[QUOTE=Frank]
Nixon’s rep was and is worse than the Clinton’s. That’s not an allegation; it’s the truth.
[/quote]
Here we go again.
Was his rep as a liar worse than the Clintons’ prior to Watergate?
[QUOTE=Frank]
You’ve attempted no rebuttal. You’ve merely insisted that it ain’t so, and you’re wrong.
[/quote]
There’s been nothing to rebut. Numerous people have come along to allege pretty much what you have, which is that his ‘reputation’ was worse, or that he lied on this or that sporadic occasion, but precious little evidence has been offered as to his reputation as a liar on the scale of the Clintons. Even after Watergate, most of the slings and arrows he suffered were for the cover-up, the ‘Imperial presidency’, siccing the FBI or IRS on his enemies, etc., but nothing much has been offered regarding his being as prolific and unabashed a liar as the Clintons, and the reason for this is simple: he wasn’t.
Pardon me, sir, but I believe you have me confused with one of our current presidential candidates.
And whats this about pre-Watergate Nixon? Mighty careful trimming, don’t you think, excising the part of his, ah, “career” when he did for lies what Gibralter does for rocks. But lets overlook that unfortunate interlude, shall we?
“Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?”
Come on, luce. You’re coughmarginallycough better than this. I’ve excised nothing. You are likely old enough to…
Ah, forget it. If you want to comfort yourself by claiming that, well, at least Nixon was a bigger liar than the Clintons, I won’t try to disabuse you of the notion.
Like Liberal said considerably upthread, this thread has gotten silly and I shouldn’t have allowed myself to get sucked back into it. I’m done here.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Even after Watergate, most of the slings and arrows he suffered were for the cover-up, the ‘Imperial presidency’, siccing the FBI or IRS on his enemies, etc., but nothing much has been offered regarding his being as prolific and unabashed a liar as the Clintons,…
[/QUOTE]
Does the cover-up not count as lying?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Dare I point out that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie? How about our alleged neutrality in the years preceeding our entrance into both World Wars?
[/QUOTE]
This is one of the rare threads where these references are actually apropos. I’m sort of on the fence about World War II, since the ends do justify nonviolent means to a certain extent (but not much), and we wouldn’t have elected a president that promised to go to war proactively.
However, w/r/t Johnson, I remind posters once again that it will be hard to find a defender of Johnson’s Vietnam policies on the board, so saying “hey, Bush isn’t as relatively bad as you say, Johnson lied for war too,” isn’t going to win any points here
And Gerald Ford, whose long-standing friendship with Nixon was not widely appreciated when Ford was confirmed VP, and provides an Occam’s-Razor explanation for The Pardon.
“In the 1950 mid-term elections, Nixon defeated Democratic Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas to win a seat in the United States Senate. Nixon called Gahagan “the Pink Lady”, accusing her of being a fellow traveler with Communist sympathies, and said she was “pink right down to her underwear.” Gahagan, for her part, bestowed upon Nixon one of the most enduring nicknames in American politics: “Tricky Dick”.”
[/QUOTE]
He said it in a Democratic Convention and it was a big hit. It may have been in 56 . I saw it and remembered because it was funny and Truman was not a real powerful speaker.
