very ugly, especially since there are millions of developers’ dollars at stake.

James Rosen of Fox “News” who
wrote “The Strong Man.” his and
cover-up of John Mitchell

ROSEN UPDATE: For those of you clamoring for Part Two of Aunty Em Ericann’s Bun Fight With James Rosen of Fox “News,” fear not: It’s coming. While it’s partially written, I have had more important things on my plate than proving why the 4-year old book “The Strong Man,” by Fox “News” correspondent James Rosen, is nothing but revisionist history. And, not to put too fine a point on it, there are still a few interviews I need to conduct in order to expose Rosen’s secret source on Page 61 (of the hardcover).

When Rosen wrote his John Mitchell apologia, his anonymous source could be assured that (s)he could lie with impunity about whether Anna Channault was telling the truth. However, subsequent releases of information about the 1968 presidential election, years before Watergate, proved that what Channault said was THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

This might be considered by some to be arcane, academic knowledge not worth revisiting at this point, some 44 years, or 11 presidential elections, after the one that put Richard Nixon in office. However, TREASON is never an academic issue and that’s what Rosen’s secret source is covering up by lying about Anna Chanault.

The million dollar question needs to be asked: Who could possibly be still around from those bygone days still interested in covering up Richard Nixon’s TREASON? Rosen knows who it was and, by now, must know he printed an untruth told to him by his anonymous source.

I have my suspicions on who the source was. A few more interviews and I will be able to announce it as a fact. I am even willing to listen to what James Rosen might have to say, but he’d rather block me on Twitter than answer my uncomfortable questions about his book.

Another moment
in time.

BACK TO THE STATS: One of the statistics that continues to fascinate me is where my readership lives. While ‘Merkins are far and away the top readers of my blog, I find it surprising that #2 is Italy by a wide margin over #3, the United Kingdom. Both of those beat Canada, where most of my family and friends live.

Italy? I don’t even speak the language.

Meanwhile, feel free to poke around on my blog, leave some comments, call me names, whatever meets your fancy. However, don’t forget to click on one of those adverts. Pretty please with sugar on top!

***

***