Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

More Nixon Tapes Released



President Richard M. Nixon (Ellsworth Davis TWP)

Hundreds of hours of tapes of President Richard M. Nixon's conversations with top aides during the early months of 1973 were released this afternoon by the former president's official library -- an embarrassment of riches for Nixonologists and political junkies everywhere.

While much of the juiciest material from Nixon -- particularly in connection with the scandal at the Watergate building that ultimately ended his presidency -- has been released previously, these tapes include any number of fascinating nuggets in their own right.

Among the tidbits:

• Two weeks before the peace accord that ended the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, Nixon's national security adviser, called the president from Paris to let him know that significant progress had been made and that an agreement was at hand. (Interestingly, Nixon spent much of the time between that message and the Jan. 23, 1973 announcement of peace at his winter home in Key Biscayne, Fla.) In this segment Nixon and Kissinger discuss terms of the settlement.
Nixon and Kissinger on Vietnam Negotiations, Jan. 20, 1973

• On Jan. 23, 1973, the day after the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, Nixon chatted about the ruling with counsel Charles Colson. "The President and Colson consider the problem of abortion, its justification, and the implications of the decision on families and sexual mores," reads a release from the Nixon library. "They also briefly speculated on the identity of the two justices who dissented from the opinion." Colson, of course, wound up being caught up in Watergate and spent several years in jail as a result.

• The breadth of people Nixon spoke with during January 1973 is astounding. In addition to conversations with two future presidents -- then Republican National Committee Chairman George H.W. Bush and then House Minority Leader Gerald Ford -- Nixon also talked to golfer Arnold Palmer, director John Ford and Washington Redskins coach George Allen and his family. (The Skins had just won lost the Superbowl.) The relationship between Nixon and the Allens continued for decades; Nixon appeared at an fundraiser for Allen's son -- George -- during the latter's successful 1993 gubernatorial campaign.

Nixon and Golfer Arnold Palmer, Feb. 15, 1973

Nixon and then House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, Feb. 2, 1973


There's all that and MUCH more in the tapes -- almost all of which you can listen to on the Nixon library site.

Nixon has long been an object of fascination and derision -- in almost equal parts -- for political junkies. Does he deserve a spot in the Fix Political Hall of Fame?

Nominations for the next inductee begin tomorrow. Make sure to check back and add your voice to the conversation.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 23, 2009; 4:45 PM ET
Categories:  Hall of Fame , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Haley Huddles with Top GOP Strategists
Next: Morning Fix: Sorting out Sanford

Comments

I also begrudgingly say Yea to Nixon. For all his bungling in Vietnam--he did inherit that mess (sound familiar?) Watergate was not really about a break-in but about campaign money used to pay for dirty tricks and cover-up (doesn't seem so bad now, does it?) and surely not many posters on this blog will complain about his foul mouth.

Posted by: rawreid | June 24, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Economics, string theory, Heinlein vs. Asimov...what a thread!

But somewhere in there, we have the question of Nixon belonging in the HOF. With much respect to today's dissenters, I have to go with YES.

Forget Bill Clinton. NIXON was the "Comeback Kid." He was simply unkillable. Time and again, he was knocked down, and time and again, he kept getting back up. Even after resigning from the Presidency in utter disgrace, he STILL managed a certain level of rehabilitation as a sort of elder statesman.

Nixon can't be excused for his crimes -- he deserved to get booted out of the White House, and he's lucky he didn't end up in the slammer.

But neither should he be disregarded for his achievements. Across a whole array of policy fronts, from the environment to social issues to diplomacy, and in the face of an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, Nixon accomplished one improbable highlight after another.

You don't have to like the guy (and most people don't), but you can't readily dismiss him, either. For better or worse, Richard Nixon was one of the most complex, interesting, and successful politicians in American history.

Yeah, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | June 24, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

re. (Cris Cellizza writes) "Colson, of course, wound up being caught up in Watergate and spent several years in jail as a result"

Like the rest of the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled MSM news commenters, journalists, reporters, or whatever, Cris has conveniently left out WHY Charlie Colson was "caught up in Watergate" and WHY he "spent several years in jail as a result". By leaving out the WHY in his hit-piece on Nixon and the GOP, it makes it appear that Chuck Colson was part of the Watergate break-in crew, and leaves out a touchy comparrison that the Democrap Socialist Party shills like Cris don't want the public to know about.
The WHY in the Chuck Colson affair?
Chuck Colson was the WH councel who was given several years jail-time because he released ONE personal FBI file on ONE of Nixons political enemies.
WHY then is this important?
Because that same Democrap Socialist Party--controlled MSM almost totally ignored, censored, and made hardly a peep about the news reports (by conservative news services like National Review, Fox, The WSJ, Conservative Chronicle, etc.) that reported that Bill Clinton had released over 1,000 personal FBI files of his political enemies. When this news came to light back then it resulted in no interest by the MSM; no investigations by the MSM; no calls for trials of the perps; no outraged crocodile tears by the MSM's journalists, editors, or news reporters, and no interest in who did what. To this day we (the public) don't know who did what, if Bill Clinton knew about it or had ordered it, or if Bill Clinton had or used an "Enemies List" as Nixon supposedly had.
The bottom line is that Chuck Colson went to prison for "several years" for releasing ONE personal FBI file, while Bill Clinton got away with releasing over 1,000 personal FBI files, and the Democratic Socialist Party-controlled MSM--that is trying to con everybody that they're fair, balanced, objective, and non-partisan--wasn't a bit interested then (surprise, surprise!).

Posted by: armpeg | June 24, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon: I don't have any economic theories, I think any economics more abstract than accounting is hand-waving, a mirror in which the viewer sees what his ideology prescribes him to believe. I've already said all I want to about it.

I know Will isn't an economist, while Krugman is. Krugman makes sense to me, he doesn't talk in that annoying animism.

Will talks about "markets" like they're self-aware, matter-of-factly, as though his fairy-dust ideas are established fact. I loathe the man, in part for this stuff but more because he gets paid to write and he is such an awesomely bad writer.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 24, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8, in criticizing the study of economics, claims:
"Not to mention the idiotic foppery of "free market" .. totally contemptible. "Let the marketplace decide," what bloody idiocy. And people like George Will get *paid* to write about "markets.""


Can you prove any of your economic theories? Perhaps only I am amused that your distaste for economics is chock full o' economic arguments.


p.s. George Will is not an economist.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 24, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Unsurpassable SF:

Alfred Bester "The Stars My Desination"

Robert Silverberg "Shadrach in the Furnace"

Fred Pohl - the Heechee books

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Ummm .. Nightfall .. yeah I think Asimov wrote it but I think Silverberg wrote an expanded version.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

And oh yeah sure enough the most despicable people I ever ran into online *doted* over that chapter in TEfL, the one with "specialization is for insects" and "get a shot off FAST." What drivel. People I came to despise, gruff libertarian types, would always paste out of that chapter like it was their bible or something.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Did Asimov write "Nightfall"?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 23, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Heinlein jumped the shark with "Stranger." I liked it the first few times I read it but after reading some of his later stuff like "Time Enough for Love" I started to notice his randy old man preoccupation with sex. Balling, balling, balling; tall attractive Hitler Youth type characters endlessly screwing.

I'm a guy who won't even write in the margins but when I turned the last page of "Time Enough for Love" I put in face-down in the fireplace to make sure I never weakened and wasted time reading it again.

Loved his early stuff; "Past Through Tomorrow," "Star Beast," the twin-paradox one whatever it was called. But later he was just a randy old Fascist.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Asimov suffered from the disease of trying to tie in EVERY ONE of his novels into some narrative. Foundation's Edge was OK, but the rest is better left unread.

At least it wasn't as bad as Heinlein. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my favorite novels. I forget the name of the book, but when he tried to tie in Number of the Beast to the sequel, it was avert your eyes. When a friend of mine read Gay Deceiver bounce, he tossed the book across the room.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

lamerican: I too believe 9/11 was an inside job, I know that sounds nutty to a lot of people but I can believe that a lot easier than I can believe that after decade of hair-trigger Cold War readiness with NORAD and the SAC that the glacial response we mustered that day was the best we could do.

Funny, when I used to talk about this, people would get aghast that I could believe our own leaders would commit such evil. I no longer get that response, now I get that they don't have the competence to pull it off, but no doubt they would do it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Foundation was the first SF I ever read. I was living in Rota and joined the Science Fiction Book Club, that was one of three books I got on the signup special. Wow. Alas, the paper cover finally bit the dust but, funny you should bring it up, I was just looking at it while ripping some noize cassettes.

This edition has the first three books in one binding. Wish I had never read the sequels though, brrrr, incredibly bad writing,

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Nixon, in print, recalled three, different, false locations where he "learned of Pres. Kennedy's assassination." So too did Nixon White House Watergate "Plumber" E. Howard Hunt fail to recall his whereabouts at that time. George H.W. Bush, when asked while VP where he was at that time told a reporter he was "unable to recall."

Nixon was protege of that Bush's father, Prescott Bush, the money conduit from the Vatican banker Rockefeller collection plate funds to Adolph Hitler through papal baron, and P. Bush's fellow papal "knight," Fritz "the Rockefeller of Germany" Thyssen.

It's one thing for fascist plutocracy and the Roman Anti-Christ to have yet to be brought to justice, though most recently cheated W. into the WH to commit 9/11, it's another thing for patriotic Americans to be stupid about their overt proven treason and be in denial or not even remark about it publicly.

Unfortunately Nixon died of old age. America must not let that happen to the Bushes and Cheney or their nearest howevermany accomplices wise minds deem appropriate to try and fry.

Posted by: iamerican | June 23, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

The whole discussion reminds me of one of my favorite science fiction series--Foundation. Just thinking about how Hari Seldon effectively make a hard science out of sociology. Of course, Isaac Asimov was a chemist.

I can say I've had a helluva lot of fun. Can't say as I ever thought this kid from Nebraska would wind up seeing as much of the world as I have. Well, I've got a little work to do tonight, so I'll bid a cheerio to you all. Even Zouk. :-)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

It seems I really started a college dorm barn burner!

I entered Rice in 1960 on a science-engineering track.
In the Spring of 1961 after running the double slit experiment in freshman engineering physics I lost sleep over it. Both BB and chrisfox8 will understand this, I think. It is not intuitive that light is both a wave and a particle.

==

It's not the duality that kept me up nights, it's the fact that one photon takes both paths and interferes with itself.

If MWI is correct, and I tend to think it is, then there are fantastic philosophical implications. Talk about losing sleep.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

And in math when I had to choose between teaching, numerical analysis, or "pure" math, I chose door number three. And took every differential equation elective I could.

If I won the lottery I would go further in math but thereafter it'd be all physics.

I started out wanting to understand the QM/GR unification, what Smolin called "Quantum Gravity," but after two years I realized there was too much to ever learn on my own. But by then I was reading about relativistic kinematics and I was hooked.

Then I ran into chromodynamics; strange stars, quark stars, quark-gluon plasma. Very expensive books, very difficult math. I eat this stuff up but it's very rough going. Hell, I'm still trying to understand basics like charmonium spin spectra, which is introductory in many of the books I've read.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

It seems I really started a college dorm barn burner!

I entered Rice in 1960 on a science-engineering track.
In the Spring of 1961 after running the double slit experiment in freshman engineering physics I lost sleep over it. Both BB and chrisfox8 will understand this, I think. It is not intuitive that light is both a wave and a particle.

I finished up with an economics major and a concentration in math. Thought about stat or econometrics in grad school. Think better of economics than chrisfox does, obviously. But it is certainly a social science and not a natural one.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 23, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

@chrisfox - You're WAAAAY ahead of me. When faced with the early choice of theory vs. experiment, I went the experimental direction. Mainly because I wanted to eat. [Well, I wanted to have a chance at a job in research after grad school.]

There is some beautiful science out there. One of my favorite classes from grad school was general relativity. You hit special relativity (E=mc^2 for anyone who's following along) immediately, but acceleration is not discussed. It's kinda like learning to drive a car, but never hit the brakes or the accelerator. One memorable section was when we covered Weyl theory. It's an elegant, but sadly not the way our universe works.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

@FairlingtonBlade - the important point I was trying to make was about falsification. You approach the same point from the side, that people believe in economics what their ideology prescribes and without regard to the evidence. Like the Laffer Curve, esteemed as ever, with conservatives all over America intoning, with hollow-eyed conviction, that cutting taxes increases revenue, that "the marketplace" is sentient and always produces optimal outcomes.

I'm coming at economics as an avid reader of Karl Popper, whom I was introduced to by David Deutsche, a quantum computation researcher at Oxford and a staunch believer in the MWI.

But the physics I really want to wrap my mind around is QCD. In the years I have left I may not get very far, but I understand a hell of a lot more than I did five years ago.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

@litero - I think you were posting contra Chrisfox, but felt compelled to respond. I'm a physical scientist who holds that social sciences have great value, though the word "science" gets stretched. With regards to mathematics, calling it philosophy is sophistry. What is now known as science was originally called natural philosophy. I think of mathematics as the language of science. Without any paint, the painter is nothing.

Incidentally, mathematicians do very well for themselves. As do non-practicing scientists. Who do you think designs those fancy models used by financial traders?

I did like the last line. Economics you have failed to learn. A science it is not. With apologies to George Lucas.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

@Chrisfox - I think you're on the right track as there are those who make simple pronouncements based on theories they don't understand. There is an odd tilt amongst Republicans - taxes that rich people pay (capital gains, estate) are bad, taxes that poor people pay (consumption, "sin" taxes) are good. It smells like someone's funded a study to prove their self-interest. When ordinary income gets taxed like capital gains, you know they have bought and sold the law-makers. So, I think your suspicions are well-founded.

Incidentally, there's a running joke. If you ever read "typical result" in a manuscript, replace that with "the best result I ever saw and couldn't duplicate in a million years". I exaggerate a bit, but have seen some real whoppers published. The best part of going to a conference is hanging out at the bar after the sessions are over. You'll never meet a bigger group of drinkers than scientists.

Cheers!

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Not too many fads have lasted hundreds of years. And it will outlast you and me.

==

Yeah and there will still be phrenologists too, and they'll make more of a contribution.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Bull bull and more bull. And I speak as a practicing scientist with a PhD in physics. (By the way, mathematics is not a science.) I took an interest in economics as an undergraduate and learned quite a lot. Social sciences are inherently problematic, but directly applicable to the human experience.

==

I'm envious. You can probably grasp trivially what I struggle to understand.

Economics may be "applicable to the human experience" but so are a lot of things that people ought not get paid to practice.

But I've said all I want to about it and to say more I would just be repeating myself. I don't respect it, and if someone struts it around like solid intellectual credentials I will mutter "idiot" under my breath, or aloud, depending on the breaks.

If you dismiss calling the entire study a fad, can you at least agree that it has appendages that are of no value?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

"How can you name the queen of the sciences in the same sentence as a deplorable pseudoscience? Economics doesn't even qualify as a field of study. "

Bull bull and more bull. And I speak as a practicing scientist with a PhD in physics. (By the way, mathematics is not a science.) I took an interest in economics as an undergraduate and learned quite a lot. Social sciences are inherently problematic, but directly applicable to the human experience.

"The reason I care at all is because we live in times when the study of economics is a lazy man's way to sound like an intellectual, and that pisses me off. It strikes me as a fad."

Not too many fads have lasted hundreds of years. And it will outlast you and me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 23, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Economics has not failed. You have failed to learn economics.

==

I've said all I have to say about it. The reason I care at all is because we live in times when the study of economics is a lazy man's way to sound like an intellectual, and that pisses me off. It strikes me as a fad.

Not to mention the idiotic foppery of "free market" .. totally contemptible. "Let the marketplace decide," what bloody idiocy. And people like George Will get *paid* to write about "markets."

Bah.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

History is emperical but not scientific. Math is neither emperical nor scientific. Math is best left as its own category but if you really want to put it in its proper place, I suppose it is part of philosophy. There are no facts in math only platonic objects.

I can imagine you saying to Darwin why are you drawing all these finches? Or asking how anyone could take Wegnor's theory of contintal drift seriously?

Each science or field of learning follows its own path as determined by subject matter. Its one matter to admit honestly you find the field difficult, but to say that the entire field is bogus is narcissistic.

Economics has not failed. You have failed to learn economics.

Posted by: litero | June 23, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone as arrogant as physics geeks? Essentially your argument is that soft sciences arent like hard sciences, and what one cannot know with certainty, one cannot know at all. It must be hard to live without history, economics, sociology, psychology and everything that cannot be reduced to math.

==

I'm a latecomer to physics, I read a book by Lee Smolin that got me hooked. That was about five years ago and I read physics all the time now. My degree is in math.

History - not an experimental science

Economics - already wrote about

Sociology - no notable achievements

Psychology - ditto, really

The latter two have potential but they are in their infancy. Economics has Stuart Kaufmann's Santa Fe school, and if I were an economist that's the only variety I would pay any attention to.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Math is not science.

Posted by: litero

==

Mathematics is the purest of the sciences. The geometric proofs you learn in the tenth grade are the logical foundation for everything worth studying.

Purest, but not absolutely pure, as we know that there are assertions that cannot be proven nor disproven. But you won't find people getting paid to do math who believe you can trisect an angle, while supply-siders still draw paychecks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone as arrogant as physics geeks? Essentially your argument is that soft sciences arent like hard sciences, and what one cannot know with certainty, one cannot know at all. It must be hard to live without history, economics, sociology, psychology and everything that cannot be reduced to math.

Posted by: litero | June 23, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

As for Nixon's accomplishments: How about the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, extensions to the Clean Air Act? I'm a liberal, conservation-minded Dem, but I see Nixon as doing more for conservation than any Republican Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt.

Sure, he lied to the American public, broke laws, subverted the Constitution, pitted the CIA & FBI at each other and just a whole host of illegal, immoral things. But he also did some good, which is more than I can say for W.

Posted by: cyberfool

==

At the risk of "me too," I couldna said it better.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

These tapes also show that Nixon thought that abortion was okay in cases of rape and interracial babies (black-white).

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | June 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

This isn't twitter, you could have typed this out the first time. And just because George Bush selectively followed certain economic theories more than others, it doesn't mean his ideas are mainstream ideas. Most economists derided his policies. Just because the press displays the two schools of thought as equal doesn't make it so.

==

I'm not talking about George Bush, I'm talking about the fact that George Bush was able to hire economists who believe in nonsense that has never worked, and the fact that people who call themselves economists get paid to promote ideas that have always failed in practice.

Philosophy of science is a big passion of mine, and the more I read about economics, the less is seems to qualify.

I understand that there is no laboratory where economic ideas can be tested in the isolation of competing variables, that testing economics is like doing fluid dynamic experiments in the open ocean, but dammit I expect an idea that has failed without exception to be dropped.

In case I sound merely prejudiced, I don't like string theory either, for similar reasons. In my vast physics library I have only one book on it, and it's shrink-wrapped.

Keynesian theories have a good track record, but they're out of favor. Why? Because it's a "science" of ideology, not a study of human behavior.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

More proof that Bush and his comrades are - and have always been - Traitors.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 23, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I think it would be pointless to exclude anyone elected to the Presidency from the Fix HOF. If you do, then you get into a pointless debate about which Presidents to exclude/include. If they are savvy enough to get to the Oval Office, they get to the HOF, IMHO.

As for Nixon's accomplishments: How about the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, extensions to the Clean Air Act? I'm a liberal, conservation-minded Dem, but I see Nixon as doing more for conservation than any Republican Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt.

Sure, he lied to the American public, broke laws, subverted the Constitution, pitted the CIA & FBI at each other and just a whole host of illegal, immoral things. But he also did some good, which is more than I can say for W.

Posted by: cyberfool | June 23, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"Except in economics. First of all experimental verification is hard there, but even so, even with what little available hypothesis-testing there is, NO economic idea has ever been deprecated because it didn't work as expected. That isn't science, that's more like religion."

This isn't twitter, you could have typed this out the first time. And just because George Bush selectively followed certain economic theories more than others, it doesn't mean his ideas are mainstream ideas. Most economists derided his policies. Just because the press displays the two schools of thought as equal doesn't make it so.

Just like Bush did for environmental science, foreign policy, and evolution.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

A break-in occurred at the Watergate building in June of 1972. The scandal that is commonly known as Watergate started long before and continued well after the break-in. Obviously, "the scandal at the Watergate building that ultimately ended his (Nixon's) presidency" misstates the role of the building and the break-in in the whole debacle.

More important, no peace accord that Kissinger negotiated in 1973 "ended the Vietnam War." The war ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Posted by: jackjburke | June 23, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely Nixon belongs in the Fix Political Hall of Fame. Love or despise him, the man had a huge impact on both his country and the world (both good and bad), and was positively Shakespearean in his character and the arc of his career.

Posted by: bpai_99 | June 23, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

First of all, you're wrong. End of story. Such an unnuanced position is completely unworthy of debate. Second, your dichotomous view of the world as all good versus all evil is also just completely wrong. It's completely childish and very inaccurate.

I don't like to just come out and say someone is flat out wrong, but yeah, sometimes it's warranted.

==

Unnuanced or not, I stand by it. Every other science is subject to falsifiability; hypotheses that fail lose esteem.

Except in economics. First of all experimental verification is hard there, but even so, even with what little available hypothesis-testing there is, NO economic idea has ever been deprecated because it didn't work as expected. That isn't science, that's more like religion.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Monitored is not a whole lot different from bugged, M in A, functionally.

Nixon just had, on balance, too many deficits.

==

Which is a shame, because he was brilliant.

I remember reading about his impromptu speech to the graduating class at the John Hopkins School of International Studies; he took them on an around the world tour of current events, ninety minutes, straight off the top of his head. Simply an amazing mind.

But so very flawed.

However I also remember him at Pat's funeral, bawling his eyes out, and it was hard to go on hating him after that .. except when I'd be in Viet Nam and see the people wheeling themselves around on little carts, their legs shattered by mines.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Also. Math is not science.

Posted by: litero | June 23, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"No.

Economics is crap."

First of all, you're wrong. End of story. Such an unnuanced position is completely unworthy of debate. Second, your dichotomous view of the world as all good versus all evil is also just completely wrong. It's completely childish and very inaccurate.

I don't like to just come out and say someone is flat out wrong, but yeah, sometimes it's warranted.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Monitored is not a whole lot different from bugged, M in A, functionally.

Nixon just had, on balance, too many deficits.

Posted by: drindl | June 23, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I think Pete Rose should be in the baseball HOF. To be consistent, Nixon should be in the Fix HOF

Posted by: miklosis1 | June 23, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

How can the man who invented the Southern Strategy and "Amnesty, Acid and Abortion" not be in the Hall of Fame? People were still using McGovernik as an epithet when Clinton ran for office.

Reagan Democrats were Nixon Democrats when Reagan still in California. There is nothing in the modern Republican party that Nixon did not build, except arguably the Christians driven into the fold by fear of losing tax exempt status for Christian schools. Reagan gets the credit because Reagan was lovable.

Posted by: litero | June 23, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Nixon era, Ed McMahon just died

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Calm down, spazz.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

No.

Economics is crap.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"How can you name the queen of the sciences in the same sentence as a deplorable pseudoscience? Economics doesn't even qualify as a field of study. You should have studied accounting, an economist is barely more than a snake-oil salesman, the Santa Fe school excepted, and that variety is in its infancy."

Calm down, spazz.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

By 1975, I sometimes wished I had gone to graduate school in math or economics rather than entered the law.

==

How can you name the queen of the sciences in the same sentence as a deplorable pseudoscience? Economics doesn't even qualify as a field of study. You should have studied accounting, an economist is barely more than a snake-oil salesman, the Santa Fe school excepted, and that variety is in its infancy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 23, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Technically, "monitored", not "bugged".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 23, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Chris, Chris--the Redskins had NOT just won the Super Bowl. They had just LOST the Super Bowl to the undefeated, untied Miami Dolphins, who had completed the greatest season in NFL history.

Say "hi" to President McCain for me, will you?

Posted by: rayspace | June 23, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

CC asked:

"Does he deserve a spot in the Fix Political Hall of Fame?"


For all his accomplishments,and there were many, sadly, no. The notion of the imperial or unitary presidency is an anathema to our Constitution, and his presidency was its exemplar.

Before Nixon, my profession [which I entered while LBJ was still in office on 9-6-67] was not the subject of derision. By 1975, I sometimes wished I had gone to graduate school in math or economics rather than entered the law.

His AG, Jon Mitchell, bugged my office phone and the office phones of probably every attorney in private practice who appeared in federal court on a regular basis.

No.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | June 23, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company