NIXON--a great man?
know...@cc.denison.edu
turning 19 so I was not even borne at the time of Nixon's resignation.
It is true, all I really know about Nixon is that wast the first president to
resign from office. I hope this is not how he is remembered. As all of you
know the media, particularly CNN have been covering Nixon inside and out.
Throughout this extended coverage I have learned much more about him and have
become facinated with the man's life. "A man of Contradiction" read the
headline of a Nixon story Saturday morning. Indeed he was. I have been
particularly facinated by the stories that ordinary people have told about
him--like the guy who gave him a haircut and his neighbors. Was this guy
really all that bad? From what I have heard, from the good and the bad, not
really.
Face it, all president's are crooks (at least most of them). From the
beginning of the 1980's (when I can start remembering things) we were hit with
the Reagan adminastration. SOme argued Reagan was a great president--just
because he did a little arms deal on the side--does that make him a bad
president? Bush screwed up royally in Panama--does that make him a bad
president? Clinton is the best liar I have ever seen (America still believes
him)--does that make him a bad president? We tend to always overlook the good
things presidents do. Carter gave inflation a boost. Most consider him a bad
president--but what about that little deal he had over in Egypt? Reagan--we
know where he screwed up--but what about his Cold War efforts--same with Bush.
What I am trying to get at is that we always look at the bad things, while
they shouldn't be ignored, why not look to what they have accomplished. I for
one, after hearing some things Nixon actually did do, think he was a pretty
damn good president--not only that but I think he had good character. HE was
not a quiter and strived to do what he thought was right. He opened talk with
China, he started the proccess of talks with the Soviet Union, and many other
great things. But should he be placed in the bad president catagory just
because he had a little robery over in a little building called Watergate?
While we won't know until I am looking at my child's textbook when I become
that age, I hope I do look and see all the good things he has done--not just a
heading which reads "The FIrst President Ever to Resign." I don't think
historians will--do you?
Scott Knowles
Jean E. Mulrenan
> Was this guy
>really all that bad? From what I have heard, from the good and the bad, not
>really.
On what do you base your judgement? Broadcasts of CNN? Go read "The
President's Men" and get back to me. You admit in paragraphs I deleted,
for space reasons, you don't know much about him. Please, please, don't
base your judgements on TV memorials.
>
>Face it, all president's are crooks (at least most of them).
I find this attitude really disheartening for someone who is only 19 years
old. I hold Mr. Nixon at least partially responsible for this attitude
about the office of the Presidency. Before the 1970's, the rampant
cynicims and attitude of who cares? about government didn't exist to the
extent it does today.
I, for one, do not believe that *all* presidents are crooks and I suggest
if you do, get involved in politics and DO something about it.
>
>What I am trying to get at is that we always look at the bad things, while
>they shouldn't be ignored, why not look to what they have accomplished. I for
>one, after hearing some things Nixon actually did do, think he was a pretty
>damn good president--not only that but I think he had good character. HE was
>not a quiter and strived to do what he thought was right. He opened talk with
>China, he started the proccess of talks with the Soviet Union, and many other
>great things. But should he be placed in the bad president catagory just
>because he had a little robery over in a little building called Watergate?
>While we won't know until I am looking at my child's textbook when I become
>that age, I hope I do look and see all the good things he has done--not just a
>heading which reads "The FIrst President Ever to Resign." I don't think
>historians will--do you?
Where did you get your information? CNN? That's hardly a comprehensive
source on Richard Nixon. If you really want to make an informed judgement,
go to the public library and read up on the man. Watergate was just the
end of a career that was full of paranoia and deceit. Read about his
red-baiting tactics in the 50's. It wasn't a little robbery, BTW. It was a
betrayal of trust.
Again, please don't depend on the media for your judgements. Broadcast
journalism is fine but it's not comprehensive.
Jean, who wishes everyone would go to the library and "read all about it"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"To carry on is a victory in itself." - Winston Churchill
Jean E. Mulrenan
User Services, Office of University Computing
University of Notre Dame
631-0585 (mornings)
631-8858 (afternoons)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Theodore M. Seeber
10pm-6am Pacific Daylight Time, 1200-14.4k baud, 8-n-1
t...@seq.oit.osshe.edu
On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Jean E. Mulrenan wrote:
> At 1:15 PM 4/24/94 -0600, know...@CC.DENISON.EDU wrote:
> > Was this guy
> >really all that bad? From what I have heard, from the good and the bad, not
> >really.
>
> On what do you base your judgement? Broadcasts of CNN? Go read "The
> President's Men" and get back to me. You admit in paragraphs I deleted,
> for space reasons, you don't know much about him. Please, please, don't
> base your judgements on TV memorials.
Ok, let's base it on what history showed he did do. He was President
during the first moon landing, and has his name on a plaque at
Tranquility Base to prove it. He delayed the cold war from turning into
a hot war for at least an extra year or two. He ended Vietnam.
> >
> >Face it, all president's are crooks (at least most of them).
>
> I find this attitude really disheartening for someone who is only 19 years
> old. I hold Mr. Nixon at least partially responsible for this attitude
> about the office of the Presidency. Before the 1970's, the rampant
> cynicims and attitude of who cares? about government didn't exist to the
> extent it does today.
>
I do too. Despite his great achievements, he practacally siglehandedly
destroyed the Executive Branch of our government.
> I, for one, do not believe that *all* presidents are crooks and I suggest
> if you do, get involved in politics and DO something about it.
> >
I'm trying, but Bush and Reagan proved me wrong: crooks can still get
elected, just not re-elected.
> >What I am trying to get at is that we always look at the bad things, while
> >they shouldn't be ignored, why not look to what they have accomplished. I fo
r
> >one, after hearing some things Nixon actually did do, think he was a
pretty
> >damn good president--not only that but I think he had good character. HE was
> >not a quiter and strived to do what he thought was right. He opened talk wit
h
> >China, he started the proccess of talks with the Soviet Union, and many other
> >great things. But should he be placed in the bad president catagory just
> >because he had a little robery over in a little building called Watergate?
> >While we won't know until I am looking at my child's textbook when I become
> >that age, I hope I do look and see all the good things he has done--not just
a
> >heading which reads "The FIrst President Ever to Resign." I don't think
> >historians will--do you?
>
> Where did you get your information? CNN? That's hardly a comprehensive
> source on Richard Nixon. If you really want to make an informed judgement,
> go to the public library and read up on the man. Watergate was just the
> end of a career that was full of paranoia and deceit. Read about his
> red-baiting tactics in the 50's. It wasn't a little robbery, BTW. It was a
> betrayal of trust.
>
True.
> Again, please don't depend on the media for your judgements. Broadcast
> journalism is fine but it's not comprehensive.
>
> Jean, who wishes everyone would go to the library and "read all about it"
Anything but.
Ted
know...@cc.denison.edu
> At 1:15 PM 4/24/94 -0600, know...@CC.DENISON.EDU wrote:
>> Was this guy
>>really all that bad? From what I have heard, from the good and the bad, not
>>really.
>
> On what do you base your judgement? Broadcasts of CNN? Go read "The
> President's Men" and get back to me. You admit in paragraphs I deleted,
> for space reasons, you don't know much about him. Please, please, don't
> base your judgements on TV memorials.
This is true. This is all I have based my judment on--and I know I need more.
I will find out more--this is just an initial reaction. I wanted to point out
that we can't judge him on all the bad things he did--like I said, he was a
man of contradiction. All I wanted to emphasize is that we tend to overlook
the greatness of a man just because he screwed up along the way. What really
got me convinced that Nixon was an OK guy was when CNN, yes CNN, interviewed
people who were his neighbors and those buisneses which served him--they
really made the guy out to be a good man. I know I wasn't even a glimmer in
my parents eyes when he did the Red Baiting and all that stuff. I wanted to
give a younger person's point of view. Nixon was quite popular before
Watergate (right?)--so really watergate is the reason most people think he was
a currupted individual.
I am just curious, if anyone who has read any of his books out there, what did
Nixon say about the whole ordeal?
>>
>>Face it, all president's are crooks (at least most of them).
>
> I find this attitude really disheartening for someone who is only 19 years
> old. I hold Mr. Nixon at least partially responsible for this attitude
> about the office of the Presidency. Before the 1970's, the rampant
> cynicims and attitude of who cares? about government didn't exist to the
> extent it does today.
But that doesn't mean it didn't exist, right? Granted, I am blinded from that
era, but we now see that even Kennedy wasn't the whole-harted man everyone
thought he was. "Crooks" was probably not the term to use. Maybe cheater, or
liar. But my point is that Nixon got caught--a lot of others didn't. I am
not cynical about all politicians, I think we, as Americans, need to
stand up to what they do more often than we have. I think that is the major
problem which has gotten us into the problem of oversized government we have
today.
> I, for one, do not believe that *all* presidents are crooks and I suggest
> if you do, get involved in politics and DO something about it.
>>
>>What I am trying to get at is that we always look at the bad things, while
>>they shouldn't be ignored, why not look to what they have accomplished. I for
>>one, after hearing some things Nixon actually did do, think he was a pretty
>>damn good president--not only that but I think he had good character. HE was
>>not a quiter and strived to do what he thought was right. He opened talk with
>>China, he started the proccess of talks with the Soviet Union, and many other
>>great things. But should he be placed in the bad president catagory just
>>because he had a little robery over in a little building called Watergate?
>>While we won't know until I am looking at my child's textbook when I become
>>that age, I hope I do look and see all the good things he has done--not just a
>>heading which reads "The FIrst President Ever to Resign." I don't think
>>historians will--do you?
>
> Where did you get your information? CNN? That's hardly a comprehensive
> source on Richard Nixon. If you really want to make an informed judgement,
> go to the public library and read up on the man. Watergate was just the
> end of a career that was full of paranoia and deceit. Read about his
> red-baiting tactics in the 50's. It wasn't a little robbery, BTW. It was a
> betrayal of trust.
I know it wasn't a little robbery--notice how I stated Carter's boost in
inflation and Bush's side deal with weapons. I tried to make them seem
minimal--almost in a sarcastic way.
> Again, please don't depend on the media for your judgements. Broadcast
> journalism is fine but it's not comprehensive.
I admit, I did go a bit astray here. Please realize thought I wasn't trying
to say that Nixon wasn't a currupted individual at times (although it may have
come out that way) but that we should reconsider what good things he has
done--weigh them next to the bad things he has done. Many people who are my
age know that Nixon was the first president to resign. But he did many more
things which will sadly be ignored. You can have you opinion about it, that
is fine. But as you say below, "go to the library and read all about it"
and reconsider.
Scott Knowles
Michael Morse
the moral catastrophe of the Nixon presidency, seeing these events
judged as if they were an episode of "Married with Children" is profoundly
alarming. The writer Jean attacks seems to think that any opinion is
fine, as longas it's yours, and no matter how it's arrived at. With a
standard of judgement, not to mention truth, so shallow and lazy, there's
no hope for an informed citizenry. I hope and pray you're not typical
of your generation, kid.
MWM
Jean E. Mulrenan
>To completely discard a man such as Nixon for lying and being "unethical" is pe
>rhaps one of the most hypocritical things a person could do. Have not we all
>lied at some point to either save our own or someone else's ass?
Not to the extent Richard M. Nixon did. What about Red-baiting? What
about the types of people he hired? H.R. Haldeman comes to mind.
Jean
JOHN W. CONOVER
> At 9:22 AM 4/27/94 -0400, Brooks wrote:
> >To completely discard a man such as Nixon for lying and being "unethical" is
pe
> >rhaps one of the most hypocritical things a person could do. Have not we all
> >lied at some point to either save our own or someone else's ass?
>
>
> Not to the extent Richard M. Nixon did. What about Red-baiting? What
> about the types of people he hired? H.R. Haldeman comes to mind.
And what about the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the overthrow of
their government, the various illegalities against the elected
government of Chile (all done with Nixon's knowledge), and countless
other foreign policy shenanigans? It is not the lying and coverup of
Watergate. It is the pattern he followed throughout his career to
which people like Jean, VMS and I have the most problems with.
JC
james p mc bride
>
>Let us examine the facts:
Yes, lets.
>1) Nixon was not informed of the break-in until ex post facto; 2) he committed
>no crime in the sense of legality -- no laws were violated by this man; 3) his
>act of covering up the break-in was unethical -- nothing more, nothing less.
Au contraire. Let me quote from an article in Monday's London Independent by
Fred Emery, chief Washinton correspondent of the London Times from 1970-77,
and who presents the forthcoming series on Watergate I have mentioned in
another post:
"My own latest researches into Watergate have not only identified the sole
existing written authorisation for the Nixon campaign bugging operation, found
in the files of Bob Haldeman, chief of staff, but also illustrate Nixon's own
close involvement in getting the dirt on his opponents. Only four days before
the Watergate break-in, Haldeman notes Nixon asking him about a spy they had
planted in the Democrats' camp: 'Did our guy give us a report?'
"This is not the missing proof that Nixon ordered the break-in; but it proves
that the President, far from being pre-occupied with diplomacy, loved the
political grubbing. And, worse, that throughout his first term he had
resorted to _unlawful means_ to do it, on the grounds that it is OK when the
president does it. Watergate was not trivial" (my emphasis)
Nixon may well have been a great statesman towards the end of his life, but
to blindly state that he broke no laws is perhaps a little naive.
>
> --Brooks
> <dcbr...@ukcc.uky.edu>
james
Jean E. Mulrenan
>I disagree. JFK (hey, got it right this time), was as skanky. He's just a
>God now.
>
>Rick
Gee, Rick, who are you talking to? Anybody who read Richard Reeves' book
about Kennedy was misabused of that notion.
Interesting book, BTW.
Edwin Horneij
Ed Horneij
<hor...@humnet.ucla.edu>
Brooks
bably would have continued to do so if not for the trite dismissal of the signi
ficance of the late President.
Let us examine the facts:
1) Nixon was not informed of the break-in until ex post facto; 2) he committed
no crime in the sense of legality -- no laws were violated by this man; 3) his
act of covering up the break-in was unethical -- nothing more, nothing less.
To completely discard a man such as Nixon for lying and being "unethical" is pe
rhaps one of the most hypocritical things a person could do. Have not we all
lied at some point to either save our own or someone else's ass? Richard M. Ni
xon belongs to a very select group of people in this country's history...of the
thousands of people that have lived and died in this country, very few are hav
e been chosen, much less been qualified, to serve as the Commander in Chief.
Also, being a student of history and political science, I, too, Jean, have read
much on and much by Mr. Nixon. He is undoubtedly the best President this count
ry has seen since Abraham Lincoln. And I don't want to hear any diatribes on t
he quality of FDR (who sold us down the river of socialist corporatism), JFK (w
hose rise to fame can only be accredited to his untimely death).
--Brooks
<dcbr...@ukcc.uky.edu>
james p mc bride
>
>Although I will not rejoice at the demise of Richard Nixon, I will not make
>him better than he was just because he is dead. That is what I feel the
>media does and is doing at this time.
>
People who want to evaluate (or re-evaluate, as the case may be) Nixon in the
light of Watergate may be interested to hear that BBC television is due to
screen a major new series on the affair. List members who can receive BBC
television can find the programme on BBC2 starting Sunday 8 May. I don't know
if there are any plans to show the series on World Service Television.
However, series like this are usually co-productions, so I would expect it to
be shown in the US on PBS or on a cable channel. The series will contain
major interviews with figures at the heart of the affair. Nixon himself
refused to be interviewed, but previously unscreened material from his
interviews with David Frost in the late 1970s will be shown.
>
>
>Jean
>
james
Andrew Macrae
> Let us examine the facts:
> 1) Nixon was not informed of the break-in until ex post facto; 2) he committed
> no crime in the sense of legality -- no laws were violated by this man; 3) his
> act of covering up the break-in was unethical -- nothing more, nothing less.
Even though this will probably trail other responses due to the lag time I
just cannot let this pass unchallenged.
Nixon, as chief executive of the nation was required by law to uphold
the laws. The tapes exist, recordings that Nixon made personally, of
his conspiring to help his minions to evade the law. That is conspiracy.
That is ilegal. That is unethical for a president to do. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Next time do a slight bit of homework before advertising your ignorance.
Andrew MacRae
know...@cc.denison.edu
I think I need to do some explaining. I was simply expressing my initial
opinion. I realized as I was posting that note that I had only learn what I
had on CNN. There extensive coverage the night of Nixon's death was fairly
comprehnsive for broadcast Journalism. Before Nixon's death my generation had
only been exposed to watergate when studying Nixon. My knowledge was actually
broadened by watching CNN. I was not just exposed to the negative aspects of
Nixon, but the positive ones as well. I spent several hours watching the
coverage and my knowledge on Nixon prbably tripled. I realize I can make no
conclusions on him as a person or a president based on this limited exposure
to CNN. Although I have made no conclusions, my attitude towards him is more
positive than it previous to his death. You must also realize that because I
am much younger than you are I was not exposed to the media which you
experienced at that time. I must now depend upon pieces of information which
happened after the fact--this can be positive, however, becuase the sourced
will not have the negative bias whcih was prevelant at the time of his fall
from the presidency.
I find quite ironic that you judged me from this subject alone. You barly
know me, just as I barely know Nixon--but I probably know more about Nixon
than you do about me. For my age, I think I am a fairly knowledgable person.
I try to find out as much infromation as possible before making a judgment. I
had enought information to make the judgment I did; Nixon should not just be
remembered for watergate and perhaps we should reconsider the stance most
people have agaisnt him (if that last statement is even considered a
judgment).
I realize I may have made a premature judgment about him in my original post,
but that was not relevent to the subject at hand.
I am leaving towarow for home so I won't get to see all the wonderful
responces to my statement, but let me leave you with a quote from F. Scott
Fitzgerald which perhaps explains out current situation:
(and I paraphrase)
"At eighteen our convictions are but hills we climb, and at
forty our convictions are caves in which we hide."
Scott Knowles