Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Caught on Tape: What the Nixon tapes tell us about the Republican Party
Slate ^ | Monday, June 29, 2009 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 06/30/2009 9:04:38 AM PDT by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: dead
Hitchens was 14 years old when Kennedy was removed from office by Lee Oswald. After Nixon lost the election in 1960 (when Hitchens was 11), he famously retired from politics for 8 years to become a lawyer again. He did run unsuccessfully for Gov. of California in 1962. He did not appear again until the 1968 election (when Hitchens was 19). I am defintitely not arguing with you here. I'm merely pointing out, that Hitchens had not prior experience with the man whatsoever. At an early age he had already been programed to loath a man simply because he was a Republican.

Compare that to any Conservative you know, who is genuinely fond of at least a few liberal politicians and commentators.

41 posted on 06/30/2009 9:49:20 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

How soon people forget that Nixon’s racial attitudes weren’t so unique at all, but merely a reflection of quite a wide swath of society at the time. Interracial relationships *weren’t* mainstream by any stretch. Remember the interracial kiss on Star Trek with Kirk and Ohura? Caused quite a stir.

Nowadays we yawn and wonder what all the fuss was about, but we cannot directly interpret past attitudes and actions through a present-day moralistic prism. It’s utterly unfair. Nixon’s attitudes on race weren’t anything unusual for the time.


42 posted on 06/30/2009 9:53:40 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Hitchings views himself as an extremely intelligent person. If one could stomach the acrid arrogance on display at his website for a bit of time, they would be treated to his extremely highbrow polemics including his anti-God, anti-religious screeds that drip with contempt for anyone who does not celebrate his profound thoughts and punditry.

In other words, he's a major tool. He called Rick Warren a “vulgar huckster” following the Warren-moderated debate. He called McCain “borderline senile” during the election (maybe he got one thing right) and he called Palin “a disgrace”.

His name is synonymous with the words “radical leftist”, “arrogant elitist”, “Marx worshiper”, “religious atheist”.

43 posted on 06/30/2009 9:56:31 AM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; dead

Without getting into these ins and outs, I think dead is correct about one thing. It was Nixon’s role in the Alger Hiss business and the McCarthy red hunt that first earned him the enduring, knee-jerk hatred of liberals.

Sure, he was a liberal in office. He gave us the EPA. He gave us the opening to Red China.

In the minds of knee-jerk liberals and their kids, he was responsible, along with Senator McCarthy, for the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition.


44 posted on 06/30/2009 9:58:54 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; dead

I agree with both of you, but most of what you are referring to took place before Hitchens was born, or when he as a very small boy. Without much TV or any internet. He had little first-hand experience with Nixon. Certainly not enough to loath him. I know FDR was a terrible president, because of what my grandparents told me, and because of what I have read in the history books. But will never have enough personal familiariaty with the man to loath him unless he rises from the grave and starts chasing me down the block as a wheelchair zombie.


45 posted on 06/30/2009 10:07:54 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
No matter the sins of Nixon my loathing is greater for Nixon's myriad enemies. Defenders of Hiss, haters of Chambers, haters of the House Committee on un-American Activities, haters of McCarthy, "anti-war" pro-Ho street rabble and "journalists", international federalists, Communists, Marxist-Alinsky street rabble -- the entire left.

Yes the MSM hysteria reached the point where conservatives had to support the removal of a president.

What did Nixon do that no other president had done? Seriously.

Re: racists.

Al Gore senior, William Fulbright, Lyndon Johnson, . . . .

.. and before the 1960s there are lots of hits when you look for Democrat racist history. As for Nixon and his Christian friends virtually "owning" anti-Semitism well I don't think so.

As for Hitchens' claim that a huge number of American lives and an incalculable number of Vietnamese ones were thrown away to end the war on more shameful terms than had been on offer in the fall of 1968 just look at the post-war comments of the VN Communists.. what really did keep them in the war after their defeat in the Tet Offensive? The American press and the "anti-war" activities in the U.S., that's what! Hitchens and his street rabble friends and pro-Ho heroes.

To wit, "A Vietnamese journalist who was sympathetic to the communist cause during the war and who escaped to Paris after the fall of South Viet Nam had this to say: 'A physician who makes an error kills his patient; a general who makes an error kills his division; a journalist who makes an error kills an entire country.' And this was exactly what happened in Viet Nam. General Vo Nguyen Giap stated in a French television broadcast that his most important guerilla during the war was the American press. This was indeed a tragic compliment! The U.S. media coverage of the Tet Offensive was a classic case of irresponsible reporting . . . ."

"The Twenty-Five-Year Century" 2002 Symposium

46 posted on 06/30/2009 10:22:34 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

1973? That was 35 years ago. The majority of Obama voters hadn’t even been born yet.


47 posted on 06/30/2009 10:33:20 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Cicero
He had little first-hand experience with Nixon. Certainly not enough to loath him... It was Nixon’s role in the Alger Hiss business and the McCarthy red hunt that first earned him the enduring, knee-jerk hatred of liberals.

Exactly. No, he was too young to have anything to base his "loathing" on, he inhaled it. Nixon was widely loathed by the left because of his role in chasing communists in his early days. The left never admitted that Hiss was guilty, that the Rosenbergs were guilty, that McCarthy was telling the truth, and that the people in Hollywood who were blacklisted were blacklisted by their Hollywood friends, and not by McCarthy, who wasn't even around then.

Bush Derangement Syndrome didn't start with Bush, or Bork, or Thomas. Its how the left reacts to anyone who crosses their path. At least, thats how I see it. Hence, Nixon, Chambers, McCarthy.

48 posted on 06/30/2009 10:33:21 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What those tapes tell us about the GOP? Nothing. That was almost 4 decades ago, Nixon is long dead, as are most of the people he had with him. It’s about as relevant as the campaign musings of Dewey when defeated by Truman.


49 posted on 06/30/2009 10:43:38 AM PDT by Mr Inviso (ACORN=Arrogant Condescending Obama Ruining Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
What the Nixon tapes tell us about the Republican Party Nixon.

There. Fixed it.
50 posted on 06/30/2009 10:51:18 AM PDT by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Yup.

Between that and the EPA I have a REALLY hard time liking the guy myself.


51 posted on 06/30/2009 10:52:58 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

No, Reagan did not bow out in 1976; he was defeated at the convention in Kansas City. He won the CA primary when average CA people still had the right to vote. KY and TN, following Howard Baker, helped tip the nomination to Ford as much as any states.


52 posted on 06/30/2009 4:20:20 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Here’s a very good book on Nixon:

The wars of Watergate By Stanley I. Kutle

http://books.google.com/books?id=k2U9w6RVpowC&dq=presidential+candidate+adlai+stevenson&source=gbs_navlinks_s


53 posted on 06/30/2009 7:30:52 PM PDT by Polarik (Mom: You were right! The world IS run by a secret, international cabal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson