Talk:Richard Nixon

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Do we have to mention Nixon resigned twice? Doesn't that detract a little from more of his accomplishments, many of which are not stated here? RobS 15:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Considering much of the watergate scandals are not "stated here", I'd say it's fairly well balanced.

I'd say it needs some serious reorganization, though. I keep looking at it, trying to figure how to move all that text around so it makes sense (flows well), and then I keep giving up. Human 01:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I have the childhood info, and some other to add. Just under the weather pretty bad right now. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Watergate

The Watergate stuff is good; however, because Nixon (a) had no prior knowledge of the break-in, and (b) did not give prior consent to the break-in, some of the excessive detail on this page gives undue weight to a common misperception that "Nixon was behind it".

As a solution, much of this material is very good to be included elsewhere, but I firmly beleive it is extremely prejudicial and damaging to Mr. Nixon's posthumous reputatation in such as way as to be grossly unfair. Watergate is not Nixon's legacy. RobS 17:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It is impossible to slander/libel the dead. Further, info on all presidential scandals ought to be added. I did try to make up for it by including info about Nixon's military service. Flippin 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, it looks prejudicial because there's not much there--get on it son! ;-) Flippin 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

But that's the point, there's too much detail about the planning of the breakin, who was invovlved, etc. This for example,
it soon became evident, from hints that emerged at the trial and other details revealed in a series of articles by the Washington Post, that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials
is a gross distortion long time Nixon wathcers have become accustomed to. Nixon is not one of these "higher-level government officials", and yet this is used to introduce the Watergate section. This is Nixon's bio, not H.R., Erlichman, Dean, Liddy, or whoever else "gave approval". Simply put, it's innuendo, and it's a restatement of the same type of innuendo we've heard for 30+ years now. I just don't beleive carrying these kind of distortions of fact will work in CP. RobS 17:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it belongs in the Watergate article, too, but a synopsis of the affair belongs here--just as it does in the Whitewater and Teapot Dome examples. Flippin 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Watergate scandal has this,
Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved.
If we just flip-flopped some of the information between pages, it would work. For this bio page, Nixon's invovlement stems from his being over-loyal to wayward subordinates who acted without his prior knowledge or consent. His real failing was being loyal to them, rather than cleaning house of rascals that got him in trouble in the first place. RobS 17:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
How i this inaccurate? I am willing to make changes, but the watergate scandal article is not the place to begin with citing material. That is only self-referential then. Here is the way Nixon's involvement reads right now:
"The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power."
Why don't we parse this here and work out a compromise? Flippin 09:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

proposed text

The Watergate affair ultimately caused Nixon to resign on 9 August 1974. Nixon had no prior knowledge of a plan to burglarize Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate hotel, yet his loyalty to subordinates led Nixon to approve covering up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay the legal expenses of convicted burglarers. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, citing Executive Privilege, refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resign in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "Saturday Night Massacre," although nobody had been killed, led to widespread calls for Nixon's impeachment.

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by Vice President Gerald R. Ford, who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon, in order to heal the great national rift he perceived might occur if the issue remained open. RobS 12:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Nixon's supposed conservatism

Considering that Nixon was hardly a conservative, I'd suggest having a smaller entry for his name. Or perhaps one that highlights his liberal record. I mean: OSHA, EPA, supporting women's rights, the Endangered Species Act, coddling the Commies in China. It doesn't make since that the entry on Bill Clinton is more critical than a President who was more to the left than Bubba!Jsmog 13:11, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

There is some merit in this idea, however I would propose it be presented as Nixon's centrism, moderate views, willingness to compromise & get along, tolerance of diversive views and opinions, and adhering to the established order--the established order in this sense being Keynsian New Deal economics. Nixon's embrace of New Dealism led to re-establishing the commie infested Roosevelt Adminstration's Wage and Price Controls (see OPA). This had a lingering effect on the conservative movement. For example Ed Clark challenged Ronald Reagan on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980, siphoned off economic conservative votes which was the keystone of Reaganomics, and divided the movement. Clark said he did it cause it was the last GOP President who reverted to commie/Democrat decrees that infringe on personal human and civil rights. We can only speculate, Reagan's popular win probably would have been even greater if not for the sins of Nixon. Rob Smith 13:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

At least you're willing to admit that Nixon was a commie! Jsmog 13:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Not a commie, but Nixon was tolerant of commies and thier establsihed order. Rob Smith 13:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

"involved in an alleged attempt"

How can one be invovled in something that allegedly happened? [1] Rob Smith 14:02, 27 November 2010 (EST)

A better lead?

I personally think the lead to this article could use some improvement...on many other articles on presidents, the lead gives a general summary of the president's accomplishments, downsides, and ideology (usually in relation to conservatism). I don't see that on Nixon's, though; it's just general stuff about what he did before being president and a brief mention of Watergate and his resignation. As a student, I want to get the general "feel" of a president's ideology and policy early on; I don't get this here. Anyone up to improving it? (I could help possibly, but I don't know much about the subject matter...) --StoryMaker 18:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Have at it. Please Be Bold. Rob Smith 22:06, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Shouldnt there be something about him sabotaging the Paris Peace Accords on the eve of his election face-off with Humphrey? I mean that effectively extended the Vietnam war so maybe we should have something there about it. Risenrage 08:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)--

Personal tools