Harrasment Laws
Q: I don't believe Clinton has done more damage than Nixon, but I also think he
hasn't accomplished as much. It is an interesting comparison, though.
Clinton has damaged the stature of the Presidency. Nixon (after
being caught) resigned, leaving the stature of the government
more-or-less intact.
I think I disagree; prior recent presidents now know to have been "frisky" in
office or at some earlier point in their careers didn't rub their behavior in
our faces the way Clinton _or_ Nixon did, but Nixon pretty much set the tone
for electing a president with known moral failings, and for illegal activities
while in office. I suspect the Clintons have broken _more_ laws, but Nixon
broke the law in the course of trying to subvert the election process, a part
of his general megalomania, while the Clintons seem to have broken the law
mainly by being stupid, not that terribly malicious. ?
A: Nixon created a deep sense of mistrust on the part of the American people, and media, in the presidency. This atmosphere of mistrust led to both a more intrusive attitude of the media, coupled with political change such as the creation of the Independent Counsel. Needless to say, both of these changes led to the Lewinsky fiasco, which would never have happened in 1970, 1960, or 1950 no matter how many blow jobs the