NationStates Jolt Archive

His name is an American synonym for liar; he conducted numerous illegal activities while in office; he obstructed justice; he was unattractive and insincere. Yet his policies were good.

He ended the draft

He created the Environmental Protection Agency.

He was the first president since before FDR to cut the military budget.

He signed the SALT I treaty.

He brought the voting age down to 18.

He allowed wheat shipments to Russia when famine struck it, something Jimmy Carter would not do.

He recognized China.

He ended the Vietnam War.

He brought unemployment levels down, even after the Vietnam War ended.

Isn't the word "President" synonymous with "Liar"?

Isn't the word "politician" synonymous with "Liar"?

Fixed :tongue:

And he's got a kick ass robot body

http://www.kaykfrink.com/mockups/userProfile/img/roboNixon.jpg

If he hadn't botched up his career with Watergate, he probably would have gone down as one of our great presidents.

You forget he managed to get scammed out of Earth by aliens

And he's got a kick ass robot body

Yes he does.

http://zalandria.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/robotnixon3ok6.gif

His name is an American synonym for liar; he conducted numerous illegal activities while in office; he obstructed justice; he was unattractive and insincere. Yet his policies were good.

I don't think many people hate Richard Nixon's policies, not in the same way they hate George Bush's. However, he did not feel he was bound by the limits of his office or any other law. That's not a president, that's a despot, and that alone mars his record. (That's not to say his autocratic manner is the only reason to dislike Nixon. Part of the reason no one else would recognize China or end the war in Vietnam was because they knew as soon as they brought up the subject, that creep Richard Nixon would hammer them for being un-American.)

Yes he does.

http://zalandria.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/robotnixon3ok6.gif

I like it, very G1 StarScream.

He secretly attacked Cambodia.

President Richard Nixon re-examined.

Gawd. I initially read it as "re-exhumed". Don't do that to me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/ZombieNixon.jpg

Gawd. I initially read it as "re-exhumed". Don't do that to me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/ZombieNixon.jpg

Robot Nixon beats Zombie Nixon anyday

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/soapblox/zombie-reagan.jpg
ALL ARE INFERIOR TO ZOMBIE REAGAN!

I remember seeing, in some documentary or other, that there were records of his conversations with Kissinger that showed that he knew Vietnam was unwinnable by the second year of his presidency but continued it to get re-elected.

Robot Nixon beats Zombie Nixon anyday

definitely

I remember seeing, in some documentary or other, that there were records of his conversations with Kissinger that showed that he knew Vietnam was unwindable by the second year of his presidency but continued it to get re-elected.

That must have been a remarkably bad documentary considering he ran in 68 on a promise to end the war with honor and started troop draw downs in 69.

Drawing down the number of troops is not the same as putting an end to the war

Drawing down the number of troops is not the same as putting an end to the war

It is when your strategy is to gradually draw down troop levels while providing local forces with the equipment and training to take over.

Nixon was a scumbag no doubt about it in my mind, but if not for Watergate, we'd remember him well, so yeah. And he did EVENTUALLY end the war in Vietnam, and was actually a pretty liberal Republican.

Isn't the word "President" synonymous with "Liar"?

And that is a conception that largely started with Watergate.

Nixon was a scumbag no doubt about it, but if not for Watergate, we'd remember him well, so yeah. And he did EVENTUALLY end the war in Vietnam.

He cut spending, withdrew troops, stopped drafting and ended the war; that certainly beats Johnson.

Nixon was a scumbag no doubt about it

Yes, he was an unattractive man with a rough vocabulary and a bit of the King Emperor complex ... but he was exceptionally talented at manipulating foreign policy. Had he left politics and the economy to Gerald Ford and stuck to his specialty, we would remember him as an amazing statesman.

Were you even alive then? I was, and there's considerable doubt as to whether he was 'a scumbag'.

I'll go with the Nixon was really a scumbag vote.

Granted, Nixon did some good things, especially in foreign policy.

But Watergate was just the tip of iceberg of Tricky Dick's scumminess.

I'll go with the Nixon was really a scumbag vote.

Granted, Nixon did some good things, especially in foreign policy.

But Watergate was just the tip of iceberg of Tricky Dick's scumminess.

If Nixon's corruption never got out, would you believe him to be a good president?

And that is a conception that largely started with Watergate.

Despite the fact than many lauded presidents have lied before (see Eisenhower), and many were far meaner than Nixon (see Andrew Jackson).

Is not it true that Nixon supported Chilean coup? I understand that it may be pretty normal act for the USA presidents, but such things must not be ignored completely.

"There's something about him I just don't trust." -- my grandfatehr on VP candidate Nixon, 1952.

Is not it true that Nixon supported Chilean coup? I understand that it may be pretty normal act for the USA presidents, but such things must not be ignored completely.

Maybe, but Kennedy supported the far more idiotic Cuban coup, along with setting-up the anti-Cuban embargo (he ordered a thousand Cuban cigars not long before he signed the order--stockpiler!), and Kennedy is generally considered a fine president, superior to Nixon.

Maybe, but Kennedy supported the far more idiotic Cuban coup, along with setting-up the anti-Cuban embargo (he ordered a thousand Cuban cigars not long before he signed the order--stockpiler!), and Kennedy is generally considered a fine president, superior to Nixon.

Hey, Cuban Cigars are the best.

Maybe, but Kennedy supported the far more idiotic Cuban coup, along with setting-up the anti-Cuban embargo (he ordered a thousand Cuban cigars not long before he signed the order--stockpiler!), and Kennedy is generally considered a fine president, superior to Nixon.
Maybe this is because Chilie unlike Cuba was a democratic country?

Hey, Cuban Cigars are the best.

I know, and it is Kennedy's fault that they are unavailable in America.

If Nixon's corruption never got out, would you believe him to be a good president?

That is a little like saying "if it weren't for the serial killings, how would you rate Ted Bundy?"

No. Nixon (with the help of Congress) did do many good things. Here are just a few reasons why I still would dislike him:


Created the "Southern stragety" of exploiting race relations
secret bombing of cambodia
Kent State
actually fought to extend the draft before ending it
opposed integration of schools
"Law & Order," "Silent Majority" strategies
started the Imperial Presidency
rampant anti-semitism
use of enemy lists/the Huston plan
the necessity of United States v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=418&page=683), 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
the Pentagon Papers
undermining of environmental legislation
"When Nixon left office, the economy was in the tank, with rising unemployment and inflation, lengthening gas lines, and a crashing stock market."
the rogue activities of the FBI and CIA revealed by the Church Commission

I'll go with the Nixon was really a scumbag vote.

Granted, Nixon did some good things, especially in foreign policy.

But Watergate was just the tip of iceberg of Tricky Dick's scumminess.

Smartest president in fifty years tho.

I know, and it is Kennedy's fault that they are unavailable in America.

Are they still Cuban Cigars if they're made from Cuban tobacco leaf, by Cubans, in Florida?

undermining of environmental legislation

He was a big environmentalist. All the globo types are. He proposed the EPA and shit.

"When Nixon left office, the economy was in the tank, with rising unemployment and inflation, lengthening gas lines, and a crashing stock market."


Eh? That was LBJ and headline risk. None of that can be blamed on Nixon really. (Well a little bit, maybe, can be put on him with the politicization of the Fed.)

But you have to remember, when the economy was run by adults (i.e. not the past sixteen years) there was a thing called the business cycle. Economies did go through periodic slowdowns. None of which can be laid at the door of Nixon.

That is a little like saying "if it weren't for the serial killings, how would you rate Ted Bundy?"

Nixon was not a serial killer, and he did far more to benefit the nation than Mister Bundy.

No. Nixon (with the help of Congress) did do many good things. Here are just a few reasons why I still would dislike him:


Created the "Southern stragety" of exploiting race relations

Yes, he did that to get the votes. Barrack Obama is also anti gay-marriage, probably to get the votes.

Nixon signed acts to end discrimination after he was in office.

secret bombing of cambodia

That had been going on since before Nixon was in office.

Kent State

Nixon did fail to apologize; it is not as if he did it, though.

actually fought to extend the draft before ending it

Actually did end it.

opposed integration of schools

To get elected; yet he helped integration when in office.

"Law & Order," "Silent Majority" strategies

This seems like a regurgitation of your past points.

started the Imperial Presidency

By ending the war in Vietnam and patching-things-up with China and Russia?

rampant anti-semitism

What has that got to do with how good of a president he his?

use of enemy lists/the Huston plan
the necessity of United States v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=418&page=683), 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
the Pentagon Papers

Good points.

undermining of environmental legislation

By creating the EPA?

"When Nixon left office, the economy was in the tank, with rising unemployment and inflation, lengthening gas lines, and a crashing stock market."

Correct; it was not like that with him in office.

the rogue activities of the FBI and CIA revealed by the Church Commission


Both agencies were just as shady under past presidents.

Gawd. I initially read it as "re-exhumed". Don't do that to me.
Considering all the political storms he weathered, I don't see how mere death could be an issue for him.

Are they still Cuban Cigars if they're made from Cuban tobacco leaf, by Cubans, in Florida?

But my favorite brand is cohiba.

Maybe this is because Chilie unlike Cuba was a democratic country?

But Nixon had far less of a hand in the Chile coup than Kennedy did in the Cuba coup (which probably would not have happened without him).

started the Imperial Presidency


Did he really start it? Arthur Schlesinger, who came up with the term "Imperial Presidency," applied it to Nixon, but he saw him as more the culmination of the growing power of the executive branch. It began at latest with Johnson, and probably much earlier than him.

But Nixon had far less of a hand in the Chile coup than Kennedy did in the Cuba coup (which probably would not have happened without him).
But Cuban coup did not lead anywhere and in Chilie Pinochet take the power and created corrupted and bloody military dictatorship in it.

Also, for an anti-semite, he was awfully chummy with Henry Kissinger.

Also, for an anti-semite, he was awfully chummy with Henry Kissinger.

"I have gay friends, therefore I must not be homophobic?" ;)

"I have gay friends, therefore I must not be homophobic?" ;)

Sort of the opposite actually.

I actually ran into a Nixon fanatic that was convinced water gate was a plot.
You have to subscribe to elitism theory of political science to understand.
Nixon Apparently risked rule by the elite who set up the Watergate, and they offered him a pardon and not to involve his family if he resigned and never set into the political scene again.

Just proof that people with awful character can make excellent leaders.

I actually ran into a Nixon fanatic that was convinced water gate was a plot.
You have to subscribe to elitism theory of political science to understand.
Nixon Apparently risked rule by the elite who set up the Watergate, and they offered him a pardon and not to involve his family if he resigned and never set into the political scene again.

There is probably an element to that. Nixon was probably the least establishment president of the 20th century.

Though I think it would be more a matter of maneuvering him into watergate rather than an outright plot.

You really don't mess with the establishment around here, else you end up client number 9, or worse.

There is probably an element to that. Nixon was probably the least establishment president of the 20th century.

Though I think it would be more a matter of maneuvering him into watergate rather than an outright plot.

You really don't mess with the establishment around here, else you end up client number 9, or worse.

I lean more towards more presidents did similar things just the establishment choose to produce the evidence against him.

I lean more towards more presidents did similar things just the establishment choose to produce the evidence against him.

Yeah. That's probably about it.

So it is all agreed Nixon is good. lets remove Frod from the president list and credit Nixon with finishing his Term.

Gawd. I initially read it as "re-exhumed". Don't do that to me.
For him to be "re-exhumed," Nixon would already have had to be buried, exhumed, reburied, and then be coming back for a second round of zombie vengeance.
I only wish American politics were that interesting.

don't have anything productive to add as am inmmesnely tired and drunk, and just watched my friend throe up in a plastikc bag, but I woud recommend reading Joan Hoff Wilson's Nixon Reconsidered or Iwan Morgan's Nixon, which attempt critical reexaminsations of his legacy that try to be a bit more balanced than the initial wave of rampantly anti-Nixon literature.

nixon himself acknowledged imposing price controls to have been a huge mistake. he seems to have been a pretty vile person ("the state department can have the niggers") but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad president.

if i were to "rank" him, i would place him significantly above both reagan and george w. bush, though i think simply cataloguing isolated achivemebt s misses the broader damage to the america political system he inflicted while in office.

Also, for an anti-semite, he was awfully chummy with Henry Kissinger.


'Not you of course, Henry'

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

Seems he wasn't too gone on "blacks" as he calls them, either.....

For him to be "re-exhumed," Nixon would already have had to be buried, exhumed, reburied, and then be coming back for a second round of zombie vengeance.
I only wish American politics were that interesting.

Zombie Robot Nixon?

"Look out, it's Zrn, come back from Silicon Hell(/Heaven) to feast on the flesh of our aircraft!"

Saying Nixon ended the Vietnam war is a little like saying Hitler ended the second world war. You lost the war, get over it.

Saying Nixon ended the Vietnam war is a little like saying Hitler ended the second world war. You lost the war, get over it.

The difference, of course, being minor:

With Hitler, you have a command to destroy the country, commit suicide, and have the Red Army hoist their colors over your capital.

With Nixon, you leave the battlefield on 27 January 1973, are forced to leave office in August 1974, only to see Congress stab your ally in the back and withhold funding, so they fall on 30 April 1975.

Nice correlation. :rolleyes:

The difference, of course, being minor:

With Hitler, you have a command to destroy the country, commit suicide, and have the Red Army hoist their colors over your capital.

With Nixon, you leave the battlefield on 27 January 1973, are forced to leave office in August 1974, only to see Congress stab your ally in the back and withhold funding, so they fall on 30 April 1975.

Nice correlation. :rolleyes:

My you are being obtuse. Nixon didn't 'leave the battlefield' he lost.

My you are being obtuse. Nixon didn't 'leave the battlefield' he lost.

And the Paris Peace Accords were?

Please cite all North Vietnamese military victories over the US.
(I'll save you the trouble: there are NONE.)

The US didn't lose the Viet Nam War. The US lost the will to fight the Viet Nam War.

And the Paris Peace Accords were?

Please cite all North Vietnamese military victories over the US.
(I'll save you the trouble: there are NONE.)

The US didn't lose the Viet Nam War. The US lost the will to fight the Viet Nam War.

The entire war was a military victory over the US.

His name is an American synonym for liar; he conducted numerous illegal activities while in office; he obstructed justice; he was unattractive and insincere. Yet his policies were good.

He ended the draft

He created the Environmental Protection Agency.

He was the first president since before FDR to cut the military budget.

He signed the SALT I treaty.

He brought the voting age down to 18.

He allowed wheat shipments to Russia when famine struck it, something Jimmy Carter would not do.

He recognized China.

He ended the Vietnam War.

He brought unemployment levels down, even after the Vietnam War ended.

Let's also remember:

55 MPH speed limits
Medicade
NOAA

...all in all, Nixon was actually more liberal than Clinton!

Please cite all North Vietnamese military victories over the US.
(I'll save you the trouble: there are NONE.)

The US didn't lose the Viet Nam War. The US lost the will to fight the Viet Nam War.
I'm sorry, but you lost the means to fight the war, so you lost.

His name is an American synonym for liar; he conducted numerous illegal activities while in office; he obstructed justice; he was unattractive and insincere. Yet his policies were good.

He ended the draft

He created the Environmental Protection Agency.

He was the first president since before FDR to cut the military budget.

He signed the SALT I treaty.

He brought the voting age down to 18.

He allowed wheat shipments to Russia when famine struck it, something Jimmy Carter would not do.

He recognized China.

He ended the Vietnam War.

He brought unemployment levels down, even after the Vietnam War ended.

Oh, my problem with Nixon has never been his actual policy. In terms of his actual policies he wasn't all that bad at all. My aversion is due to the whole, you know, illegal stuff.

The entire war was a military victory over the US.

You mean the Senate passing the Case Church Amendment was a political victory.

The North Vietnamese outlasted the US will to fight. That's the only reason they won. To say otherwise, you might as well say that Bill Clinton caused 9/11 by not killing Osama bin Laden. It's an absurd stretch.

I'm sorry, but you lost the means to fight the war, so you lost.

The US did not lose the means to fight the war. The US lost the WILL to fight the war. Big difference. In 1972, the US was nowhere near beaten.

I'd have voted for Nixon over Regan, Bush the Elected, Bush the Appointed, Dole, and probably McCain.

And the Paris Peace Accords were?

Please cite all North Vietnamese military victories over the US.
(I'll save you the trouble: there are NONE.)

The US didn't lose the Viet Nam War. The US lost the will to fight the Viet Nam War.

Don't delude yourself. We lost. We were forced to withdraw from the conflict, while the North Vietnamese were not. That sounds a lot like losing to me.

It is quite possible to win every battle but lose the war. Wars are often won and lost in places other than the battlefield.

The US did not lose the means to fight the war. The US lost the WILL to fight the war. Big difference. In 1972, the US was nowhere near beaten.
It's the exact same shit. In a democracy, you cannot just keep on fighting very unpopular wars, you lose power. Your will to fight is your means to fight as much as the materiél coming out of US factories.

You mean the Senate passing the Case Church Amendment was a political victory.

The North Vietnamese outlasted the US will to fight. That's the only reason they won. .

Nice of you to admit you were wrong.

To say otherwise, you might as well say that Bill Clinton caused 9/11 by not killing Osama bin Laden. It's an absurd stretch.

Talking of absurd stretches I have not even remotely suggested that would be the same thing.

It's the exact same shit. In a democracy, you cannot just keep on fighting very unpopular wars, you lose power. Your will to fight is your means to fight as much as the materiél coming out of US factories.

I fully agree that the will to fight is as important as materiel. But it's not the same shit, IMO. Until as late as 1967, the war was not unpopular in the US. It was the perception of Tet and Khe Sanh that solidified the idea that the war was somehow unwinnable.

Did the US lose? YES. But not on the battlefield.

Nice of you to admit you were wrong.



Talking of absurd stretches I have not even remotely suggested that would be the same thing.

I did no such thing. I merely qualified that the US lost the war OFF the battlefield, and that is was certainly not Nixon that lost it.

Actually, you made exactly the same point as far as I'm concerned.

Battlefield was tactical in that case.

Did the US lose? YES. But not on the battlefield.

Jesus, talk about splitting hairs.

You lost, get over it - it's been over 30 years.

I'm sorry, but you lost the means to fight the war, so you lost.

considering their was a peace agreement. that was more or less observed until Nixon was resigned. There is a very strong argument that had he remained in power and the presidency had remained strong then South vietnam could still be around today.

But Nixon had far less of a hand in the Chile coup than Kennedy did in the Cuba coup (which probably would not have happened without him).

Nixon gave the order to make Chile's economy scream directly to Helms. He was directly involved and fully aware of both tracks of the CIA plan. The official papers are clear on this. Kissinger even admitted that the decision 'could not be left to the Chileans'.

Nixon was also helpful in oppressing nationalist movements in Angola (with the help of apartheid South Africa) and exacerbating the bloodshed when suppressing Bangladeshi nationalist movements.

In terms of the developing world, Nixon will always be viewed as a villain.

Don't delude yourself. We lost. We were forced to withdraw from the conflict, while the North Vietnamese were not. That sounds a lot like losing to me.

It is quite possible to win every battle but lose the war. Wars are often won and lost in places other than the battlefield.

They also were forced to withdraw. they waited to reengage only after it was clear the US would send no more bombers to level the North. Aka once Nixon's impeachment proceedings began.

There is a very strong argument that had he remained in power and the presidency had remained strong then South vietnam could still be around today.

....a corrupt Dictatorship, propped up by Foreign powers, with little or no internal mandate.

Jesus, talk about splitting hairs.

You lost, get over it - it's been over 30 years.

Splitting hairs? Please. I'm talking about actual history here.

I have no problem agreeing that the US lost in Viet Nam. BUT I will no more agree that the war was lost in the field than a UKian would that England lost their empire in France on the field.

....a corrupt Dictatorship, propped up by Foreign powers, with little or no internal mandate.

BUT different from many a dictatorships in that it would be at least marginally free. I'll bet you that millions of former South Viet Namese would have preferred that. Especially the estimated one million that were killed in "re-education camps" once the South fell. Remember, in the mid 70s they were the original boat people. :(

....a corrupt Dictatorship, propped up by Foreign powers, with little or no internal mandate.

Are you talking about South Korea or South Vietnam ????

I lean more towards more presidents did similar things just the establishment choose to produce the evidence against him.

Have you ever actually listened (or read transcipts of) the Nixon tapes? See, e.g., link (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/watergate.html), link (http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/tapeexcerpts/index.php)

Are you aware of the shit he was actually up to and was saying? See, e.g., link (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3366529&page=1), link (http://www.watergate.info/)

Have you ever actually listened (or read transcipts of) the Nixon tapes? See, e.g., link (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/watergate.html), link (http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/tapeexcerpts/index.php)

Are you aware of the shit he was actually up to and was saying? See, e.g., link (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3366529&page=1), link (http://www.watergate.info/)

me = anarchist.

I see most presidents performing similar conversations and cover ups.

me = anarchist.

I see most presidents performing similar conversations and cover ups.

Goody for you. Of course, the complete lack of evidence to support what you "see" undermines your argument a bit.

Goody for you. Of course, the complete lack of evidence to support what you "see" undermines your argument a bit.

if you cant smell the total corruption of politicians I cant help you.

if you cant smell the total corruption of politicians I cant help you.

If you can't make logical distinctions between levels of "corruption," I can't help you.

EDIT: BTW, doesn't pimping for Nixon go against your anarchist credentials?

If you can't make logical distinctions between levels of "corruption," I can't help you.

EDIT: BTW, doesn't pimping for Nixon go against your anarchist credentials?

I'd point out that it doesn't. By glorifying Nixon's actions, he glorifies impeachment, which led to Nixon becoming the first President to ever resign. Which is most certainly a form of anarchy, as in this case the US ended up with a President no one voted for. :D

True.:) But, on the subject of the Cuban coup (Bay of Pigs), Nixon actually was involved with the planning for it. Kennedy used that against him in their last debate by managing to sound more hawkish than Nixon on it, because Nixon couldn't reveal anything about the current administration's plan. Ain't irony a bi*ch?

BUT different from many a dictatorships in that it would be at least marginally free.

So marginally free there was Monks burning themselves to death over religous persecution. Sorry, but if a country is going to fuck itself up, it really is best if it does it itself, without a helping hand from others. Theres every chance that had the Vietnamese been given indpendence post WWII, or dealt with in a more honourable fashion, they wouldn't have turned towards Communism as much as they did.

So marginally free there was Monks burning themselves to death over religous persecution. Sorry, but if a country is going to fuck itself up, it really is best if it does it itself, without a helping hand from others. Theres every chance that had the Vietnamese been given indpendence post WWII, or dealt with in a more honourable fashion, they wouldn't have turned towards Communism as much as they did.

Yes, those 7 monks were tragic. Diem's anti-Buddist policy was stupid.

Oh, I totally agree there. Ike and Kennedy really screwed up supporting the French! Ho didn't use the US Constitution for no reason.

As Robert McNamara has said, for the Vietnamese it was a war for independence. We were wrong to see it as a part of a global fight against Communism.

It's hard to see what pouring more blood and treasure into prolonging the conflict would have accomplished. Maybe we could have bombed Vietnam into oblivion and kept it divided, but somehow that doesn't seem like "winning."

....a corrupt Dictatorship, propped up by Foreign powers, with little or no internal mandate.At the start. It seems likely that South Vietnam would have developed not dissimilarly to South Korea - yes, oppressive authoritarians at the start, but ultimately faster to hop on the democracy-train than the communist equivalent.

At the start. It seems likely that South Vietnam would have developed not dissimilarly to South Korea - yes, oppressive authoritarians at the start, but ultimately faster to hop on the democracy-train than the communist equivalent.

Possibly, but that still excluded North Vietnam, thus creating an artificial division.


As Robert McNamara has said, for the Vietnamese it was a war for independence. We were wrong to see it as a part of a global fight against Communism. .

That would be my view.

Possibly, but that still excluded North Vietnam, thus creating an artificial division.





And North Korea is a natural division ???

And North Korea is a natural division ???

Uh...no. That's the point. Vietnam is better off not being divided like Korea is. It's had phenomenal economic growth, and it's a member of the WTO and UN Security Council. Vietnamese people do not wake up wishing we could have stayed and bombed them a bit longer.

Uh...no. That's the point. Vietnam is better off not being divided like Korea is. It's had phenomenal economic growth, and it's a member of the WTO and UN Security Council. Vietnamese people do not wake up wishing we could have stayed and bombed them a bit longer.

Ty.

Nixon is unjustly vilified by modern historians-were it not for his covering up of the Watergate break-in, he'd probably be remembered as the greatest statesman ever elected. The Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy was a one-two punch we've never matched since, and I would hazard a guess that other than Seward's time as Secretary of State, we've never had better foreign relations since Nixon-or at least not as much international backing of our policies.
Domestically, Nixon was a disaster-which added to his vilification by the press. Sadly, until we wait out the deaths of current historians, Nixon will not be given his due.
He was laudable in many respects, and they would dwarf his shortcomings, unlike many of his successors.
Even Watergate shows the man's fundamental character-stepping down is not an act Clinton would have considered, no matter what the evidence against him, and as our only impeached President, it also speaks of the morals of our country, both then and now...

Nixon...he'd probably be remembered as the greatest statesman ever elected....

Thank you I really needed a good laugh.

Nixon is unjustly vilified by modern historians-were it not for his covering up of the Watergate break-in, he'd probably be remembered as the greatest statesman ever elected. The Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy was a one-two punch we've never matched since, and I would hazard a guess that other than Seward's time as Secretary of State, we've never had better foreign relations since Nixon-or at least not as much international backing of our policies.
Domestically, Nixon was a disaster-which added to his vilification by the press. Sadly, until we wait out the deaths of current historians, Nixon will not be given his due.
He was laudable in many respects, and they would dwarf his shortcomings, unlike many of his successors.
Even Watergate shows the man's fundamental character-stepping down is not an act Clinton would have considered, no matter what the evidence against him, and as our only impeached President, it also speaks of the morals of our country, both then and now...

You realize Nixon only resigned when it became blindingly obvious he'd be impeached and become a convicted criminal? The man hung on tighter and for longer than the kitten on the proverbial poster.

You realize Nixon only resigned when it became blindingly obvious he'd be impeached and become a convicted criminal? The man hung on tighter and for longer than the kitten on the proverbial poster.

And yet Clinton hung on past impeachment

And yet Clinton hung on past impeachment

...okay? So neither of them are particularly good guys. Nixon is hardly a brilliant man - a racist, anti-semite and raving paranoiac. He also get the war from ending until post-1972 to ensure his election victory, and earlier in his career helped extend the war to further his own chance at the Presidency.

...okay? So neither of them are particularly good guys. Nixon is hardly a brilliant man - a racist, anti-semite and raving paranoiac. He also get the war from ending until post-1972 to ensure his election victory, and earlier in his career helped extend the war to further his own chance at the Presidency.
I never claimed he was brilliant-in fact, I denounced his domestic policy entirely-I merely said he was the greatest statesman we've ever elected to the Presidency.

I would agree that Nixon was one of the most effective presidents in terms of foreign policy. And he was a social moderate who left many of the Great Society programs intact. So he looks great compared to Bush. But he was still a terrible, evil man.

I would agree that Nixon was one of the most effective presidents in terms of foreign policy. And he was a social moderate who left many of the Great Society programs intact. So he looks great compared to Bush. But he was still a terrible, evil man.

I would argue his shortcomings were largely those of American society at that time. However, he was able to look past them to what he saw was good for the country and the world at that time. When you define him by such limited terms, you do not look upon him as a whole-HOW, exactly, was he a terrible, evil man?

I would argue his shortcomings were largely those of American society at that time. However, he was able to look past them to what he saw was good for the country and the world at that time. When you define him by such limited terms, you do not look upon him as a whole-HOW, exactly, was he a terrible, evil man?

He used racial division as a political tactic. He was racist and anti-Semitic. He was malicious and vindictive. He had no respect for the law or the Constitution. He attempted to undermine the fabric of our democracy. You cannot blame that on the Zeitgeist. Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ were not like that.

He used racial division as a political tactic. He was racist and anti-Semitic. He was malicious and vindictive. He had no respect for the law or the Constitution. He attempted to undermine the fabric of our democracy. You cannot blame that on the Zeitgeist. Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ were not like that.
Since racial division is a current tactic of the Democratic Party, I will yeild that it is evil. Being racist or anti-Semitic did not stop him from being number one in foreign policy, especially as regarded Israel or bringing China into the UN, so those I will clock up to Zeitgeist. Having no respect for the law or the Constitution is pandemic among US Presidents, with the singular exception of Reagan, so I shan't include it-though I will ask for specific instances to undermine the fabric of our democracy to address that further. Eisenhower was an ineffective President once he realized he couldn't simply shoot his opposition and gave up, JFK's administration was roundly hated at the time of his assassination(his Q rating was lower than Nixon's at the height of Watergate-which makes me think his current popularity is due to so many people wishing he'd take a bullet when he did-collective guilt blanking out his shortcomings)and LBJ was the epitome of evil in office, his only strong point being his absolute control of the Democratic Party while in power. Nixon stacks up fairly well, in consideration of his opposition.

Sorry, but the Kennedy stuff is total BS, he had a 63% approval rating when he was shot. And the Civil Rights Act was evil? I agree LBJ's Vietnam war policy falls far short of being anywhere near good, but he wasn't all evil. And Eisenhower did quite a bit of good in office, though I agree he was ineffective in certain instances. (Out of control CIA)

And yet Clinton hung on past impeachment

Wow, never seen Clinton compared with Nixon on a level of criminality before.

Thanks. I needed the giggle.

Sorry, but the Kennedy stuff is total BS, he had a 63% approval rating when he was shot. And the Civil Rights Act was evil? And Eisenhower did quite a bit of good in office, though I agree he was ineffective in certain instances.

Read the records-Kennedy was trying to bolster support with his cavalcade through Dallas-don't look at history through it's current prism. As far as the Civil Rights Act, it was dragged kicking and screaming into law. Many of the Dems at the time were card-carrying Klansmen who only agreed to it through pressure exhibited through the various marches that came along.

Which changes his approval rating how? He was trying to bolster support for a reelection campaign in the South since he supported civil rights, he was not, by then at least, a hated President. (Except in the Deep South anyway) And LBJ was the one who dragged the Civil Rights Act kicking and screaming into law, that seems to be the opposite of evil to me. You are correct that Nixon wasn't a hated President until Watergate though.

Which changes his approval rating how? He was trying to bolster support for a reelection campaign in the South since he supported civil rights, he was not, by then at least, a hated President. (Except in the Deep South anyway) And LBJ was the one who dragged the Civil Rights Act kicking and screaming into law, that seems to be the opposite of evil to me. You are correct that Nixon wasn't a hated President until Watergate though.

It doesn't(so far as approval ratings go)-check his Q rating before his assassination, then after. Although it's a moot point, now-Kennedy sounds so much like Reagan in speeches, it isn't funny. Johnson did not favor the Civil Rights Act-he bowed to the public. I think these administrations are still too close, and we are blinded by the paradigms of our teachers-once they are all gone to dust, we will find the 20th century was a lackluster century for the US, despite two Presidents, who will be Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

The opening post keeps saying "he" did things, when it would be more appropriate to say that these things happened to occur when he was in office. It is particularly ridiculous to credit him with things like ending the draft, which he fought tooth and nail against.

We lost the war in Vietnam because there was no possibility, ever, of "winning" for us. If we defined "winning" strictly in negative terms, preventing the North from controlling the country, then of course we could keep "winning" as long as we were willing to stay there and bleed, forever and ever; but our definition of "winning" was creating a South Vietnam that could exist on its own merits, and that was never going to be possible. Nixon's contribution to the war was his decision to destroy the government and agriculture of Cambodia, then flood the country with guns, resulting in a stack of two million skulls.

Again, total BS, LBJ was the primary force behind civil rights during his Presidency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ#Civil_rights. Kennedy's stock certainly was raised after his assassination, but this isn't necessarily some great guilt trip over the death of a sucky President, quite the opposite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Clinton's approval rating all over the place during his first term as President? And Harry Truman was reviled while in office, with his approval rating at one point lower than Nixon's ever was.

Hey, Cuban Cigars are the best.

I find that to be a myth. They are seen as the best, mainly because they are largely unavailable to the American population. The American population equates unavailability with a superior sense of quality, when in all reality Cuban cigars are like any other cigars; they can be very delicious, or they can suck terribly. I love me some cigars. :)

Again, total BS, LBJ was the primary force behind civil rights during his Presidency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ#Civil_rights. Kennedy's stock certainly was raised after his assassination, but this isn't necessarily some great guilt trip over the death of a sucky President, quite the opposite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Clinton's approval rating all over the place during his first term as President?

Really? I thought it was the other Kennedy who pushed it a lot.

Robert Kennedy was a force behind the original civil rights act as well, thanks for reminding me. Civil rights was one of the few times they agreed with each other I believe. He was a big civil rights proponent, but resigned as Attorney General sometime in 64 though, and Johnson's role in civil rights can't be denied, if anything he pursued civil rights with more sincerity than John Kennedy. I'm not arguing Johnson was a great President. He wasn't. But credit where credit is due.