Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe Ben Stein any more than I will believe the person who comes along several years from now writing about the wonderful things Barack Obama did for this country.
But I'm sure you will believe the ultra-positive future biography written about Dubya. You conservative types really need to get out of the business of false equivalencies. All Presidents, irrespective of political party, have had unfavorable and unfortunate events happen on their watch. The World Trade Center was terrorized under both Clinton and Bush. You can debate to the end of time of the level of culpability the president had in those catastrophes and the ability to prevent them. Benghazi has happened during the Obama presidency, but the embassy attack was not "orchestrated" by Obama.
The Iran-Contra Affair WAS orchestrated by Reagan, who then feigned ignorance. The "Great Communicator" learned his mastery of deception from his Californian political role model, Richard M. Nixon. Were not talking about Obama filling out a March Madness bracket here, we're talking about a democratically-elected president maintaining an "Enemies List":
Is that not the definition of a despot? You are the erstwhile leader of the free world and you have Bill Cosby, Paul Newman, and Joe Namath on political hit list? I'm sorry, that is beyond paranoid. Nixon has no redeemable qualities, "moderate" Republican or not.
The truth about Nixon was that he gave up those tapes when he didn't have to, and let those tapes destroy him when he didn't have to. He was more honest than many other presidents IMO because of that, and he wasn't after money or cheap sex thrills, he just wanted a little more power and respect than what the office of president can provide sometimes, lol. I dare say the more power Richard Nixon had, the more power the USA had, he had the best interests of the country at heart. Nixon had vision and knew how to steer the ship. The problem was Nixon did not have spin like Bill Clinton for example, whom was able to thrive in spite of his perjury and selling presidential pardon to Marc Rich.
Nixon had redeemable qualities, the most important of which was his ability to govern and get things done. He was a strong president and much more capable than any after him, except perhaps Ronald Reagan, when it came to raw political skills and ability to negotiate, sometimes you have to be a hard ass. Take away Watergate and Nixon was a fantastic president with real accomplishments under his belt. This country was not coasting on auto pilot while under the rule of Richard Nixon, until he was forced out.
His foreign policy was unmatched, dare I say masterful, and not something a lot of presidents are naturally good at. We need that now more than ever, hate to put it this way, but things get done by making your rivals and key foreign leaders just a little bit afraid to pass on what you might have to offer, not just because you can bomb them, but because you are leader of the free world and have a large bag of tricks you can use to leave then out in the cold. Being "tricky" is just icing on the cake, not a liability if you use it right. It was unfortunate that Nixon's governing skills were better suited for being a benevolent dictator, rather than elected official. Too bad he never understood the limits of his power until it was too late.
he truth about Nixon was that he gave up those tapes when he didn't have to, and let those tapes destroy him when he didn't have to. He was more honest than many other presidents IMO because of that, and he wasn't after money or cheap sex thrills, he just wanted a little more power and respect than what the office of president can provide sometimes, lol. I dare say the more power Richard Nixon had, the more power the USA had, he had the best interests of the country at heart. Nixon had vision and knew how to steer the ship. The problem was Nixon did not have spin like Bill Clinton for example, whom was able to thrive in spite of his perjury and selling presidential pardon to Marc Rich.
Unless one believes the President is totally above the law than Richard Nixon had to turn over the tapes. Congressional committees took evidence during hearings that the elaborate taping system existed in the Oval Office. Once they learned this, the next step was to subponae the tapes to see if they showed evidence of the President's involvement in the cover up of the Watergate Scandal. Destroying the tapes would have been a textbook example of the criminal offenses of obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence. Perhaps, if Nixon had destroyed the White House tapes very early on in the Watergate Scandal and used the excuse of having done so in the interests of "national security" he could have avoided impeachment by a close vote in the Senate. However, it doesn't change the fact that from a legal standpoint he did have to give up the tapes. The tapes were requested legally and under proper authority. Lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, I might add that the President's executive power did not permit him to refuse a lawful subponae by a congressional committee.
It is true that Nixon did not have a monetary motive for the criminal offenses he committed. Perhaps, he had a worse motive which was power and hanging onto power at virtually any cost. One question to ponder about Nixon is what kind of a leader he would have been in a system other than the one we have in America? Here, our leaders are constrained by constitutional and statutory powers enforced by the courts. Put that same leader in a country without such constraints and I think you begin to understand how nations transition from democracy to dictatorship. A President who seeks "cheap sex thrills" in office is quite benigh in comparison. The notion that a President ought to be able to define "the best interests of the country" and not be subject to scrutiny or oversight is a dangerous one indeed.
Clinton may have committed perjury in office. Yet, I submit the difference between what Nixon and Clinton did was night and day. First of all, Clinton had had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky and denied "having sex with that woman". One could argue that sex is traditional sex and not what Clinton did. That argument is pretty legalistic. However, when someone is asked about the most private details of their life, I wonder if answering in a highly legalistic way is inappropriate? Clinton did not involve hordes of aides and other people in whatever dishonesty he engaged in. Nixon, on the other hand told lies (and sought to get others to tell lies) to obstruct a major criminal investigation that dealt with a crime that struck at the very notion of democracy and two-party government, a burglary of the national headquarters of the other major opposing political party. People can try to compare what Clinton did with what Nixon did. I submit there is no comparison except dishonesty. In one case the dishonesty was to cover up a totally private act. In the second case it was to cover up something which struck at the very heart of the political system.
Quote:
Nixon had redeemable qualities, the most important of which was his ability to govern and get things done. He was a strong president and much more capable than any after him, except perhaps Ronald Reagan, when it came to raw political skills and ability to negotiate, sometimes you have to be a hard ass. Take away Watergate and Nixon was a fantastic president with real accomplishments under his belt. This country was not coasting on auto pilot while under the rule of Richard Nixon, until he was forced out.
I don't disagree that Nixon did a number of good things in office and he was an effective President. However, the price of keeping him or someone similarly-minded in office was simply too high. In the end, Nixon was the competent President who was a totally amoral man. If he subscribed to any set of morals at all, its unclear to me what they were.
Quote:
His foreign policy was unmatched, dare I say masterful, and not something a lot of presidents are naturally good at. We need that now more than ever, hate to put it this way, but things get done by making your rivals and key foreign leaders just a little bit afraid to pass on what you might have to offer, not just because you can bomb them, but because you are leader of the free world and have a large bag of tricks you can use to leave then out in the cold. Being "tricky" is just icing on the cake, not a liability if you use it right. It was unfortunate that Nixon's governing skills were better suited for being a benevolent dictator, rather than elected official. Too bad he never understood the limits of his power until it was too late.
Nixon had a number of foreign policy successes. His success in reopening relations with China probably stands out as his single greatest foreign policy achievement. This was less an example of brilliance than it was the fact that Nixon coming from a staunch anti-communist background was the one leader in America who do what he did. Had Johnson or Kennedy tried to reopen relations with China they would have been labeled as "soft on communism". I do believe in giving credit where it is due though and Nixon obtained a SALT treaty with the USSR. He also ended the war in Vietnam for America.
In the end, he was a President who despite some successes was simply too dangerous to have in office.
Anyone who reads Nixon's latter books, or listens to those oval office tapes can see he was a highly intelligent individual with an amazing grasp of foreign policy. His domestic policies were all over the place. His price controls were terrible. His personality issues were, in the end, crippling. His sense of paranoia was off the charts. He was an anti-semite & it is jarring, to say the least, when you hear him on those tapes discussing the Jews. And then of course he would have Henry Kissinger in his office the next moment like Henry was his best friend. He was a mixed bag.....but in the end he had to go.
It was unfortunate that Nixon's governing skills were better suited for being a benevolent dictator, rather than elected official.
This just about sums it up. Ben Stein and Nixon "supporters" on this forum are not incorrect if they were to say he was highly intelligent. Nixon was chosen as Eisenhower's running mate because of his political turpitude and was in fact the "sic 'em dog" when needed as Vice-President.
IMHO, Eisenhower was the last "great" (if nothing else capable) Republican President. The famous anecdote about Eisenhower's perception of Nixon was that in the summer of 1960, someone asked the outgoing president, "Can you think of a major contribution that Nixon has made to your administration?" and Eisenhower replied, "Well if you give me a week I might think of one." That was particularly damning coming from a nationally-lauded WWII hero and certainly used by Kennedy against Nixon during the campaign.
I mentioned in a previous post that Nixon had no redeemable qualities. He didn't start out that way. Nixon was more progressive on Civil Rights than was Eisenhower. While not receiving quite as high of a percentage of the black vote (39%) as Eisenhower in '56, Nixon still was able to pull in 32% of the black vote against Kennedy. When Goldwater Republicans completely abdicated any efficacy toward Civil Rights and cast their lot with "Dixiecrats", Nixon could have easily unfurled his political resume to demonstrate his commitment to an issue that, at the time, crossed the political aisle. Instead, he implemented the "Southern Strategy" which, while highly successful in besting weaker Democratic candidates in '68 (after RFK was killed) and '72, proved to be the seminal, divisive moment in American Presidential electoral politics.
If Nixon had attempted to be conciliatory perhaps Republican candidates to this day could win more than a smattering of minority votes. Nixon changed the political structure of the Republican presidential platform of the past 40 years for the worst. At least Goldwater believed the crap that he ran on (I think ). The same qualities that once made Nixon a great running mate to balance the ticket (political animal, staunch communist "hunter", internationalist chops) would ultimately doom him once in the Presidency. Like Grant, he was too autocratic, but as we review history we can say that Grant tried to use his "heavyhandedness" to implement Reconstruction and enforce the 14th Amendment for ALL Americans. Nixon has no such backdrop on which to fall in looking back at his Presidency.
But I'm sure you will believe the ultra-positive future biography written about Dubya. You conservative types really need to get out of the business of false equivalencies. All Presidents, irrespective of political party, have had unfavorable and unfortunate events happen on their watch. The World Trade Center was terrorized under both Clinton and Bush. You can debate to the end of time of the level of culpability the president had in those catastrophes and the ability to prevent them. Benghazi has happened during the Obama presidency, but the embassy attack was not "orchestrated" by Obama.
The Iran-Contra Affair WAS orchestrated by Reagan, who then feigned ignorance. The "Great Communicator" learned his mastery of deception from his Californian political role model, Richard M. Nixon. Were not talking about Obama filling out a March Madness bracket here, we're talking about a democratically-elected president maintaining an "Enemies List":
Is that not the definition of a despot? You are the erstwhile leader of the free world and you have Bill Cosby, Paul Newman, and Joe Namath on political hit list? I'm sorry, that is beyond paranoid. Nixon has no redeemable qualities, "moderate" Republican or not.
On the contrary, Steelers10, you are clueless as to what I would believe or not believe. I could as easily have said about "dubya" as I said about Obama. You are like so many others in forums, to think you know what a stranger thinks because of a few lines in a thread.
On the contrary, Steelers10, you are clueless as to what I would believe or not believe. I could as easily have said about "dubya" as I said about Obama. You are like so many others in forums, to think you know what a stranger thinks because of a few lines in a thread.
Yes, I am clueless to what you truly believe and I am better off for that fact. Moving along back to the topic at hand...
Nixon could have destroyed the tapes legally before the sopena, he knew it was coming and was urged by everyone around him to destroy the tapes. He chose not to and decided to play poker with the tapes, it takes guts to play that game when he knew they had nothing on him that would stick, but for those tapes. It was his word against John Dean and that's not enough to impeach.
The modern republican platform was not set by Nixon, it was Reagan that reinvigorated the party and had the most influence in shaping it into what it was to become. I like Nixon better than Reagan in some respects because he stood up against corporate interests to some degree, and was not under the control of his party, his wife, or anybody, lol. Take the EPA for example, think of how difficult it must have been to get that passed and put some teeth into it, to butt heads with the likes of the big 4 auto companies and manufacturing interests. Nixon was tough as nails, he stood up to them and stood up for environmental protection, enforcing the new laws he helped to create. Nixon saw the same smog that Reagan did out in California, but Nixon did something about it. Many were afraid to take on Nixon because he would use some of those "special powers" to cut you off at the knees. It makes for a strong and effective president that has the ability to cut thru the crap and get something done for the people. Sometimes it's better when the big shots around the world are afraid to tangle with the POTUS.
Oh how I wish Richard Nixon was alive today and serving a fresh new 20 year term as commander and chief of the US, with the power of absolute monarchy so that he may rule us like a king with Ben Stein as his speech writer.
The cruelest irony of Watergate is that Nixon and his goons felt it was even worth thinking about.
The man won a landslide reelection. Did the man not read polls? Did he not realize that another 4 years was his for the asking?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). The same qualities that once made Nixon a great running mate to balance the ticket (political animal, staunch communist "hunter", internationalist chops) would ultimately doom him once in the Presidency. Like Grant, he was too autocratic, but as we review history we can say that Grant tried to use his "heavyhandedness" to implement Reconstruction and enforce the 14th Amendment for ALL Americans. Nixon has no such backdrop on which to fall in looking back at his Presidency.
