The more detail I learn about Nixon the better he seems

Sahl then dined with Nixon, who told him, “Don’t forget to keep a candle under my ass, and under Kennedy’s too. It’s good for America.”

Not that I’m falling off the edge and thinking that he was a great President or anything. But that plus his walking away from the way the Ds stole that election for Kennedy are admirable.

12 thoughts on “The more detail I learn about Nixon the better he seems”

  1. He was a actually a pretty good President who’s principle concern was for the American people and who has been unfairly demonised by the media largely because of it.

  2. Nixon’s problem was that Truman had abandoned the good old-fashioned European custom of, if someone attacks you, declare total war and go straight for the throat. The idea that you could just stand on the defensive and hold your own meant that guerrillas/freedom fighters/terrorists could just swarm across your borders indefinitely. As there was no easily fortifiable border in Vietnam, the war just went on and on and on.

    Of course Carter turned this against the USSR in Afghanistan. And fortunately, as Khomeini gave some assistance to the Hazaras, they encouraged their Iraqi ally to attack him. Since it was not in their interests that either party won, the West simply switched support from one side to the other to keep the war going on and on and on.

    This flooded the global oil market, and bankrupted the USSR, which had been depending on its oil production to pay for its food imports. I must give Putin credit here. Russia has finally become a grain exporter again. He’s evidently dealt with the remnants of the Communists idiotic agricultural policy.

  3. Given what we know now about the deep state and the media ( after seeing how they attacked Trump )
    how much of the historical consensus about Nixon is actually true?

  4. I had always assumed that the Watergate fiasco had been much as reported. Now I assume that it was, at least in part, an FBI coup.

    DC intensely dislikes outsiders. Nixon got the bum’s rush, Carter got a lousy press that ensured he couldn’t win a second term, they attempted more than one coup against Trump. It almost makes me wonder about the shooting of Reagan. What about MLK? It can’t be conspiracies all they way down, can it?

    As for JFK and RFK: God knows – they were insiders not outsiders. Still, child-sniffing, girl-groping, demented, IRA pal Brandon is presumably safe from assassination.

  5. Nixon was, by all accounts, a pretty good poker player, using winnings he made whilst in the Navy to help fund his first run for political office, (a California congressional seat) in 1946.

  6. @BlokeinBrum. If historians officially agree on anything, you can assume you’ll have to dig up the primary sources yourself to find out what really happened. They never agree on anything other than general principles.
    If that’s too much, there’s always the oldfashioned way of reading the writings of both the Fanbois and the H8ters, and apply Occam’s Razor in the tradition of Solomon.

    “Historical consensus”means someone’s been playing silly buggers.

  7. @G
    If growing older has taught me anything, it’s that I need to be far more cynical than I ever imagined I needed to be.
    I worry that as everything is now moving online, that accurate historic records will no longer be available to allow future generations to sift through the entrails.
    You only have to look at the last Presidential election in the US to see the danger in having everything done online.
    As Stalin said – “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

  8. One standard quote is that “Charles I was a good man and a bad king, Charles II was a bad man and a good king” – Nixon’s presidency improved things for the USA and the world as a whole. That I’m inclined to think that LBJ was a worse man as well as a worse President doesn’t matter because everyone compares Nixon with JFK (who seemed, to those on the east of the big pond, a nice guy, but came close to starting WWIII and achieved little)

  9. @BlokeInBrum

    Disagree. Online means that we’re able collaborate and share information and see through the lies and misinformation more easily – Brexit wouldn’t have happened for example. Furthermore, more and more original sources are being scanned and made available online, making it *easier* to check claims.

    Would agree that it is a double-edged sword though

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *