Duckster wrote:
Yeah, the Sun will do that to me, too. Especially when they run an article about that 200-pound baby who gave birth to Bigfoot.
Hankie-Baby was over in Paris at the time as a rep of the Nixon campaign. There is evidence that Kissinger convinced the South Vietnamese side to turn down the deal. This was just before the election. The logic was that if the peace talks failed, it would throw the election to the GOP. Kissenger was supposed to have said that Nixon would give them a better deal. Years later (and after many, many more lives were lost) a peace finally was brokered. The deal was essentially the same as the one in '68.
Haj
Hankie-Baby was over in Paris at the time as a rep of the Nixon campaign. There is evidence that Kissinger convinced the South Vietnamese side to turn down the deal. This was just before the election. The logic was that if the peace talks failed, it would throw the election to the GOP. Kissenger was supposed to have said that Nixon would give them a better deal. Years later (and after many, many more lives were lost) a peace finally was brokered. The deal was essentially the same as the one in '68.
Haj
Lemur866…
Fair enough…that’s certainly a valid argument. The only response I might make is that, while Nixons SE Asia policies led to a gigantic cock-up; I, for one, am not at all confident as to which courses of action would have led to a better end result.
hajario…
During 1968 Kissinger was an advisor to the Nelson Rockefeller campaign. You may recall that at the time his only notoriety came from a publc statement that Nixon was “unfit to be President.”
According to his autobiography he had no discussions concerning joining the Nixon administration until after the election was over.
If I recall correctly, in 1968 the only thing being negotiated in Paris was whether or not the Viet Cong were to be included in the talks.
zig
In both Nixon’s memoirs and in Kissenger’s diarys, they talk about contact between Kissenger and the Nixon campaign during the talks of '68. (Though I did err when I said that HK was an official Nixon advisor.) They don’t talk about outright leaks and collusion but one can certainly make the argument. You correctly point out that HK had made many less than flattering comments about RN yet somehow HK was Nixon’s very first appointment (as the NSA advsior) when he was elected.
This book, though clearly partisan, treats this subject very well with lots of documentation.
Haj
Since Barking Spider won’t be accepting his Social Security checks, I’d like to call first dibs on them.
Andrew Jackson was a mixed bag. While he deserves scorn for the Trail of Tears, you can’t ignore his positive contributions. He embraced an egalitarian vision of democracy which we accept as canon today, but which had not previously been the norm. He fought against the nascent “states’ rights” movement (which led ultimately to the dissolution of the Union).
He abused the Cherokee, no question, but his record in other areas prevents him from being named as worst, or even one of the worst presidents. (IMO)
Since Barking Spider won’t be accepting his Social Security checks, I’d like to call first dibs on them.
No, you can’t have em! Mrs Spider is first in line!
It astounds me that nobody here has mentioned Chester A. Arthur. Without a doubt THE worst president ever to hold office, also probably the most corrupt. Apparently he is also one of the most forgetable.
Huh? Arthur, corrupt?
While Arthur was certainly one of the more corrupt politicians before he was elected to the Vice-Presidency- have acted as Roscoe Conkling’s man of graft as Port Commissioner in New York City, and being publicly reprimanded by President Hayes for his graft- upon ascending to the Presidency (following the assassination of Garfield), Arthur worked hard to pass the Civil Service Reform Act, which would help clear corruption out of the Federal Government by reducing patronage.
Quite frankly, as President, Arthur was one of the cleaner ones of the late 19th century. I’ve never heard charges of Arthur himself acting corruptly as President, and any corruption charges against his administration- I’m not familiar with any, but I expect they’d pale against those of Grant, and possibly even Harrison (who could not name his own Cabinet because all the positions had been promised out in return for his election).
I agree with those who argue that Wilson was one of the worst Presidents this country has had- we had no reason to be involved in World War One, Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” and his incompetence in attempting to gain it nearly assured World War Two, and he set civil rights in this country back twenty years. Nixon was more corrupt, more venal, more psychopathic, but actually did things that helped the country as well (opening relations with China, ending the Vietnam War).
I nominate Fillmore solely on the basis that his name came to mind first.
As to Nixon the one thing that he did that really turned me against him was to install Wage and price controls. I had always heard that they were bad, but it took that experience to educate me. What really was hard to take was the fact that it was a Republican president that did it.
Uhhh, Nixon took us out of Vietnam about 4 years later than he could’ve under the same terms. How many extra people died during those 4 years? Also, we did have good reason to get into World War I. It was a battle between democracies (Britain, France) and autocracies (Germany, Austro-Hungary). Also, we had lots of $ invested in the democracies, it wouldn’t have been good for business if we had let them fall. Plus, if we hadn’t become involved it’s unclear how many more European men would’ve died in the trenches before one side got tired of dying.
Bush Jr. - tyrant, corrupt, fool, pawn.
Grant - drunk, pawn, corrupt.
Hoover - let the depression continue unchecked for 3 years.
Polk - instigated a war with Mexico to grab their land.
Jackson - Trail of Tears, killed the Bank
Nixon - Crook.
Woodrow Wilson. Three words “League of Nations”. Oh, and there was that little domino called World War I that’s still tumbling. Harding was merely a fool. Wilson was an educated fool and all the more despicable.
Well, Mr. Barking Spider certainly seems to be a rock-solid conservative. Earth’s mantle kinda rocky. Subterranean in fact.
I mean: Lincoln, the worst one? Sheesh.
I certainly am loving reading this thread – both left and right are getting plenty of licks in.
Another thing I love about this thread is that people are considering things other than economic performance, which is not something Presidents really have control over anyway. Things like human rights records, civil liberties and support for militarism.
Not in the last 20 years…OK…
REAGAN.
(21 years ago!)
Agreed- but who was saying they’d get us out of Vietnam the day after they were inaugurated? Not Humphrey, who kept with the Johnson “we can win this one in the end” line until late October. Hell, not even McGovern.
Sorry; that’s old propaganda. The most repressive autocratic government in the war was on ‘our side’- Czarist Russia. And Germany was a Constitutional Monarchy- no more oppressive and ‘autocratic’ than the British government of the early 19th century.
It was a stupid war of machismo. Germany decided it would become a world power no matter whose toes it needed to step on, and its foreign policy blunders of the 1900’s drove France and England into an alliance to hem it in. Likewise, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Serbia were constantly struggling to determine who would be the ‘respresentative’ of the Slavic peoples. Eventually, tensions between Serbia and AH turned to war, France saw its chance to beat up Germany, and Europe burned for five years because everyone was fighting over who got to be big man. “Making the world safe for democracy” was propaganda and nothing more- the British and French governments had no interest in democracy in their African or Asian colonies, after all.
“Fall”? How? It wasn’t like Germany was going to declare France ‘Germany minor’ like they did in World War II- they would have taken a bit more of the lowlands between them, gotten the Asian colonies, and then happily bought goods from us just as they had for the fifty years prior.
First- I do not understand the ideal that Americans should die in order to prevent the deaths of people who should be smart enough to realize the idiotic situation they’re in.
Second- and had we not intervened, chances are the renewed German offensive- spurred on by reinforcements from the now-finished Eastern front- could well have finally taken Paris from a French army that would have embraced defeat just to have the goddamned thing over. The Germans almost made it, but fresh American troops- and the renewal of hope in the front lines that fresh troops gave- stopped them. One could certainly argue that either way, one side wins by November, '19.
OK, it’s settled, Nixon getting us out of Vietnam shouldn’t be a plus because he could’ve done it so much earlier.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4973/
Sounds like the monarchy and aristocracy held a tight grip on the government. Here are the main combatants
Allies:
Britain: Constitutional Monarchy
France: Republic
Russia: Autocracy
CP:
Germany: Monarchy
Austro-Hungary: Monarchy
Ottoman Empire: Monarchy
I’d pick the Allies based on that.
Well, they didn’t have any interest in democracy in their colonies after WWII either but I’d say that war was one for democracy. I will agree that they were all itching for a fight–that’s what made the war inevitable. If it was inevitable, we might as well have sided with the mostly democratic Allies.
Apparently you missed the Treaty of Versailles. Who says Germany wouldn’t have done the same thing if they were on the other side of the bargaining table.
It was still a stalemate when we got there, it probably would have lasted longer if we hadn’t intervened. Regarding your first point it’s just a classic internationalist/isolationist debate, and that’s one that won’t be resolved in this thread.
I have to disagree with a rather slanderous statement made earlier in this thread about John Adams. He and the Federalists were as committed to democracy as anyone else–they just wanted a somewhat more centralized government. In my humble opinion, he was right about this, though that’s a separate debate. He most certainly did not want to be made King, as one poster said (that was simply an accusation used by his political oponents at the time).