“Monica! Monica!”?
There, you see? He brought unity to the Democrats and Republicans! 
Well, to be fair, he’s also roundly condemned for being a douche.
Didn’t Nixon favour abortion for women in mixed-race relationships? I believe he used the word “necessary”, in fact.
Well, not *all *mixed-race relationships:
But other than the racism, and the criminal stuff. He was a great Republican president!
Nixon discouraged several efforts to investigate fraud for fear of causing a national crisis of a disputed election. And most of my arguments have come from well-respected history books such as Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People.
He was born in 1913 when lynching was a regular occurrence and Nixon was not advocating this as government policy.
No excuse. Lots of people born around then weren’t racists sixty years later. Also, if being a self-made man can be used as evidence in support of his presidential greatness even though it’s unrelated to policy, then his racism can be used as evidence denying his presidential greatness even though it is also unrelated to policy. No doubt about it, you’re trying to portray a racist and a criminal as one of the great presidents.
Please.
I think we’ve had a balanced (IIRC…) budget 2 years since 1969. 2.
The congress and President[s] have been liquidating this country for 40+ years.
They’ve been spending [borrowed] money like sailors on leave, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Mostly the Republicans though.
Who were these many confidants, and what were these books?
FTR, I have no dog in the fight.
But the notion that the Republicans are profligate spenders oberlooks the fact the Democrats are just as guilty.
Republicans: Borrow, Borrow, spend & spend.
Democrats: Borrow, Tax, spend & spend.
Considering the fact that you are absolutely wrong in your first claim, is there any reason to even read - much less seriously think about - the rest of your claims?
I had no idea things had reached such an intolerable state. Do you mean to say that Democrats have the temerity to tax people to pay for what the government does? Throw the scoundrels out!
L.H. Puttgrass signing off and heading for the tub!
I try to stay out of debates as you folks seem to have more energy for it (and you are likely better at debate) but this bon mot forced my hand. I looked this up in the late 1990s and found an article (I believe it was in the Atlantic and called Reagan and the Russians) which claimed that Russian military spending never really changed during Reagan’s build-up, that it had been about 20% of their GDP from the 1960s onward. This would imply that Reagan’s military build-up policies didn’t have much impact on the eventual collapse of the USSR. Unfortunately, that article has been gone for years on the internet.
So, you say, give a cite? Here is a citation from global security.org It claims some numbers eerily similar to Mr. Moto’s:
Pretty close, eh? But there’s one big difference: in the global security quote, the 4-7% growth rate had already dropped by the mid-eighties. The 4-7% growth was earlier. So, during Reagan’s build-up, the USSR had already begun to move towards greater (but not great enough to save them) fiscal responsibility.
Also keep in mind that in an inflationary world (and the 1980s were quite inflationary) 4-7% growth might be less than a COLA for the Russian military budget. I don’t have the Russian inflation rates in front of me to compare, though.
Here is a citation from a CIA document
from which I get a couple interesting items. First, the Russians get cheap prices for military because of low wages and maybe some other endemic features like cheap titanium. Second, it is at least possible that the Russians were already outspending the US, militarily, when compared to their GNP and this paper is from 1975.
Don’t worry; you are not expected to have to read or think about anything.
But I’d certainly like a cite about Bush pardoning Reagan and himself. They escaped pretty much scot free from Iran-Contra, thanks in part to vast numbers of documents being destroyed or withheld, but others who did get convicted were subsequently pardoned and never went to prison. And Ollie North got a show on FoxNews.
By the way, Reagan’s apology for the arms-for-hostages swap featured this beauty:
And people wonder why we thought he was senile during his time in office…
Okay, there’s your problem: Paul Johnson is well-respected among staunch conservative apologists, but among anyone to the left of Edwin Meese, he’s a joke. When he gets into areas I know a lot about, he can’t even get his facts straight, so I’m not going to rely on him for anything out of my sphere of expertise. You ought to try reading historians WITHOUT a pronounced bias in the direction you favor–you could learn something, and I promise it won’t hurt a bit.
This is a myth.
Nixon was not personally crying foul, but his henchmen were quite busy trying to find ways to reverse the election. He kept himself above the fray, appearing the gracious loser all the while trying to contest the election.
Not real strong on the history part, are you? Volcker left the Fed in 1987, having served there for eight years, six of them under Reagan. Reagan re-appointed him in 1983.
No they weren’t - the US inflation rate was 13.5% in 1980 and was cut by almost two thirds (4.1% in 1988).
I don’t know why I bother. Attitudes based on these kinds of whoppers can’t be refuted.
I think I will leave you all to your delusions.
Regards,
Shodan
Godix & Shodan,
Thanks for the comments.
News broadcasts at the time presented it as a general pardon of all involved. I now see that he only pardoned some of the key participants.
However, his act undermined Walsh ending the investigation. The effect was the same.
Crane