Richard Nixon was, well, Dick Nixon.

[Lemon law]

To me the tape reveals a lot about the inner man that was Richard Nixon. And the false view of reality that Nixon was able to sustain because he talked only to yes men.
With Nixon basically coining the words the new Nixon and the silent minority.

Sadly, Nixon was a man of great intellect, with almost an encyclopedic command of the worlds trouble spots, able at the drop of a hat to give an insightful analysis of what the problems were, who were the leaders, and what reforms were needed. But in the end, Nixon had a mean streak and an inferiority complex because of his humble and poor beginning. And at the beginning of his political campaigning he used dirty tricks to smear Douglas and kept it up all of his political career. There was always something with Nixon that always made him want to twist the knife to come out on top.

While other Presidents saw people as someone they could convert, Nixon only saw people as someone that needed to be forced or tricked. Had it not been for that character flaw, Nixon might have been one of our greatest Presidents, the man of vision that recognized China and normalized relations, and instead he was forced to resign in disgrace.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To me the tape reveals a lot about the inner man that was Richard Nixon. And the false view of reality that Nixon was able to sustain because he talked only to yes men.
With Nixon basically coining the words the new Nixon and the silent minority.
Sadly, Nixon was a man of great intellect, with almost an encyclopedic command of the worlds trouble spots, able at the drop of a hat to give an insightful analysis of what the problems were, who were the leaders, and what reforms were needed. But in the end, Nixon had a mean streak and an inferiority complex because of his humble and poor beginning. And at the beginning of his political campaigning he used dirty tricks to smear Douglas and kept it up all of his political career. There was always something with Nixon that always made him want to twist the knife to come out on top.
While other Presidents saw people as someone they could convert, Nixon only saw people as someone that needed to be forced or tricked. Had it not been for that character flaw, Nixon might have been one of our greatest Presidents, the man of vision that recognized China and normalized relations, and instead he was forced to resign in disgrace.

Well said.
I also would recognize that President Nixon (and his SoS Henry the K), by opening the Soviet Union to the West through the policy of detente, was the initial agent of the eventual collapse of the Soyuz.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

I also would recognize that President Nixon (and his SoS Henry the K), by opening the Soviet Union to the West through the policy of detente, was the initial agent of the eventual collapse of the Soyuz.

Wait, which rocket?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Also very interesting is that the Democrats have had only one President since FDR to be elected to a second term*.

*Not counting Truman or Johnson, both of whom won election as incumbents and declined to run for reelection.


edit: I'm not sure what relevance your post has to the OP, unless you're using President Nixon as an example of the depths the GOP will plumb to win elections...

It really has no relevance to the OP, you're right. It's just a snipe.

One can look at the number of Presidents for each party or the ability of a President to be elected and then re-elected.

It is a matter of choosing what stastics to back up ones arguement. And selective choosing leaves the opening for other statistics to easily refute what the selective statistics are implying and or setup a new bar.

The bar I chose is embarressing to the Dems - only one elected president was re-elected wihtin his time frame; what does that say about the quality of their candidates that the country does not feel confident in their leadership? The Republicans had 3 candidates that the country had confidence in.

techs chose the 50 year filter possibly to exclude Ike.
Yet within that time frame of 50 years how many years have had a Republican vs Democratic president.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Also very interesting is that the Democrats have had only one President since FDR to be elected to a second term*.

*Not counting Truman or Johnson, both of whom won election as incumbents and declined to run for reelection.


edit: I'm not sure what relevance your post has to the OP, unless you're using President Nixon as an example of the depths the GOP will plumb to win elections...

It really has no relevance to the OP, you're right. It's just a snipe.

One can look at the number of Presidents for each party or the ability of a President to be elected and then re-elected.

It is a matter of choosing what stastics to back up ones arguement. And selective choosing leaves the opening for other statistics to easily refute what the selective statistics are implying and or setup a new bar.

The bar I chose is embarressing to the Dems - only one elected president was re-elected wihtin his time frame; what does that say about the quality of their candidates that the country does not feel confident in their leadership? The Republicans had 3 candidates that the country had confidence in.

techs chose the 50 year filter possibly to exclude Ike.
Yet within that time frame of 50 years how many years have had a Republican vs Democratic president.

Yet you won't be able to name a recent R president who wasn't mired in something illegal -

Reagan - Iran Contra
Ford - Nixon pardon
HW Bush - Also Iran Contra, Noriega etc. hands all over it
Bush 43 - Don't need to get into it
Nixon - Don't need to get into it.

Talk about embarrassing.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
...The bar I chose is embarressing to the Dems - only one elected president was re-elected wihtin his time frame; what does that say about the quality of their candidates that the country does not feel confident in their leadership? The Republicans had 3 candidates that the country had confidence in...

...and those three were Tricky Dick, the Great Prevaricator, and George W.

And your point about the quality of Republican leadership was what?



edit: I should also note that, by your apparent standards, William Jefferson Clinton was the greatest Democratic leader of the second half of the 20th Century. While President Clinton may have had his strengths (especially by comparison to his successor), "Ethically Challenged" is the kindest characterization I can think to apply to him.

 

[Lemon law]

Its all right Common Courtesy, include Eisenhower if you care to, Ike may have been a great WW2 general, but there is no danger of Eisenhower ever being considered a great and visionary GOP President. He may have warned about the military industrial complex, but he still pandered to it. And instead of embracing the needed social changes, he fought against them.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not sure if it takes balls or blatant stupidity to defend tricky dick.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Also very interesting is that the Democrats have had only one President since FDR to be elected to a second term.

I'm sure the Democrat party is damn proud of its accomplishments.

Sorry some of us aren't crooked enough to rig an election, otherwise the prospering U.S. could be wishes Al Gore farewell after his second term.

We could of avoid 8 years of trouble if vote-rigging hadn't occurred. George Bush and the GOP made us no better than Iran that year.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I'm not sure if it takes balls or blatant stupidity to defend tricky dick.

idk, I mean, if nothing else, he was better than GWB. for his faults, some good stuff did occur under his administration.

I've been reading Nixon's memoirs off and on over the past year or so and they're pretty fascinating.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
It's easy to see how Nixon was the innovator of the politics of hate and divisiveness that we are so caught up in now.

You're probably right, I mean, look at the politics of hate and divisiveness in the OP. Ringing true to this day.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
...The bar I chose is embarressing to the Dems - only one elected president was re-elected wihtin his time frame; what does that say about the quality of their candidates that the country does not feel confident in their leadership? The Republicans had 3 candidates that the country had confidence in...

...and those three were Tricky Dick, the Great Prevaricator, and George W.

And your point about the quality of Republican leadership was what?



edit: I should also note that, by your apparent standards, William Jefferson Clinton was the greatest Democratic leader of the second half of the 20th Century. While President Clinton may have had his strengths (especially by comparison to his successor), "Ethically Challenged" is the kindest characterization I can think to apply to him.

One can always find flaws in any president.

JFK - womanizer (like Clinton), Bay of Pigs plus starting us down the Vietnam road)
LBJ - Expand Vietnam - concerned about politics instead of solving the problem - Federal Spending & increased taxes - Civil rights implimentation
Nixon - already discussed
Ford - caretaker
Carter - Iranian fiasco - attempted military action that would be an act of war
Reagan - Iran Contra
Bush I
Clinton - We know all about - Womanizer, etc
Bush II - weak and out for revenge

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe I will get total agreement, but IMHO, the GOP, in the last 150 years have only come up with two great and visionary Presidents. Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. But when it comes to total dud Presidents in the equivalent period, the GOP has sure come up with many of those.

In the same time, the democrats have come up with perhaps five visionary Presidents with the verdict about Obama too early to tell.

But to stick with the thread topic, Nixon could have been that third visionary GOP President but feel well short of his potential due to self inflicted wounds.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: loki8481
he got us out of more wars than Obama, though 😱

You obviously weren't of draft age during the months (probably years, I forget now) that the peace talks were stalled because they were arguing about the shape of the table. During which time, of course, lots of American boys got wounded or killed.

Nixon's second greatest flaw was his inability to get the US out of Vietnam with any kind of speed.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

In the same time, the democrats have come up with perhaps five visionary Presidents with the verdict about Obama too early to tell.

But to stick with the thread topic, Nixon could have been that third visionary GOP President but feel well short of his potential due to self inflicted wounds.

republicans are visionaries, just not necessarily positive ones.

expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond anyone's dreams has got to take vision.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Lemon law

In the same time, the democrats have come up with perhaps five visionary Presidents with the verdict about Obama too early to tell.

But to stick with the thread topic, Nixon could have been that third visionary GOP President but feel well short of his potential due to self inflicted wounds.

republicans are visionaries, just not necessarily positive ones.

expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond anyone's dreams has got to take vision.

Congress abdicated their responsibility.
They screwed up in Vietnam and do not want their hands visibly dirty.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Lemon law

In the same time, the democrats have come up with perhaps five visionary Presidents with the verdict about Obama too early to tell.

But to stick with the thread topic, Nixon could have been that third visionary GOP President but feel well short of his potential due to self inflicted wounds.

republicans are visionaries, just not necessarily positive ones.

expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond anyone's dreams has got to take vision.

You can't rip the constitution to shreds without some real good pussy-footing around.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Firebot

Who cares about a dead president?

Philosopher and author, George Santayana (1863 - 1952) said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And the eight years of suffering the Bushwhackos brought to this nation are all the proof we need.

Nixon was a DICK and a criminal who abused the Constitutional rights of American citizens and lied to Congress and the American people much as the Bushwhackos did. He was evil as Bush, but unlike Bush, Nixon wasn't stupid. He WAS a manic speed freak, and he might have been as bad as Bush if he had had the power of computers and the Internet. Our good fortune is that he didn't.

Aroo! Maybe so. But I know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat.

From 1969?1974 and again from 2001 - 2009, that would be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. 20500. Santyana was right. 🙁

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: loki8481
he got us out of more wars than Obama, though 😱

You obviously weren't of draft age during the months (probably years, I forget now) that the peace talks were stalled because they were arguing about the shape of the table. During which time, of course, lots of American boys got wounded or killed.

Nixon's second greatest flaw was his inability to get the US out of Vietnam with any kind of speed.

It appears that Nixon had his operatives sabotage LBJ's peace talks in 1968 by persuading the South Vietnamese to refuse to go along, promising them a better deal. That's treason.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Congress abdicated their responsibility.
They screwed up in Vietnam and do not want their hands visibly dirty.

While that is partly true, considering Congress's oversight function, the executive branch has the edge during times of war / national crises.

First, the exec. branch can act in a unified fashion. It's rare that you can see 100 senators or 435 representatives, much less 535 Congressman, coming together instead of bickering and individually grandstanding.

Second, the exec. branch gets real-time information, and they can choose not to share their information in a timely and complete fashion. Witness Oliver North's testimony regarding Iran-Contra where he admitted that unless one asked the right question and worded it right, there wouldn't be a straight answer given.
Exhibit B would be President Johnson having misleaded Congress regarding the Gulf of Tomkin incident.

I admit Congress hasn't been fulfilling the Founding Fathers' envisioned role as checking the excesses of the executive branch, but in fairness, the executive branch has advantages during urgent crises (ie war or national emergency).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

Congress abdicated their responsibility.
They screwed up in Vietnam and do not want their hands visibly dirty.

While that is partly true, considering Congress's oversight function, the executive branch has the edge during times of war / national crises.

First, the exec. branch can act in a unified fashion. It's rare that you can see 100 senators or 435 representatives, much less 535 Congressman, coming together instead of bickering and individually grandstanding.

Second, the exec. branch gets real-time information, and they can choose not to share their information in a timely and complete fashion. Witness Oliver North's testimony regarding Iran-Contra where he admitted that unless one asked the right question and worded it right, there wouldn't be a straight answer given.
Exhibit B would be President Johnson having misleaded Congress regarding the Gulf of Tomkin incident.

I admit Congress hasn't been fulfilling the Founding Fathers' envisioned role as checking the excesses of the executive branch, but in fairness, the executive branch has advantages during urgent crises (ie war or national emergency).

The public was also in favor of the war; and of course the military-industrial complex was fighting for it. JFK had to fight hard to keep the country out of war.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love it when loki8481 says, "republicans are visionaries, just not necessarily positive ones.

expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond anyone's dreams has got to take vision."

And its on the proven record, the two presidents who did the most to expand the size of the Federal Government were Reagan and GWB.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
One can always find flaws in any president.

JFK - womanizer (like Clinton), Bay of Pigs plus starting us down the Vietnam road)
LBJ - Expand Vietnam - concerned about politics instead of solving the problem - Federal Spending & increased taxes - Civil rights implimentation
Nixon - already discussed
Ford - caretaker
Carter - Iranian fiasco - attempted military action that would be an act of war
Reagan - Iran Contra
Bush I
Clinton - We know all about - Womanizer, etc
Bush II - weak and out for revenge

Hate to correct you again, but the Bay of Pigs was conceived and approved by Ike, JFK could have stopped it, but he didn't.

There's also a big difference between "flaws" and outright illegal activity.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
One can always find flaws in any president.

JFK - womanizer (like Clinton), Bay of Pigs plus starting us down the Vietnam road)
LBJ - Expand Vietnam - concerned about politics instead of solving the problem - Federal Spending & increased taxes - Civil rights implimentation
Nixon - already discussed
Ford - caretaker
Carter - Iranian fiasco - attempted military action that would be an act of war
Reagan - Iran Contra
Bush I
Clinton - We know all about - Womanizer, etc
Bush II - weak and out for revenge

Hate to correct you again, but the Bay of Pigs was conceived and approved by Ike, JFK could have stopped it, but he didn't.

There's also a big difference between "flaws" and outright illegal activity.

JFK approving the Bay of Pigs invasion was a mistake.

Haing said that, there's a lto to be said on the other side:

- Nixon was playing politics with war (as he did later with Vietnam), trying to get the invasion to happen because it would help his election chances.

- JFK drew a hard line against US military involvement in the Bay of Pigs. CIA and military officials he'd inherited from Eisenhower unanimously told him it was a foolproof operation - betraying him by secretly counting on his being forced to reverse his ban on US intervention rather than allowing the invasion to fail. He got rid of the key people who betrayed him, including the legendary founder of the CIA, Allen Dulles, as a result.

- Kennedy's hand was all but forced politically. This oungest-ever president who was viewed as very inexerienced had just replaced the well-respected senior leader of the allied forces in WWII and President for 8 years during the cold war, JFK was a brand new president and had he vetoed the plan, in an era when leaders tried to appear 'tough' and Kennedy was already vulnerable (as always with Republicans) to charges of being 'weak on communism', Republicans could have said that we had lost our big opportunity, with an Eisenhower plan the military and CIA said would easily work, to 'get back Cuba'. It'd have been a disaster for him, establishing him as 'weak on communism' and undermining public confidence in his judgement. People today are little aware that a Gallup poll at the time showed the #1 threat according to the public was Cuba. It was a lose-lose situation.

- What right, again, did the US have to go running around invading another nation because it didn't like the government, epecially after its bad behavior in Cuba for 60 years?

Common Courtesy gets it exactly wrong in saying the Bay of Pigs 'srted down the road' of Vietnam, it has the opposite effect. Kennedy was changed by the Bay of Pigs to not trust senior military advisors after that, and he fought all the harder to keep the US out of Vietnam.

In fact, it was right after the Bay of pigs he asked each member of the Joint Chiefs to give him their own recommendations in Southeast Asia, and he concluded from them that they didn't know what they were doing. After that, what he'd do instead were things like sending his trusted friend Majority Leader Sen Mike Mansfield on a 'fact-finding tour' of Vietnam; Mansfield told him he had to get out, and Kennedy assured him he was commited to do so, working around the politics needed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If Kennedy was fighting to stay out of Vietnam, then why did he increase the "advisors".

The idea of Special Forces was his idea/brainchild - he sent them into Vietnam.

He could have easily not done so.