University of Virginia Library

Belated Remedies?

News of the Watergate keeps pouring in
over the wire services faster than any of us
can physically compile, sensibly digest or
responsibly analyze it. Seldom since the
assassination of President Kennedy has so
much space in so many newspapers been
devoted to such a barrage of copy as the
now-infamous Watergate affair. Not just every
couple of days or even every day, for that
matter, but rather every hour another story
breaks, another administration official
becomes further implicated and another
ludicrous yet frightening plot, scheme or
break-in is uncovered.

Monday night in another of his "Bring Us
Together" speeches, President Nixon, at the
height of one of the more discouraging
moments of his political career, finally
reconciled himself publically to all that had
recently transpired. Some have called this
"the beginning of the end" of this sordid
affair. Let's hope so.

The following is a United Press
International analysis on where newspapers
across the country feel Mr. Nixon's previous
inaction and recent comments have left the
country, the Presidency and his
administration, and where they are to go from
here.

American newspapers Tuesday said
President Nixon's Watergate speech marked a
turning point in the White House scandal but
agreed there was much to be done before
public confidence in government was
restored.

Most newspapers said Nixon's belated
remedies would not stem criticism of the
bugging attempts and signaled only the
beginning of the end of the affair. Some said
he had not gone far enough and repeated calls
for the appointment of an independent
prosecutor, unconnected with the
administration, to investigate criminal aspects
of the case.

The New York Times said Nixon "did all that was
inevitable–but not all that was necessary. His
belated decision to dispense with the services
of key aides was a bow to the inescapable."

". . .Restoration of confidence in the
integrity of government will come only with a
turnaway from administration insiders in the
choice of a successor for these department
members of his inner circle," the Times said.

The New York Daily News called Nixon a
"sadder but wiser president who has taken
firm steps to expose all the rottenness of the
Watergate case and all the rotters."

"Those were the first, but certainly not the
last prominent heads that will roll before the
stench of Watergate can be blown away..." it
said.

The Detroit News said "although Nixon's
speech. . .certainly won't close the floodgates
of discussion and criticism, it signified a
determination at last to clean house and move
on to other, more pressing business of
government. Americans can utter a collective
sigh of relief–and hope it works."

The Washington Post said Nixon's
proposals for clearing up the scandal fell short
of earning the public trust. "None of them
provides for the introduction in the
investigative process of a detached and
wholly independent party with no previous
connection with the administration..."

"The clear solution. . .is for the criminal
aspects of these cases to be put under special
prosecution."

The Portland Oregonian said Nixon's
"replacement of Kleindienst by Elliot
Richardson, only recently settled in as
Secretary of Defense, is evidence of the
growing manpower poverty of the
administration at the policy levels."

The Oregonian urged that "...there be a
full exposition of the affair, origins of which
were so close to the seat of power granted by
the American public."

The Chicago Tribune said that although
Nixon's remarks had burst the Watergate dam
and brought a sense of relief, he would
probably not "step out of the floodwaters
unsplattered by mud."

Some papers condemned the President's
speech as posturing. "His stated purpose was
to restore confidence...in the integrity of the
White House," said the Cleveland Plain
Dealer. "He did not succeed. His performance
was a collection of political gestures aimed at
diverting attention from the magnitude of the
scandal."

The New York Post said "Mr. Nixon played
so many roles during a performance inevitably
reminiscent of his 1952 'Checkers' speech
that it was often hard to identify which part
he was playing, and to differentiate high
drama from soap opera."