CBS News: President Richard Nixon's Resignation Speech- Dan Rather vs Roger Mudd

Source:World Opinion Forum- Roger Mudd v Dan Rather on CBS News: "Go soft on President Nixon." 

Source:The New Democrat

"The night Nixon resigned word came down  from the top at CBS to - as Dan Schorr put it - "Go soft on Nixon."
 Schorr added: "I guess Roger didn't get the word."
See also responses of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid

Video from Nixon Library."

From World Opinion Forum

CBS News covering President Richard Nixon's resignation speech in August, 1974. (I wasn't born yet!) Of course because of President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break in in 1972 where employees of the Richard Nixon Reelection Campaign, broke into Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington in the summer of 1972.

After it became clear because of President Nixon's presidential tapes that the President ordered the coverup. he lost most of whatever support he had left in Congress. At least enough in the House and even in his own party to prevent him from being impeached by the House with a bipartisan majority and win a conviction trial in the Senate. The President would have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. That is how Congress can remove the President and Vice President from office.

Congressional Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater, but Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, told President Nixon that the gig was up. (So to speak) Went to the White House and told the President he can't survive Watergate and if he tries to he'll be removed from off by Congress.

That is why President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Because had he not he would have faced a worst embarrassment of being removed from office by Congress and perhaps losing half of his own party in the House and Senate on those votes. Senate Republicans told President Nixon that he might have twenty votes for acquittal in the Senate if it went that far. You need 34 to defeat impeachment in the Senate and Republicans had 45 seats in the Senate in that Congress. More than enough to defeat an impeachment trial if they're united on it.

President Nixon had calculated that he would probably get impeached by the Democratic House that had roughly 260 seats, but the win the conviction trial in the Senate. But Senator Goldwater told the President that he didn't have enough votes in the Senate for that and that he Barry Goldwater would vote for conviction.  Perhaps Richard Nixon did want to end this and save the country from seeing their President impeached and convicted. But it's clear that a big part of him resigning was to save himself from further embarrassment.

This Democratic Congress of 1973-74, was ready to get past impeachment and deal with other issues. Like making sure the Vietnam War ended swiftly and properly, the country was going through a recession and lacked affordable energy, inflation was becoming a big problem, rising unemployment, etc. But just as long as President Nixon was removed one way or another from office. Whether they had to do that themselves or the President voluntarily stepped down.

So as Roger Mudd and Dan Rather were talking about as far as whether the House would go through on impeachment anyway even with the President resigning, there was no appetite for that in either the Democratic Caucus or Republican Caucus. And the Democratic Senate wanted nothing to do with an impeachment trial and neither did Senate Republicans, especially if the President already decided to voluntarily resign. Richard Nixon being the master politician he was, knew when to fold and when he lost all support which is why he resigned from office.

CBS News: Fidel Castro On Face The Nation (1959)

Source:The New Democrat

This was just after the Castro Communists had taken power in Cuba in 1958, from the authoritarian Batista Regime there, after winning the Cuban Civil War. Cuba replaces one authoritarian regime from Fulgencio Batista and creates a new one with Fidel Castro. I saw a documentary about Che Guevara last week and it featured a lot of Fidel in the same film. For obvious reasons and they essentially said Fidel wasn’t sure exactly what type of government he would replace the Batista Regime with. That he became a Marxist Communist, leftist dictatorial authoritarian after he came to power as President of the New Communist Republic of Cuba. But Fidel was never a Democrat Socialist or otherwise. He’s always believed in socialism and what it can do for people. But never believed in governing the country through democratic means. With allowing any time of real opposition, or decentralizing power to anyone else outside of his regime in Cuba.

CBS News: ‘The Tenement- Life In Chicago’s Black Ghetto (1967)’

Source:The New Democrat 

Source:CBS News- a woman who was interviewed for this documentary.

“One in this series of irregularly scheduled in-depth reports. This program focuses on the lives of nine families living in a dilapidated tenement on Chicago’s south.” 

From  Erzade Atan 

"This program focuses on the lives of nine families living in a dilapidated tenement on Chicago's south side in 1966. It includes interviews with Chicago residents, including those who lived at 3823 South Ellis Street prior to their eviction. Program highlights depict the following: a mother and newborn leave Cook County Hospital; Georgia Johnson, a tenant for fifteen years; a mother washes for a family of twelve; an eleven-year-old cares for younger siblings; members of "The Four Corners" gang; children play in a vacant lot; the tenement at 10:00 pm; church service; a neighborhood fire; high school drop-outs; a tenant's funeral; and exodus of tenants before the building is demolished." 

Source:CBS News- 1967 documentary about a Chicago ghetto.

From Hezakya Newz & Films

At risk of sounding political, but I’ll also be factual here, what you see in this film and community is the failures of public housing in America. And essentially forced segregation of not just the races, but of the economic classes for lack of a better term in America. Where you had middle class communities that are doing well. Upper class communities that are doing very well. And then lower class communities where the people there get what is left. Which is run-down apartment buildings, run-down schools. High crime rates where no one with real money wants to invest. And you create a community that looks like a big city inside of a third world country.

Public housing by itself is not a problem because that has prevented a lot of homelessness in America. But how its been run and managed in America especially for the kids being trapped in such run-down communities in run-down neighborhoods. A lot of times in single-parent families where the father is out of the picture for one reason or another. Where the mother might not even have a high school diploma let alone any college experience. Working two or three jobs to support her several kids, if she’s working at all. And having communities like this has serious costs. For the people who live there obviously, but for the country as a whole that has to try to makeup for what these families aren’t able to provide for themselves.

And the way public housing has been run in America has negatively affected the African-American community probably more than any community in the country other than the American-Indian community. Because African-Americans have generally had a poverty level twice that of the national average. And much higher than the Caucasian-American and Asian-American communities in America. And this is something that we should stop doing as a country and instead having public housing buildings in middle class communities. With education, job training and work opportunities for the people in these communities so they don’t have to live in public housing at all.

CBS News: 1968 Special: Black History: Lost, Stolen or Strayed, Starring Bill Cosby

Source:The New Democrat

I think the point of this film is that a lot that has been written about African-Americans about American history has been incorrect and stuff that is true about the community has been left out. Which almost fifty-years later is pretty obvious, but back in 1968 it certainly wasn’t. And that African-Americans themselves probably weren’t very familiar with their history especially the positive aspects of it. And probably weren’t even taught about it. It wasn’t until the 1880s or so that African-Americans were allowed to learn how to read, let alone get an education. Because they were treated by Caucasian-Americans as animals.

The other point being that a lot that has been written and portrayed about the African-American community has not just been racist, but simply false. The Birth of The Nation film from 1918 is an excellent example of that. And then go to the movies starting in the 1930s or so featuring African-Americans were portrayed as servants to Caucasians. Or were seen as criminals that no man would ever dare let their daughters be anywhere near. That fact is left obvious even back then because all Americans were familiar with the movies and TV and all had access to them for the most part.

I think the whole point of African-American History Month is to correct many wrongs that were written about the community in the past. And not portray the African-American community as perfect, because no community is. But to give a more balance look at the community and to point out that this community has given a lot to America from day one and even before we officially became the United States. And to show that even though this community still has a lot of challenges in America, they are by far the most successful African community in the world. That has contributed a lot to America and then some.

CBS News: Special Report: Black Power/White Black Lash (1966)

Source:The New Democrat

To me at least Black Power wasn’t one movement, but a larger movement with several different sub-divisions. You had the more socialist if not Marxist revolutionary Black Panthers on the Far-Left with their own militia. You had Malcolm X and his movement that was sort of in the middle. That was truly about freedom and individualism for the African-American community and for them to be free to live their own lives. And you had the more social democratic pacifist movement led by Martin Luther King and his organization as well. But all of these groups essentially had similar if not the same goals, but with different tactics in how to accomplish those goals.

All three of these groups wanted power for the entire African-American community. That would not longer be forced to live under poverty, racism and have to be second-class citizens to Caucasian-Americans. I think one of the tragedies of Malcolm X being murdered in 1965 is that he and his movement I believe would’ve been a bumper between the Black Panthers and the MLK group. And perhaps without the Malcolm X being murdered maybe we don’t see the race riots that we did in 1965 and 66. We’ll never know that, but he was moderating before he was murdered in 1965 and maybe we would’ve seen that.

Black Power for the most part wasn’t about having African-Americans throwing the Caucasian community out of power in the 1960s and overthrowing the U.S. Government. It was about empowering an entire community of Americans to be able to live in their own freedom as well. And no longer forced to live under anyone else’s authority. The Black Panthers might have had more extreme leftist goals of overthrowing and entire country. But generally speaking the people in Black Power movement was about empowering African-Americans. And only using violence when it was used against them.

Charlie Rose: George Clooney in 2005 On Goodnight & Good Luck

Source:The New Democrat

This is one reason why I’m definitely a big fan of George Clooney, besides his great sense of humor and charm, but his intelligence and knowledge about the issues that he likes to film about. Ed Murrow and the Ed Murrow-Joe McCarthy battle in the 1950s over communism and fascism. Who knows Ed Murrow so well and this story so well and you see that in this interview and in the movie. And you also see how much he respected Ed Murrow and how big of a thug and fascist that Senator Joe McCarthy was in the 1950s. Even if Ann Coulter is never smart enough to see that.

Ed Murrow knew how dangerous Senator McCarthy was in the 1950s and represented everything that America is supposed to be against and something I believe a large majority if not most Americans are against, which is fascism. And this blog covers fascism from both the Far-Right and Far-Left because it hates fascism. People telling others what it means to be an American and a moral person. Or how we should talk about certain groups of people and who we should communicate with each other.

Ed Murrow and his See it Now team knew exactly what they were up against and that the person that they were up against. And the fact that Senator McCarthy was a member of Congress and could use his power as a Senator to try to punish CBS News and the broader CBS network with their licensing and fines and everything else. And CBS News of course knew this as well which is why they weren’t fully behind Murrow and Fred Friendly. But it believed it was a fight worth taking on for the future of speech and other freedoms that Americans tend to take for granted. And they were very skillful how they took on McCarthy.

C-SPAN: Goodnight & Good Luck (2005)

Source:The New Democrat

What I didn’t cover yesterday was how important Ed Murrow was for network hard news and what he meant for it. It was almost like the man was physic and could see what network news would look lets say fifty-years later. He could already see news moving in a more tabloid and entertainment oriented direction. And that news being combined with entertainment. He wanted to run and anchor a hard news show that dealt primarily with hard news. Which is exactly what CBS News the gold standard for network news for the next twenty years starting in the early 1960s became.

What Murrow said was that he knew what entertained Americans and what they wanted to see and get entertained. What he was saying was that he wanted Americans to also get what they needed to know. Why their country and world operates the way it does and why that is important to them. That Americans could have their desserts, but that also should have their entrees. Their meat and potatoes before they have their ice cream and cake. Ed Murrow was a hard news man working for primarily an entertainment network. Which is what CBS was primarily in the 1950s. Which of course changed with CBS News and CBS Sports in the 1960s and ever since.

And this whole time period with CBS executives telling Murrow and Fred Friendly that they want entertainment and with McCarthyism going on in the U.S. Senate and other big news stories of that era was the perfect way to show how entertainment competes with hard news at TV networks. Murrow saying that he knows that Americans want to see Ed Sullivan and Leave it to Beaver and whatever else. But you got these big stories going on that affect the future of America that are frankly more important. And they have to be covered and shown too.

Lionsgate: Goodnight & Good Luck (2005)

Source:The New Democrat

If I had to rate Goodnight and Good Luck on a scale of 1-10 with ten being the highest, I would give it a 9-9.5. And I saw the movie again a couple of nights ago in preparation for this blog. The only reason I wouldn’t give it a ten, is because it was a ninety-minute movie about one of the most important times during the Cold War between America and Russia and their allies on both sides. This movie should’ve been at least two-hours if not three and they would’ve been able to cover so many more aspects about the McCarthyism in the 1950s.

If you are familiar with the 1950s in America and the so-called red scare about communism and Communists in America, then you are also familiar with U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy and the Army McCarthy hearings that supposedly investigated supposed Communists inside of the U.S. Government. A complete fishing trip inside of an empty bathtub, because Chairman McCarthy and his team didn’t have much if anything to go on. Other than guilt by association. Senator McCarthy saw this as his ticket to the White House after President Dwight Eisenhower.

Edward R. Murrow the anchor and managing editor of CBS News’s See it Now, the CBS nightly newscast before the CBS Evening News, knew what communism was and who were the actual Communists. Because he covered World War II in Europe. And didn’t believe that Americans who weren’t Communists should be stuck with the label of Communists. And he and Fred Friendly and their team at See it Now, without having the backing of CBS News and the broader CBS network, decided to go after McCarthyism and expose Joe McCarthy for what he was. Which was a political opportunist and a right-wing fascist. Who saw Americans who didn’t look at the world the way he did as Un-American.

Murrow and Friendly expose Joe McCarthy for what he really was by going after him the way any good news organization would. By using the truth against McCarthy. Using his own words and documents against the Senator. And with Murrow doing a nightly editorial after their reporting on the McCarthy hearings about dangerous fascism and guilt by association is. And George Clooney who plays Fred Friendly and David Strathairn who plays Ed Murrow, do a great job of showing who the real Friendly and Murrow and the See it Now crew take down Senator Joe McCarthy.

CBS News: Person to Person Classic: JFK & Jacqueline

Source:CBS News-

Source:The New Democrat

The Kennedy’s had just been married by this point in 1953. John Kennedy was about halfway through his first term as a U.S. Senate and already contemplating running for President. And had even considered being Adlai Stephenson’s Vice Presidential nominee in 1956. And this is going to sound hard, but Jack Kennedy was politically smart enough to know that he wasn’t going to get elected President as a bachelor. Especially as a bachelor with a reputation as a playboy. That is where Jackie comes in to make it look like Jack has settled down with one women and ready to start a family. Not saying Jack didn’t love Jackie, but that was not his primary motive for marrying her. He wanted to run for and be elected President in 1960 and the way to do that back then and still today is at the very least be seen as a family man. With a wife and kids and be perceived as loving both.

The Boston Globe: Ted Kennedy: Why do You Want to be President?

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who doesn't know why they want to be President of the United States, should not run for President. It is too big of a job to have someone who hasn't put much if any thought into why they are running, or why they would be the best person for the job. Also anyone who doesn't want to be President, shouldn't run either because of all the work and sacrifices that go into to simply running for President let alone doing the job itself. Sacrifices that the candidate as well as their family make.

I believe Senator Ted Kennedy qualified for both when he was looking at a 1980 presidential bid against President Jimmy Carter who just happened to be from the same party the Democratic Party. He not only didn't know why he wanted to be President of the United States, because he didn't want the job in the first place. He felt some obligation to the Progressive Left in the Democratic Party to run for President against Jimmy Carter who was very vulnerable against the Republican Party for reelection. But also came from the center-left New Democratic wing of the party.

CBS News: Walter Cronkite's First CBS Evening Newscast

Source:The New Democrat

CBS News making history and for good reasons in 1963 with the first half-hour newscast. Which was a huge deal back in the early 1960s when TV networks were all about entertainment and sports, because that is where the money was back then. And whatever time they had left over and the minimal amount of time that the Federal Government required them to cover current affairs, meaning news, that is what they would dedicate to news coverage. Which back then was news in the morning and covering major events like press conferences, presidential speeches and political conventions.

CBS Evening News: Dan Rather-George H.W. Bush Tiff The Day After

Source:The New Democrat

I haven't seen this video in about three years and I saw it then on YouTube. And if I heard anything about it as a kid in 1987 when this interview was conducted when I was 11-12 at the time, I don't remember. So I don't remember this interview very well to say the least, but a post about that interview and the interview itself will be on this blog in the future. What I can say about it is whatever you think of Dan Rather, the man was a tough hardball interviewer who liked to go after people in power. George H.W. Bush was Vice President of the United States at the time, so he obviously qualified.

Jim Heath: CBS News Election 1982 Highlights

Source:The New Democrat

The recession of 1981-82 was huge and cost Congressional Republicans especially in the House a lot of seats. House Republicans lost something like thirty-five seats. Going from the low 190s in the House to the upper 150s where they were going into the 1980 general election. So House Republicans especially lost everything that they picked up in 1980 in 1982. Similar to House Democrats that lost everything that they picked up in 2006 and 08 in 2010. Senate Republicans managed to retain control of the Senate after 1982, but they lost a couple of seats as well.

Watch Mojo: Top 10 Walter Cronkite Moments: JFK, Vietnam, Watergate

Source:The New Democrat

Walter Cronkite was and still is the standard for broadcast news because of his knowledge of the news and what it meant, but also how he carried himself. He was always the man in charge at his CBS News desk, the man you turn to when there is some type of crisis. The man you know won't fold under pressure and always know what to do whatever the situation is. Sort of like a great general in battle or a great head coach in sports who is not replaceable and still missed today.

Bedford TV: CBS News Evening News: Iranian Hostage Crisis - December 26, 1980

Source:The New Democrat

Looks like at least from this short film that the American hostages in Iran were taken care of. That they weren't being starved, or forced to wear awful looking prison uniforms and held under brutal conditions. That they were being held like white-collar inmates would be held in America in a minimum security prison. Just based on this little film the hostages looked like they were in good shape and given the opportunity to tell their families that.

CBS News: See it Now: Edward R. Murrow On Senator Joe McCarthy (1954)

Source:The New Democrat

This was not commentary on Edward R. Murrow's part, but Ed Murrow accurately describing the dangerous actions of Senator Joe McCarthy who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communists in Government. Not the exact title, but close enough and what Murrow was doing was explaining how dangerous this type of fascism on the Senator's part was to our American values of Freedom of Assembly and Speech. That Americans shouldn't be judged by who we associate with, or what we think, but by how live our lives as Americans.

Kyungho Dean: Documentary - Edward R. Murrow vs. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy

Source:The New Democrat

What was so brilliant about Ed Murrow and his See it Now broadcast which was CBS News’s nightly newscast before the CBS Evening News was created, what was so brilliant about Ed Murrow and See it Now in how they handled the Joe McCarthy hearings, is they just reported what Senator McCarthy said. And then Ed Murrow would give his commentary on what the Senator said, but they didn’t put words in his own mouth. “This is what the Senator said and what we think about it.” They didn’t put words in Senator McCarthy’s mouth or what his investigative committee in the Senate that he chaired said and what they were up to. They simply listened to what the Senator said and then used his own words against him. Which is very different from listening to what someone said and then trying to make it sound worst than what it really. Which is what partisan news organizations do today and back then as well.

CBS News:: The Death of President Harry Truman (12/26/1972)

Source:CBS News commercial break.

Source:The Daily Journal

“CBS news broadcast from Dec 26 1972 focusing primarily on the death of 33rd U.S. President Harry Truman.” 

From Melody Cat

I believe Harry Truman was one of our top 3-5 presidents in American history, but certainly in the top ten. Because of how he managed post-World War II especially in Europe and put America in position to successfully win the Cold War. With the buildup of the national security state to deal with Russia, as well as the NATO.

Harry Truman was the man not many people respected until they saw him in action. I don’t know of an American politician, especially a great American politician that was more underestimated than Harry Truman. A fairly unknown U.S. Senator who had only been a Senator for ten-years, where all of his Congressional service was served, becomes Vice President of the United States in 1945. Who didn’t have much of a professional resume at all before he was fifty-years old, not just becomes President of the United States, but achieves that within days of becoming Vice President. And becomes one of the best President’s in American history.

CBS News: Face The Nation With Bob Schieffer: 'The Confident Defeat That Wasn't'

Source:CBS News- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) appearing on CBS News Face The Nation, in 1972.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Democrats Sen. Hubert Humphrey and Rep. George McGovern appeared together on "Face the Nation" while they were campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. They both expressed confidence that President Richard Nixon was beatable. Of course, neither of them ultimately did."

From CBS News

Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate talking to CBS News Face The Nation about Senator Hubert Humphrey and their presidential campaigns. The video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:CBS News- Face The Nation talking to George McGovern & Hubert Humphrey.

The fact is there wasn't any Democrat who could even beat President Nixon in 1972, or even give him a tough race, because of the disarray in the Democratic Party between it's Center-Left and Far-Left. Similar to how the Republican Party is today. And there wasn't a Democrat who could bring those two sides together. 

But even without the emergence of the McGovernites that put all of their support behind Senator George McGovern in 1972, I think they would have a hard time defeating President Nixon. Because of the emerging Southern base in the Republican Party and that the Democrats hadn't locked down the Northeast and West Coast, as well as big Midwestern cities as far as their base. African-Americans and Latinos, were still voting Republican in 1972.

Compared with the late 1960s at least, 1972 looked like a fairly peaceful and establishment friendly year. And when that is the case the party in power and that is the party with the presidency, tends to do well. Even if the young Baby Boomers and the broader New-Left in the Democratic Party felt differently. 

By 1972, the Vietnam War was ending, America was negotiating with Russia and China and opening up a relationship with the People's Republic of China. The country by in-large felt pretty good. The Great Deflation of the 1970s that basically hammered the American economy from really 1973 on, hadn't happen yet. So when the country is like this they tend to feel fairly good and aren't looking for a change in leadership. 

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Norman Thomas (1953)

Source:CBS News talking to Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas in 1953.

Source:FreeState MD

“LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH DR. NORMAN THOMAS – National Archives and Records Administration 1953-02-16 – ARC Identifier 95979 / Local Identifier LW-LW-48 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Hardy Burt talk with Dr. Norman Thomas, Socialist Leader, on criticism of the new Eisenhower administration policies regarding Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek, communism, bombing of Manchurian bases, recognition of the People’s Republic of China, Korean truce, a third World War and world peace. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon.”

From the Public Resource 

What I respect about Norman Thomas (even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy) is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. 

Norman Thomas was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how it’s been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far-lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world, for a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism, as if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise.

Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war.

Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him