I wasn't a big fan back in the day, but he did accomplish a lot and his crimes were pretty trivial compared to what's going on lately. I mean, compared to the six guys we've had since, he looks like Solomon the Wise and definite Rushmore material.
Can I get an Amen?
2007-07-26 01:41:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Your lips to God's ears, Crispy. Let's hope we have a couple more generations.
2007-07-26 03:02:31 · update #1
I think you might have a cultural bias against the Beloved Leader, TJB. After all, the last time Jews took what a bush had to say seriously, they spent 40 years lost in a pretty small desert.
2007-07-26 05:48:57 · update #2
hmmm.... i think he was , because he saved American from getting into world war three .. by doing a diplomatics with others countries who was at that's time had a conspiracy about getting a lands on the moon ??? .... hey ! how silly am i ??? .
2007-07-26 03:44:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Nixon was the beginning to a very serious and costly problem. With his Watergate incident, he opened the door for people to be investigated, discriminated against, and manipulated because of their political party. We saw this happening again in the Reagan administration with the rise of the "Moral Majority", during the Clinton administration with partisan attacks on the White House because Clinton was guilty of what 532 of the 535 members of Congress do on a daily basis, and most recently, during the Bush II administration on the issue of the firing of U.S. attorneys because of their political affiliation.
It is a nasty game that was basically brought to a head by Nixon. He betrayed his oath of office and put his own party before the well-being of the country in a time of war; something that has become commonplace, unfortunately.
It now seems to be costing us much more than our tax dollars. It's costing us our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers who are all caught up in a "holy war" that the Republican regime has waged with no end in sight.
2007-07-26 02:44:33 · answer #2 · answered by TransyMAJ 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nixon's presidency was a failure. A presidency is evaluated based on how much potential a president has to change the American politics. Nixon vowed to bring order back to America. Instead he prolonged the Vietnam War (he didn't want to be the first president to lose a war), he authorized illegal bombings in Cambodia, and he continually lied to the American public about the Watergate scandal. Nixon had the potential to end the Vietnam War and focus on warming communist - U.S. relations, but instead he squandered his political capital on those three silly acts. It is true that the Nixon administration passed numerous environmental and women's rights acts, but those originated from the Congress and they don't mark a great presidency.
2007-07-26 16:33:12 · answer #3 · answered by Bonjourno2biiillllion 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In terms of foreign and domestic policy,Nixon excelled. How much of those successes were his political genius and how much were a result of his "mob" tactics? Never mind that Ford pardoned him,most people consider Nixon a criminal. He was too ambitious even for a politician,paranoid and morally corrupt. I don't think Americans care if their leaders are dealing through the back door, they just don't want the whole world to know it. Maybe you're just ahead of your time thinking Nixon should be in the all time top 5. Give it another couple of generations and see if historians forgive him.
2007-07-26 02:44:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree w Crispy.
His (Nixon's not Crispy's) shenanigans have damaged the reputation of the Presidency in a way which seems to be permanent. What is more, his policy on Iran (he was one of those Americans who go gooey-eyed over monarchs) paved the way for the revolution there.
BUT ... his superpower Foreign policy achievements were awesome. He understood, like few of his predecessors and NONE of his successors, that the USA is one country among many, with interests rather than shining moral goals.
What is more, he was quite a good domestic President.
Still, lets's face it, he wasn't very likeable. It's as hard to like him as it is to dislike Clinton.
2007-07-26 04:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He only looks good compared to the idiots who followed him. There's been a long progression of bad to worse presidents for some time now. In my lifetime alone, we've gone from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. In the immortal words of the comic Lewis Black, "At this rate, in another 10 years, we'll be voting for plants!"
2007-07-26 05:41:32 · answer #6 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Amen
2007-07-26 07:45:13 · answer #7 · answered by mth83vt 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like Nixon. That syphilitic madman with his love of American football. Hunter Thompson made him a thing of humour for me.
And it could be worse. At least he had more than two brain cells to rub together, unlike George W. Bush.
2007-07-26 04:28:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You like Commie Hunters? Search for the Mundt-Nixon bill, still on the books. All "communists" located in America are to be relocated to unspecified concentration camps. The guy was a criminal, his Vice President, Spiro Agnew, was a criminal. Kalifornia Repukes are the worse!
2007-07-26 02:26:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's just you. His crimes were not trivial and his major accomplishment was to choose Kissinger to design, develop and lead his foreign policy.
2007-07-26 05:49:18 · answer #10 · answered by Letizia 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not here--where constitutional matters are involved, there's no such thing as trivial.
If anything, he set the extremely dubious pattern four of his six successors chose to follow.
2007-07-26 02:03:09 · answer #11 · answered by psyop6 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋