The Man Not The Office

[Flanders]

Either I never knew it or this one fell through the cracks in my memory:

There are two non-partisan groups who should be always grateful to the 37th president, for he gave them a priceless gift: a reason for an annual three-day sale—the Presidents’ Day weekend. The groups are used car and mattress salesmen.

In 1970, Nixon did a pre-Obama pre-emption. Instead of asking Congress to convert the George Washington’s Birthday weekend (still its official name), he simply issued a Presidential Proclamation urging all Americans to celebrate all of the nation’s presidents. Hence, “Presidents’ Day.” Calendar publishers, non-nosy news media (that is, most of them) and the aforementioned sales-happy merchants swallowed the suggestion without so much as a “What’s this?”

Nixon’s Three-Day Gift
By Peter Hannaford on 2.18.13 @ 6:07AM

The American Spectator : Nixon?s Three-Day Gift

Oh well, Nixon made some mistakes. No matter. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the guy who gave liberals so much angst. No small thing when you remember that the liberals Nixon aggravated were equally as nauseating, self-important, and venomous as are today’s liberals. In one sense liberals in the sixties were worse because they got away with more. There was no Internet.

The type of president the media still supports and covers for caused a constitutionally-protected free press to lose a tremendous amount of influence. That influence is gone forever. A quick look at what is happening to today’s liberals leads to one conclusion: America would be a better place today had the Internet been around in Nixon’s time zone. For one thing JFK would not have gotten away with stealing the presidency.

And just think what fun conservatives would have had with LBJ’s Great Society and his War on Poverty. Those two disasters might have been stopped in their tracks. Failure would have made it infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, for the parasite class to grow to its present size.

Nixon was unique to say the least, but no president was as unique as was the last good Democrat:

. . . FDR also dumped on his Republican predecessor. He blamed everything on Herbert Hoover.

For the record, this really upset Hoover. Hoover was hurt deeply by FDR constantly trashing him, his record, his policies, his character. FDR did not treat Hoover the way we Americans hope and expect our presidents to treat one another. Their relationship became toxic. FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, took notice.“Roosevelt couldn’t stand him,” said Truman of Hoover, “and he [Hoover] hated Roosevelt.”

XXXXX​

How do Harry Truman and Bill Clinton relate to this?

Truman and Clinton, like Obama and FDR, were, of course, both Democrats. Truman, however, was willing to put party aside in order to do what was right. He had character by the boatload. He saw how troubled Hoover was by FDR’s mistreatment. Thus, Truman, a good man, did what he could to remedy the situation. He reached out to Hoover after World War II and sought to use the maligned ex-president in several very significant projects, including post-war reconstruction for Europe.

“I knew what I had to do,” said Truman of the huge challenge he faced in Europe, “and I knew just the man I wanted to help me.” And so, Truman employed Hoover’s considerable managerial talents. He enlisted Hoover in an intense effort (pre-Marshall Plan) to feed a Europe threatened by starvation and Soviet communism.

It was a very gracious gesture, and pure Truman. Truman saw a wrong by his fellow Democrat, FDR, and strived to correct it, regardless of his party loyalties.

Sad to say, one Democrat president with a sterling character, Harry Truman, is not much to brag about if you start counting with Woodrow Wilson and end with Hussein. They pretty much prove my long-held contention: Respect the man not the office as media butt-suckers tell us.

Here’s the link to Paul Kengor’s interesting take on the blame game:

Obama’s Presidential Blame-Game
By Paul Kengor on 2.18.13 @ 6:09AM

The American Spectator : Obama?s Presidential Blame-Game

 

[gipper]

Either I never knew it or this one fell through the cracks in my memory:

There are two non-partisan groups who should be always grateful to the 37th president, for he gave them a priceless gift: a reason for an annual three-day sale—the Presidents’ Day weekend. The groups are used car and mattress salesmen.

In 1970, Nixon did a pre-Obama pre-emption. Instead of asking Congress to convert the George Washington’s Birthday weekend (still its official name), he simply issued a Presidential Proclamation urging all Americans to celebrate all of the nation’s presidents. Hence, “Presidents’ Day.” Calendar publishers, non-nosy news media (that is, most of them) and the aforementioned sales-happy merchants swallowed the suggestion without so much as a “What’s this?”

Nixon’s Three-Day Gift
By Peter Hannaford on 2.18.13 @ 6:07AM

The American Spectator : Nixon?s Three-Day Gift

Oh well, Nixon made some mistakes. No matter. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the guy who gave liberals so much angst. No small thing when you remember that the liberals Nixon aggravated were equally as nauseating, self-important, and venomous as are today’s liberals. In one sense liberals in the sixties were worse because they got away with more. There was no Internet.

The type of president the media still supports and covers for caused a constitutionally-protected free press to lose a tremendous amount of influence. That influence is gone forever. A quick look at what is happening to today’s liberals leads to one conclusion: America would be a better place today had the Internet been around in Nixon’s time zone. For one thing JFK would not have gotten away with stealing the presidency.

And just think what fun conservatives would have had with LBJ’s Great Society and his War on Poverty. Those two disasters might have been stopped in their tracks. Failure would have made it infinitely more difficult, if not impossible, for the parasite class to grow to its present size.

Nixon was unique to say the least, but no president was as unique as was the last good Democrat:

. . . FDR also dumped on his Republican predecessor. He blamed everything on Herbert Hoover.

For the record, this really upset Hoover. Hoover was hurt deeply by FDR constantly trashing him, his record, his policies, his character. FDR did not treat Hoover the way we Americans hope and expect our presidents to treat one another. Their relationship became toxic. FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, took notice.“Roosevelt couldn’t stand him,” said Truman of Hoover, “and he [Hoover] hated Roosevelt.”

XXXXX​

How do Harry Truman and Bill Clinton relate to this?

Truman and Clinton, like Obama and FDR, were, of course, both Democrats. Truman, however, was willing to put party aside in order to do what was right. He had character by the boatload. He saw how troubled Hoover was by FDR’s mistreatment. Thus, Truman, a good man, did what he could to remedy the situation. He reached out to Hoover after World War II and sought to use the maligned ex-president in several very significant projects, including post-war reconstruction for Europe.

“I knew what I had to do,” said Truman of the huge challenge he faced in Europe, “and I knew just the man I wanted to help me.” And so, Truman employed Hoover’s considerable managerial talents. He enlisted Hoover in an intense effort (pre-Marshall Plan) to feed a Europe threatened by starvation and Soviet communism.

It was a very gracious gesture, and pure Truman. Truman saw a wrong by his fellow Democrat, FDR, and strived to correct it, regardless of his party loyalties.

Sad to say, one Democrat president with a sterling character, Harry Truman, is not much to brag about if you start counting with Woodrow Wilson and end with Hussein. They pretty much prove my long-held contention: Respect the man not the office as media butt-suckers tell us.

Here’s the link to Paul Kengor’s interesting take on the blame game:

Obama’s Presidential Blame-Game
By Paul Kengor on 2.18.13 @ 6:09AM

The American Spectator : Obama?s Presidential Blame-Game

I can't agree with your praise of Nixon. He was a progressive in his time and ours. He expanded government and devalued our currency. He did get us out of Vietnam, for which he deserves credit, though he gets little for ending our involvement in yet another war promoted by the power elite.

However, Watergate prevented him from honoring our agreement to protect South Vietnam should the NVA and VC renewed their invasion. And thanks to the disgusting Ds in Congress for reneging on that agreement and allowing millions in Southeast Asia to suffer greatly....yet another example of the D Party's treachery...that few Americans know about.

So, all in all, Nixon was a terrible president, but not unlike most of them.

What is ironic are the similarities between Nixon and Bush II. Both are progressives who did great damage to our nation by enacting progressive policies. Yet, strangely, the progressive Left hates both men. Only proves how hypocritical and ignorant many on the left are.

 

[Flanders]

I can't agree with your praise of Nixon. He was a progressive in his time and ours. He expanded government and devalued our currency. He did get us out of Vietnam, for which he deserves credit, though he gets little for ending our involvement in yet another war promoted by the power elite.

To gipper: We appear to agree on some things while differing on Nixon and the definition of “power elite.”

I would point out that stopping Communists expansion is never wrong irrespective of who does it.

Note that President Truman went through the United Nations to stop Communist expansion in Korea. (The only time the Soviet Union failed to show up for a Security Council meeting.) I don’t know if Truman was part of a “power elite” when he famously told Secretary of State Dean Acheson:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

Acheson was in full agreement; hence, the Korean War was a Police Action not a war.

I think you unintentionally downplay the Left’s “power elite” who are still proud of their part in bringing defeat to their own country. Biden is one, John Kerry is another. Today, both hold positions of power that gives them far more destructive influence than they wielded back in the seventies.

However, Watergate prevented him from honoring our agreement to protect South Vietnam should the NVA and VC renewed their invasion. And thanks to the disgusting Ds in Congress for reneging on that agreement and allowing millions in Southeast Asia to suffer greatly....yet another example of the D Party's treachery...that few Americans know about.

To gipper: I agree. Let me add:

Nixon had to deal with the Democrats and their total commitment to the United Nations long after it was clear the UN was not America’s friend. Democrat commitment is just as firm today.

Also, remember that the American Left increased its agitation and propaganda efforts throughout the Vietnam War until Nixon was finally forced to seat the People’s Republic of China. That included giving the Republic of China’s Security Council seat to Communist China. It also meant that two out of five seats on the Security Council were occupied by Communist governments thanks to the American Left. Both were nuclear powers.

NOTE: The first Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force in 1970. Communist China was seated in the UN in 1971 and is a signatory. North Korea, China’s puppet satellite, has since become a nuclear nation and is supplying nuclear technology to Iran and Syria:

North Korea supplying Syria, Iran with prohibited nuclear technology, report says
German newspaper Die Welt reports that Pyongyang has provided the countries with ‘maraging steel,’ used to upgrade missiles and centrifuges.

By Yossi Melman | Nov.28, 2011 | 5:16 PM

North Korea supplying Syria, Iran with prohibited nuclear technology, report says - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

So much for non-proliferation treaties that only apply to America’s friends.

Nixon had to deal with a war he inherited from JFK and LBJ; a war the United Nations and it supporters opposed. They could not openly oppose the Korean War without opposing the United Nations, or admitting the UN approved of war. There were no political considerations on American Communists prohibiting them from openly opposing the Vietnam War. Indeed, pro-Communist anti-war demonstration organizers and outright traitors flaunted their support for communism. Then, as now, the media sided with the worst of them.

So, all in all, Nixon was a terrible president, but not unlike most of them.

To gipper: In my view Nixon was a good president considering the times. His part in fighting communism was monumental when American Communists were just beginning to infiltrate the government in addition to stepping up their propaganda war designed to turn socialism/communism into just another harmless political ideology. To this day the American Left would rather discredit Nixon’s role in the Hiss Affair than discredit any other positive thing he did.

What is ironic are the similarities between Nixon and Bush II. Both are progressives who did great damage to our nation by enacting progressive policies. Yet, strangely, the progressive Left hates both men.

To gipper: Any president who would make Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice secretaries of state should be embraced by every global government, UN-loving, Lefty in the world.

Every president’s view of the United Nations has to factored into assessing his presidency. I doubt if either Bush hated the UN as much as American presidents should. Bottom line: The Left hates Bush the Younger for the wrong reasons; 1) defeating their favorite clown Al Gore; 2) taking the war to the enemy in Iraq.

Only proves how hypocritical and ignorant many on the left are.

To gipper: I can’t tinker with that one.

 

[Desperado]

Oh well, Nixon made some mistakes. No matter. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the guy who gave liberals so much angst.

Some Mistakes That is being kind.
Nixon was an ass and I didn't think I could ever dislike a president more than him until Obama was elected.

They pretty much prove my long-held contention: Respect the man not the office as media butt-suckers tell us.

Now on this point Im diametrically opposed to you thought.....
Respect the Office and not the Man, much like the military respect the rank, not the man.

 

[Oldguy]

It's pretty obvious that y'all only respect the office when the "right" man is in it.

That sorta blows the concept right outa the water, doesn't it?

 

[Flanders]

Now on this point Im diametrically opposed to you thought.....
Respect the Office and not the Man, much like the military respect the rank, not the man.

To Desperado: Did it ever occur to you that the office is the problem? How the hell can you or anybody else respect an office that is so easily attained by people like Clinton and Hussein?

And military rank is a poor comparison. Very few serve in the military. In theory, the president represents everybody.

It's pretty obvious that y'all only respect the office when the "right" man is in it.

To Oldguy: You got that right.

Incidentally, if you go back to the OP you’ll see that Paul Kengor’s article shows that some presidents can’t think much of the office when they get blow jobs in the oval office or repeatedly dump on former presidents.

The thing that always amazed me is how many Americans still believe that a man who rises to the top of the political cesspool is magically cleansed by the office.

 

[Desperado]

Now on this point Im diametrically opposed to you thought.....
Respect the Office and not the Man, much like the military respect the rank, not the man.

To Desperado: Did it ever occur to you that the office is the problem? How the hell can you or anybody else respect an office that is so easily attained by people like Clinton and Hussein?

The Responsibilities that come with the Office is what I respect. Now about how easy that office is attained by people like Clinton and Hussein, the problem is not the office but rather the voters.

 

[Flanders]

The Responsibilities that come with the Office is what I respect.

To Desperardo : So would I if occupants confined themselves to the responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution. As hard as I try I can’t find surrendering America’s independence to global government among those few responsibilities, nor can I find signing unconstitutional laws and writing unconstitutional executive orders among presidential responsibilities.

Now about how easy that office is attained by people like Clinton and Hussein, the problem is not the office but rather the voters.

To Desperardo: Now you’re blaming the victims who are lied to, misinformed, and manipulated by a government press. If voters are at fault it is because they are dumb enough to vote in rigged elections.

Note that a piece of garbage always seems to win a crooked election with a questionable vote count or in court. Al Gore is the one glaring exception, and he would have won had he stayed in Florida’s Supreme Court instead of taking it to the SCOTUS. And let’s not forget the big one:

Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Jesse Unruh

 

[Desperado]

The Responsibilities that come with the Office is what I respect.

To Desperardo : So would I if occupants confined themselves to the responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution. As hard as I try I can’t find surrendering America’s independence to global government among those few responsibilities, nor can I find signing unconstitutional laws and writing unconstitutional executive orders among presidential responsibilities.

I agree with you on this point,

Now about how easy that office is attained by people like Clinton and Hussein, the problem is not the office but rather the voters.

To Desperardo: Now you’re blaming the victims who are lied to, misinformed, and manipulated by a government press. If voters are at fault it is because they are dumb enough to vote in rigged elections.

OK What is the alternative?

 

[Flanders]

OK What is the alternative?

To Desperardo: A return to the severely limited government the Founders designed. You start by repealing the Income Tax Amendment, you withdraw from the United Nations by passing HR 1146:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And repeal the XVII Amendment that gave us long-serving senators.

 

[editec]

NiXXon saved my ass from going to Viet Nam.

So despite the fact that he was an obvious liar and crook, I have a soft spot for him.

 

[Desperado]

OK What is the alternative?

To Desperardo: A return to the severely limited government the Founders designed. You start by repealing the Income Tax Amendment, you withdraw from the United Nations by passing HR 1146:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And repeal the XVII Amendment that gave us long-serving senators.

I can agree to those. Seems very reasonable to me.

 

[Flanders]

So despite the fact that he was an obvious liar and crook, I have a soft spot for him.

To editec: What did he steal?

 

[Flanders]

OK What is the alternative?

To Desperardo: A return to the severely limited government the Founders designed. You start by repealing the Income Tax Amendment, you withdraw from the United Nations by passing HR 1146:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And repeal the XVII Amendment that gave us long-serving senators.

I can agree to those. Seems very reasonable to me.

To Desperado: You might be interested in an article by Jim Yardley.

My objections to the XVII Amendment are many. Yardley lays out the reason for repeal most Americans will readily accept:

By "sharing" the costs of ludicrous spending items, such as the much-touted high-speed rail fantasy, Congress can keep the share of the costs borne by the federal treasury below the so-called limits that they have placed on the budget. First they lowball the total cost estimate, and then they define how much the federal government will contribute and stick the understated balance to the states. Likewise, federal "mandates" which require huge outlays by the states to satisfy some fantasy making the rounds inside the Washington Beltway, make for yet another source of profligate spending.

If, knowing this, senators (who would once again be working for the legislatures of their respective states) allowed this game of smoke and mirrors to go forward, their tenure in the Senate would be greatly abbreviated when those legislatures caught on to the scam and found themselves saddled with the bill and an outraged voter base.

XXXXX​

Once the senators know that their only chance at being re-appointed for another four years is to not saddle the states with mandates they can't afford, and "cost-sharing" plans that never seem to match the advertised costs, the Senate alone can block such schemes and reduce not only the costs that are passed on to the states, but the costs incurred by the federal government itself.

February 23, 2013
Choosing Senators: How to Rein in Federal Spending
By Jim Yardley

Articles: Choosing Senators: How to Rein in Federal Spending

No matter how good repeal is for the country making it happen won’t be easy. Let me point out that opposition to repeal will be led by the media. There are a total of 100 Senate races every 6 years. The campaigns of winners and LOSERS generate billions of dollars. Most of those campaign advertising dollars end up in television pockets. They are not going to surrender so lucrative an income without a fight.

 

[editec]

So despite the fact that he was an obvious liar and crook, I have a soft spot for him.

To editec: What did he steal?

Our innocence, Flander.

 

[Flanders]

So despite the fact that he was an obvious liar and crook, I have a soft spot for him.

To editec: What did he steal?

Our innocence, Flander.

To editec: Lol. When all else fails fallback on the touchy-feely. I was asking for something a bit more tangible.