Tuesday, November 18, 2008


Some have compared Dubya to Hoover. Others to Truman. I think he's more like Nixon: spending all of his political capital successfully "Vietnamizing" Iraq and getting NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER for his liberal accomplishments - which are numerous, and which account for why Bush is so low in the polls. Bush is low in the polls because he pissed off conservatives without picking up ANY liberal support in return. He did this with signing CFR, signing NCLB, pushing Miers, pushing amnesty, signing DRUGS FOR SENIORS an the largest increases in domestic spending since LBJ.

Nixon also did a lot of liberal things and got ZERO CREDIT FOR IT: detente, arms control, the EPA, the CLEAN WATER/CLEAN AIR ACT, wage & price controls, opening China, bring all the troops home from Vietnam in 1973, ending the draft.


McCain likewise lost because he got ZERO credit in the election for being a bi-partisan / GOP maverick who supported green taxes and AMNESTY, etc. SHIT: MCCAIN GOT CLOBBERED BY THE HISPANICS. (I don't know who are the bigger idiots: the Hispanics who didn't support their friend McCain or McCainiacs for thinking that the way to gain their support was to give the illegals amnesty.)

And IF Bush is more like Nixon, then of course Obama will be more Like Carter: an inept anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-defense-spending liberal who will somersault from misstep to misstep and make our enemies stronger.

Obama isn't like Bill Clinton or Reagan - who were both very experienced executives and very experienced politicians.

Obama isn't like Lincoln who was prescient. Obama was wrong about Iraq and the Surge - and all those close buddies he threw under the bus.

Obama isn't like FDR who was a consummate politician and experienced in DC and ALBANY and on the national scene for decades.

Obama is like Carter - but will probably be even worse and disappoint more people even more. Carter had at least once been in the military and once ran his own business and had been a governor.

In one respect Bush will be like Truman: In time a vast majority of Americans will regard his presidency will respect and thanks. Something we owe Nixon but which he will probably never receive.

REMEMBER THIS ABOUT NIXON: he only served 5 years. And did more good for the US And the world than Clinton did in 8. Or than Obama will ever do.

C'est la vie.


rcm said...

"Nixon also did a lot of liberals things and got ZERO CREDIT FOR IT: detente, arms control, the EPA, the CLEAN WATER/CLEAN AIR ACT, wage & price controls, opening China, bring all the troops home from Vietnam in 1973, ending the draft."

Nixon did a lot of liberal things but the GOP has ZERO interest in claiming CREDIT for these things. This is the first time I've read any Conservative calling attention to the fact that it was indeed an actual Republican who passed these measures.
You'd think that Conservatives are actually ashamed that one of their own was on the side of issues that they are so loudly opposed to these days.

Unknown said...

Google "McCain" + "maverick" to see how often this was repeated by the media, Hispanics weren't rejecting McCain, they were rejecting Republicanism.

Nixon has always been credited for ending the Vietnam War, though only after the secret bombings of Cambodia and various other catastrophes (which led straight to Pol Pot). If you want to hold up Tricky Dick as a role model, fine with me. Unfortunately, many of the GOP's current problems are directly traceable to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and the tactic he first used against Helen Gahagan Douglas more than a half-century ago, labeling her the "pink lady." This was the start of a new chapter in American politics, where you don't simply take issue with your opponents' policies, but instead brand them as being actual enemies of America, as Communists who want to take over the country, as threats. Of course, this was epitomized by the right's breathless assertions of Obama's ties to Islam and to "radical terrorists," not to mention his "Marxism." Nixon was the grandaddy of the Big Smear, used to put opponents on the defensive and keep them there. He's all yours.

Reliapundit said...

clare, thanks for the comment.

i certainly donlt like the liberal things bush or nixon diod.

but most people are a mix and presdients are a mix too.

what is so damn intersting from my point of view isn't that conservatives don't praise nixon - who has been vililified for thr reasons - but that bush has been vilified for pursuing a war which jfk and fdr would have pursued and despite having the most liberal domestic spending record since lbj.

i think it reveals that the cire of the left is dovsihness and animosoty to a strong natinal defesne and opur military and i feel this is becasue the left has beeen hijacked sone the 1960's by the postmodernists and the gramscians.

conservtives held their nose anbd voted for dubya in 2004 an mccain in 2008.

libs did not fo the same becasue dovishness trumpled everything else.

i guess you could argue that hawkishness trumps all else for conservatives.

i thionk that the fact that hillary lost the nomination proves i am more correct in my assessment.

btw: real peace comes through victory, not retreat.

appaesement never won a war or kept the peace.

Punditarian said...


If you actually believe that branding political opponents as enemies of America started in the second half of the twentieth century, you need some remedial work in American history.

Read about the controversies between Adams and Jefferson during both of their administrations, and then come back and tell us when smearing opponents started.

Then examine how Lincoln was treated by the copperheads -- the MoveOnDotOrg of his day.

When it comes to the history of American electoral politics, you don't know the first thing of what you are talking about.

Beyond that, the significant fact is not that Nixon ended the Vietnam war, but that his policy of Vietnamization actually worked very well. It is always easy to end a war; all you have to do is surrender. What Nixon did was to position the South Vietnamese so that they were able to continue the war rather successfully for 2 years after the withdrawal of the last US combat soldier, until the Democrats in Congress stopped funding the effort. Only then did the communists overrun the country.

And according to Shariah Law, Obama is a Muslim, no ifs ands or buts about it. Whether you think he is a Muslim or not does not affect that determination.

And he is certainly a cultural marxist. His grandparents were leftists, his parents were leftists, his mentor in his adolescence was a communist, he always chose to associate with marxists and communists from his college days on. Whenever he strays from the teleprompter platitudes crafted for him by another red-diaper-baby, David Axelrod, he spouts neo-marxist pablum.

Reliapundit said...

richard: you wrote:

Hispanics weren't rejecting McCain, they were rejecting Republicanism.

you offer no proof and make no argument.

i guess becasue it's an empty assertion.

you are just as wrong on po pot:

you wrote:

bombings of Cambodia and various other catastrophes (which led straight to Pol Pot


spouth vietnam fell in 1975 - after the dovs in conbgress pulled the plug on the SVG.

the last US ground troop left on 3/31/73.

so it was the doves who handed Svietnam and to the commies, and pol pot came AFTER that.

you are also 10000000% wrong on the so-called "southern straegy".

nixon won in 1968 against WALLACE.

and he held the south in 1972 becaasue his LAW& ORDER efforts worked.

Nixon did as much to desegregate the military as Truman.

the southerners who migrated from the democrat party to the GOP went becasue of a plethora of issues.

Race was not one of them. That was over and done with.

i am a registered dem - have been since 1974. i marched with Dr MLK Jr.

I marched agaist the Vietnam war.

I read thre Nation every week for decades. and RAMPARTS.


SO I know of what I speak.

Nixon and McCarthy were CORRECT abouyt the USSR and dommunist infiltration in the USA.

And the US anti-war movement was a pawn of the USSR and the NLF.

So calling Nixon a "red-baiter: for calling REDS what they were - REDS - is meaningless.

Only in the USa do PINKOS insist on euphemisms for their cause.
In Europe they still call themselves what they trult are.

Segolene, Zapaterp et all.

But Obama instsist he's a "prgressive".

WELL W E KNOW WHAT THAT MEASN: HE'S A PINKO - which is a euphemism for socialist at heart.

I wish Obama had the courage to run as what he really is. But he lied and ran a moderate.

Anyoine who wants to use the tax systen to redistribute ewalth is a SOCIALIST. PERIOD.

Carlos Echevarria said...

Reliapundit, great post, as usual and I think your analogies are 100% correct.

Moreover, your comprehension of American history is quite perspicacious, the rhetoric emanating in the Adams-Jefferson race makes this election cycle look tame...

Richard, why don't you go troll somewhere else or get out your prayer rug, I think your Master is in Chicago today so you need to pray towards Hyde Park...

Punditarian, you make a valid point regarding Sharia, it's irrelevant what anyone here thinks, its what the Muslims perceive him as that matters!

McCoy said...

Carlos -

Richard probably appreciates you unwittingly illustrating his point.

Reliapundit said...

praying toward hyde park! PRICELESS!!!!