-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 134 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
The Obama Watch
Fifty years ago it was the picture heard around the world.
The young Vice President of the United States standing up to the bullying Russian tyrant, his right index finger literally poking Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in the chest.
For the rest of his political career, the photograph — and the incident that prompted it — would visually enshrine the world’s view of Richard Nixon as the American politician who would quite literally never blink when it came to standing up to America’s enemies.
In the aftermath of President Barack Obama’s timid performance when face-to-face with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez — who has cast the United States as, among many things, an “imperialist monster” even as he goes about systematically repressing his own people and making alliances with American enemies — it is worth recalling just what happened when Nixon found himself in a similar situation.
The date: July, 1959. The background: The Cold War between the Soviets and the United States was ratcheting up almost daily, as it had since the close of World War II. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had already coined the term “Iron Curtain” to describe the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. In 1949 President Harry Truman had set in motion the Berlin Airlift to overcome Stalin’s blockade of railway and highway entrances into West Berlin, the sector of the once-and-future German capital controlled by the allies — in the heart of the Soviet-controlled East Germany. Every day for almost a year the United States had fought the Soviet blockade by airlifting 4,000 tons of food a day — a day! — into West Berlin, finally humiliating the Soviets and breaking the back of the blockade. Then came the Russian announcement they had exploded their first nuclear weapons, next the Korean War, followed by more Russian threats on Berlin.
By 1959, tensions were still high and going higher. The following year would be President Dwight Eisenhower’s last in the White House, and Nixon — a youthful 46 - was the presumed frontrunner for both the Republican Presidential nomination and the presidency itself. His strongest selling point was his experience as Ike’s vice president, specifically his foreign policy experience.
Sitting in the Kremlin was Stalin’s successor, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. A wily, blustering brutal totalitarian, by 1959 he had consolidated his power over his Kremlin rivals, earning a reputation as a bullying murderer who never hesitated to have competitors shot. It was Khrushchev who had ruthlessly suppressed the people’s revolt against Communists in Hungary in 1956. So too was it Khrushchev who began the massive Soviet nuclear build-up, launching what would become known as the “arms race.” Likewise it was Khrushchev who began the Soviet offensive in the so-called “developing world,” beginning with an attempt to take over the Congo in Africa.
In July of 1959 it was announced that Vice President Nixon would make a thirteen-day “good-will” tour of the Soviet Union in connection with the opening of an American Exhibition in Moscow. His assignment from Eisenhower: meet with Khrushchev and make it clear that the United States had no intention of abandoning West Berlin. Period. As part of his extensive preparations, Nixon spent time in Walter Reed hospital, visiting the dying and just-resigned Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles, a man with much experience of the Soviets and life, at the end of his own life (he would die within days), spent hours with the young Nixon. Sucking on ice cubes to relieve the agonies of a burning throat, physically wasted, Dulles was still sharp of mind. Never give Khrushchev an opening for a single moment, Dulles warned, or he will take advantage of it. Never be taken in by a show of innocence. Always bring him back to the actual record of the Soviet Communists. Do not ever let him get the upper hand.
After a final briefing with Eisenhower, and extensive preparation, Nixon left Washington in a brand new kind of airplane, a jet called the Boeing 707. So significant was the trip believed to be that Nixon was accompanied by a retinue unheard of for a vice president: thirty staff members and seventy journalists. Without knowing it, Nixon was establishing a pattern of travel for the modern presidency Americans know today — the glistening military jet and the herd of hundreds of staff and media. With American communications satellites still a thing of the future — the near future — there would be no “live” television coverage of his trip. Instead there would be still pictures, newsreels and film.
In this tense and highly visible atmosphere, the young Vice President touched down in Moscow on July 23rd for the “official” purpose of his trip: the July 24th opening of the first American Exhibition ever held in the Soviet Union. The exhibition of life in the United States had been allowed as part of Eisenhower’s 1955 “Spirit of Geneva” negotiations with the Soviets. A reciprocal Soviet exhibition had already opened in New York, heavily tilted towards displays of Soviet military might. The US exhibits in Moscow, on the other hand, were designed to display American consumer goods.
Nixon’s airport reception was cool. Correct. Whisked off after the official greetings, the streets of Moscow were empty. Once at the American Embassy he would find that Khrushchev, just returned from a trip to Soviet-controlled Poland, had been giving a bellicose speech at the Moscow Sports Arena ripping into the United States in general and Nixon in particular for the passage of the “Captive Nations Resolution” by the U.S. Congress the previous week. What angered Khrushchev? The resolution called for prayers for those trapped behind the Iron Curtain.
In this atmosphere Nixon began his visit with his first-ever call on a Soviet leader in the Kremlin itself. As Nixon entered the Russian’s office, with photographers present, Khrushchev was conspicuously toying with a baseball-sized object: a model of the Soviet moon satellite Lunik, launched just months earlier. Cameras clicked as the two shook hands, with Nixon presenting a personal letter from Eisenhower. In a blink, Khrushchev ordered the press to leave the room. Gesturing to a conference table and taking a seat, the Soviet leader immediately turned what was booked as a mere beginning courtesy call into one of substance. He yelled. He pounded the table with his closed fists. All the while he kept examining Nixon, looking him over literally from head to toe. He railed against the Captive Nations Resolution, furious at the resolution language that referred to the “enslaved peoples” behind the Iron Curtain. “This resolution stinks!” Khrushchev yelled, pounding the table again. He finished with a string of barnyard epithets that literally made the translator blush.
Nixon, exposed to all of this for the first time, was shocked at Khrushchev’s vehemence and language. Abruptly, the Soviet leader ended the meeting, signaling that it was time to tour the American exhibition. The two departed the Kremlin in separate cars, Nixon hastily consulting with the American Ambassador. Since this was an American exhibition, technically, in spite of being in Moscow, Nixon was to be the host at this walk-through the day before the exhibit opened to the Russian public. To complicate matters, Nixon was vice president — not president. Meaning in the acutely important world of diplomatic protocol he was inferior in rank, a number two speaking with a head of government.
The two men arrived, with Nixon sliding into the role of tour guide. He had, he said later, absolutely no idea what to expect. It didn’t take long to find out what was coming. Surrounded now by cameras and reporters as they walked, Khrushchev picked up where he left off at the private meeting in the Kremlin.
He was by turn belligerent, rude, aggressive, forceful. His veins purpled and bulged in his face and neck. He cast a jaundiced eye at the exhibits of American consumer goods, berating America for its inability to trade. Next he was boasting the Soviets were prepared for war. Then it was back to the economy, braying that the Soviets would surpass the United States in seven years. Spotting a Soviet workman he pointed and caustically demanded of Nixon and the press, referring to the Captive Nations Resolution again, whether the man at hand looked like a slave laborer. On the two walked, with Khrushchev needling and needling, abundantly conscious of the presence of the cameras. Nixon felt as if he were letting himself and hence the United States be put on the defensive under this relentless and quite public assault of insults and blunt language.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (105) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/21/how-to-handle-a-bully-nixon-vs
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Rocco| 4.21.09 @ 6:41AM
"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." And those who are arrogant enough to think this does not apply to them will come crashing down even harder.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.21.09 @ 7:44AM
I think it's always appropriate to engage in personal chumminess with someone or a group of someone before you offer them a 100 billion dollar bribe.
While Barack Obama, whose corrupt administration is full of tax cheats and persons twinged with other forms of corruption, including bribing government officials, is seeking the paltry, almost laughable sum, of 100 million in spending cuts, he is trying to get 100 billion to give to treacherous governments who hate us by funneling it through the IMF.
Obama is on his way to becoming a one term President. He is a financial clown whose mirth knows no bounds of decency. He is a Jimmy Cater redux, not only in the sense of his political timidity in dealing with the American haters out there like Chavez, but also in his overblown sense of proportion on domestic issues.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53J6NH20090420?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $100 billion U.S. loan to the International Monetary Fund to boost the IMF's resources and urged a bigger stake in the IMF for emerging powers.
In a letter to U.S. congressional leaders, Obama said the U.S. funding "does not represent a budgetary expenditure or any increase in the deficit since it effectively represents an exchange of assets."
The $100 billion is part of commitments made by Group of 20 countries at a London summit on April 2, which agreed to triple IMF resources to a total of $750 billion to help the IMF respond to crises in emerging market economies as a result of the global financial crisis and economic downturn.
The U.S. funding will boost the IMF's so-called New Arrangements to Borrow, or NAB, a facility which allows member countries to provide credit to the IMF to deal with crises that may threaten the stability of the global financial system.
Obama said the NAB was "woefully inadequate" to deal with the severe economic and financial crisis.
"The deteriorating conditions threaten to worsen the recessions in these countries and could cause currencies to collapse," Obama wrote.
"Together, these factors, particularly if they become more acute, will further lower global growth and, as we saw during the Asian financial crisis, they will cause U.S. growth, jobs, and exports to fall even more sharply," he added.
He said an enlargement of the NAB facility of up to $500 billion would allow for increased participation by emerging market economies, in particular China and India.
Chinese officials have already indicated that Beijing plans to contribute $40 billion to the IMF through a bond issued to its central bank by the Fund.
Obama said countries were looking to the U.S. to deliver on its G20 commitment, indicating that other governments could follow the U.S. lead and contribute to the IMF.
(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Melvin| 4.21.09 @ 7:52AM
Good morning, "Sugar Pants," i.e. David Mathews with your extensive first hand knowledge of, "Tea Bagging" I thought it only appropriate for this morning's polite greeting.
Chavez is a Leftist Socialist Punk who fancies himself as the second coming of Fidel Castro. Chavez, Ortega, and Morales will bring ruination upon the South American Continent because they will descend into what all socialist dictators do when the citizens wake up to shake the yoke of tyranny. They will descend into cars doors slamming in the middle of the night and screaming and yelling and someone being drug off to the local jail to have the life tortured out of them. They will descend into all forms of political dissent being rounded up and silenced with threats of death for themselves and their families. They will descend into what all South American Socialists descend into creating a living hell where the whole country becomes a political prison with unmarked mass graves on the outskirts of town.
Chavez will join the ranks of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Che Guevara who are personally responsible for the murder and death of millions upon millions of innocent people who got caught up these dictators creation of the Socialist utopia.
The above mass murders minus Adolf Hitler are the poster children of Liberals in this Country who idolize these murderous bastards as socialist revolutionaries.
Shucky| 4.21.09 @ 8:00AM
democrat wilson had tens of thousands of americans arrested for criticizing him in the privacy of their own homes.
democrat fdr pursued policies that lengthened the depression, helping create the conditions for ww2.
democrat fdr put tens of thousands of american citizens into concentration camps.
democrat fdr sent Jewish refugees back to hitler's death camps.
democrat fdr provoked japan so as to trick the US into ww2, rather than seeking a war resolution against hitler.
democrats fdr and truman ordered genocidal terror bombing, including the only use of nuclear weapons.
until the sixties, all democrat presidents accepted the support of lynching and otherwise dehumanising jim crow kkk segregationist democrats in the south.
democrats jfk and lbj escalated a foreign war with no intention of winning.
democrat carter offered no resistance to soviet aggression against afghanistan and saddam's invasion of iran.
democrat clinton bombed iraq and serbia without the approval of the UN or Congress.
democrat presidents in the twentieth century sent millions of kids to foreign soil, killing 600,000 of them.
nixon was a saint compared to all of those criminals. he ended the war that the democrats escalated, on decent terms, until the democrats gave the region to the communists, killing millions. he also expanded affirmative action, enacted the epa and earth day, and improved US relations with the PRC. in doing so, he made his critics look stupid, which is why they hated him.
Big J| 4.21.09 @ 8:16AM
It's very difficult for anyone to "stand up" to an America-bashing bully when they spend the majority of their time, well, America-bashing. The One that occupies the White House is a complete farce. In the first 90 days he has done more to damage this country than most liberal presidents have done in 4 years. A song comes to mind: "You aint seen nothin yet".
Dave deleted in 3, 2, 1.....
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 8:38AM
An excellent article, a timely comparison and a reminder that Nixon's legacy is far more complex than those of the left would have us believe.
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 9:09AM
I seem to remember during the election that everyone was asking if Obama could fight back against Hillary. He didn't change his strategy and ended up winning. Then we had McCain who had the knee jerk kinds of reactions we see here with extremist bloggers and Jeffrey Lord. That worked well for the Republicans, didn't it?
If you are trying to convince people to support conservatives, this is the absolute worst way to do it because people are far more convinced by hope than by groups of haters who call people "socialists", "fascists", "marxists", and "Alinskyites". This is akin to crying "wolf" once too often. There is absolutely no perspective or intelligence to the comments here.
If you study Obama's behavior, it is always one of opening the door, developing a strategy, and then striking back. He does not react hastily. He is a professor and that is not his style. The fact of the matter is that the only ones angry at Obama are the extremists on the right like you guys. The rest of the country wants Obama to try and solve these issues rather than just swagger on a go it alone basis.
I find it ironic that a base of so-called social conservatives have so much hate in them. Certainly, you guys have not learned much from your Christianity.
I don't know if Obama's style will work on the international stage -- and neither do any of you. But changing his style will certainly not work. If any of you knew how to study behavior and associated responses, you'd know that you cannot judge this with Obama for a few months.
But then again, this populist, short term, anti-intellectual, extreme right wing blog shows little reason and perspective. If any of you really want a government with any real fiscal responsibility, then you need to show rationality and perspective yourselves. Do you have that capability? So far you haven't shown it.
2Anglico| 4.21.09 @ 9:42AM
Why would obama "take on" chavez? He AGREES with chavez, on everything.
Todd| 4.21.09 @ 9:51AM
Bob,
Are you applying to be Obama's Press Secretary once that idiot Gibbs finally gets fired? Obama only strikes back at those who are his ideological enemies or those who stand in his way to power. Chavez is not his ideological enemy, probably his only ideological enemy is South America is Uribe with whom he did not have the time of day for while laughing it up with Chavez. I bet Obama is reading his "gift" from Chavez and accepting every word about how awful this country is. He will do his best though to try to please the likes of Ortega and Chavez to rectify all of our evils for not supporting socialists and communists in South America in the past, shame on us right Bob?
Gill O'Teen| 4.21.09 @ 9:53AM
When asked about getting the book gift from Chavez, obumah said words to the effect that he reads. Really? If he likes to read so much, he might try reading legislation line-by-line before he signs it, wasn’t that a campaign promise? he might try reading the tax records of his cabinet/staff appointees. he might try reading The Constitution of the United States of America. he might try reading The Bible. he does claim to be a Christian, right? After all he did quote Jesus when he extolled us to care for the least of these. Yet he voted against legislation to protect newborn U.S. Citizens who were abandoned, unloved and unwanted in medical facilities. What could be more “least” than such a child? In Genesis Eve was tempted to disobey God by a subtle serpent we now know was that same malevolent creature revealed to be The Evil Bush. It is this fearsome demon who alone is responsible for all the evils in this world since Eve and her spouse were so cruelly evicted from their foreclosed home by their Landlord for breaking the terms of their lease about 6,000 years ago. obumah is clearly the “seed’ then foretold who will bruise that snake’s head, but if he’s not careful he might get a bruise on his own heel. The reason obumah is so comfortable in the presence of such as chavez, ortega and the castro brothers is because they are birds of a feather.
Jeffrey Lord| 4.21.09 @ 10:14AM
Bob...
My what a snappy group we have here this morning!
"populist, short term, anti-intellectual, extreme right wing blog"..
I confess I am, well, surprised. I don't write for a populist site, nor am I "anti-intellectual" (writing books and articles supposing, by definition, at least a passing acquaintance with the dictionary definition of "intellectual", to wit: "appealing to or engaging the intellect.") Then again, I don't need to read or write a book to know when a thug is busy insulting my country and intends to do as much harm to it - that would be us - if not more than he is doing to his own.
As to Obama's style, I am always amazed at this. Anyone with life experience knows that "style"...Obama's or anyone else's...is not substance. That there are certain basic principles in life (never give in to a bully being but one) that, whether carried out by a person of great style or no style will resolutely always work. Mr. Obama is employing certain principles (weakness, accomodating bullies) that do not work, no matter how stylish the practitioner. Neville Chamberlain may have been the height of upper class British style...he was also wrong in a way that the simplest London cockney shoe shine boy could have explained. What we are seeing here with the Obama-Chavez dance is not only not new but, forgive me, sheer idiocy.
And a site that upholds the principles of Ronald Reagan, who won two presidential landslides (44 states the first time, 49 the second) is, to say the least, hardly "extreme right wing" unless you so define the overwhelming majority of America. When Mr. Obama can duplicate the feat (and he only gets one more try having failed on round one, carrying only 28 states) then we will at least know you have a foothold on a tenuous argument.
As to this..."If any of you really want a government with any real fiscal responsibility..."
Yesterday, Bob, our fine Presiednt who pledged to read every line of the federal budget (I used to work on the House Budget Committee staff so the instant I heard this I knew he was looking for a credibility problem....) has "ordered" his Cabinet to cut $100 million from the budget. This, Bob, is 0.0027 percent worth of cuts ...a downright laughable example of "any real fiscal responsibility." You make much of this issue - and I'm with you - so I would expect your post to reflect your outrage. Alas...no.
Finally, if I may something about the magazine you are reading. This magazine has been graced by writers such as Tom Wolfe, George Will, Andrew Roberts (most recently the author of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900) Roger Scruton, Ben Stein (whom I sure you know is possessed of Renaissance-like talents as writer, author, actor, lawyer and economist) and Tina Brown, she the ex-editrix of Vanity Fair. All put together by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. the founder of this gem, and published by Alfred S. Regnery, (he of Regnery Books). With all due respect, Bob, I find this group decidedly not anti-intellectual, crazy or, ahhh, unknowledgable in the ways of the world.
This being a blog, in the world of the Internet (which in reality is an electronic version of a newspaper and, alas, is in the process of displacing it) there are always "letters to the editor" in which the writer of same speaks for himself or herself. In that great American tradition of free and open debate. One doesn't have to agree with all comers to understand that the "capability" you seek is available in any issue...magazine or online...of the American Spectator.
Thoughtfully yours,
Alan Brooks| 4.21.09 @ 10:26AM
the state didn't wither away-- Russia did.
Gill O'Teen| 4.21.09 @ 10:29AM
Mr. Lord, in your otherwise excellent note to Bob (posted at 10:14 AM, you forgot that obumah failed to carry even half his 57 states.
Jeffrey Lord| 4.21.09 @ 10:34AM
Gill...
You're right! How could I forget that Our Leader confused 50 states with 57 varieties of Heinz products! Now we are all in a pickle! (Sorry....shameful but I couldn't help myself...)
Todd| 4.21.09 @ 10:35AM
After reading an article in the IBD, I will correct myself regarding Obama and Uribe with whom he apparently had much positive interaction with and has invited him to visit the White House. I will give credit where credit is due though accepting that book is still disgraceful. We know that the Democrats have been holding back a free trade agreement with Colombia due to union special interests who oppose all free trade. If Obama actually takes on these unions as does what is in the best interest of both nations, then I will give him credit. Until I see it, I will remain skeptical to say the least.
Another good historical article from Jeffrey Lord, Nixon did some positive things and that certainly was one of his high points in standing up to the thug. I don't see any possibility of Obama ever doing the same because he lives in the swamp of moral relativism where all countries and cultures are equal and we are just another country as he stated himself.
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 10:43AM
Jeffrey, the evaluation of whether a web site is "populist"/"anti-intellectual" does not depend upon the academic capability of the writer, but the nature of subject matter. Does the response feed into generic arguments of the reader base, or does it attempt to provide some level of objectivity and then take a reasoned position. The articles here, especially the ones that use terms like "socialist" and "marxist" tend to be the former, not the latter.
You are right that historically, conservatives tended to be very intellectual with reasoned argumentation. But that is not true today. When I was younger I was impressed by the conservative giants you mentioned. However, the Republican party today has morphed -- starting with Reagan -- into a populist enterprise with little in the way of objective reason. I rarely saw the outright name calling in the past that I see now. The country has become more partisan (on both sides) and AmSpec reflects that change. It has changed from being a "thought" leader, to being a "belief/religious" rag. I really doubt today whether you would have the George Wills, David Brooks, etc., write on these pages. AmSpec is no longer open to the breadth of conservative thought as it once was.
Regarding the $100 million reduction in the Obama budget, while it is small, it does set the right tone. How many times here have I read articles about small ways to set the right tone. You don't really think it is wrong to find efficiencies, do you? But when it does occur, rather than support it, as a conservative should, you find fault with it. That is certainly being "populist" and not "intellectual".
While Reagan won 44 states, he only won 50.7% of the vote while Obama won 53.6% of the vote. This is a different time and place and the country is far more partisan than it was in 1980. Comparing the two without that perspective is again, not very intellectual.
Now, again, I don't know if Obama's strategy with Chavez or Ortega will work, but it is his style and we knew that long before he was elected. Do you remember the "talking to Iran" issue with Hillary in the primary?
By my nature, I am a strategist and an experimentalist. I'm willing to see if there are positive results to this action. It wouldn't be my style, but I certainly knew who we were electing. If he succeeds to any extent, then it will make Republicans disappear because of the lines drawn in the sand that you and others show.
My background is in corporate America developing businesses for large companies. Right now, the Republican party needs rebuilding. Populism and closemindedness are exactly the wrong tools to use, not very smart, and tend to be divisive rather than uniting.
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 10:48AM
Commentary » Blog Archive » Robinson Is Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken Roberts | 4.21.09 @ 10:49AM
same stuff in all the blogs and posts from here to there , it is the same name calling insulting tripe of the left, no evidence of anything just a note to let us know we are wrong and not to be trusted . I wonder if they read anything except things like the audacity of hope or maybe an occasional Big O's mag , the same with the greenies they have no proof but insist that they need to lie to get things done. Why ? I don't have the foggiest idea.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 10:56AM
Bob,
If it's (TAS) a rag----then go away. Go be joyous and celebrate your Messiah---on DailyKos, that all-embracing tolerant site---or that "rag" NYT.
Say hi to Carlos Slim while you're there.
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 11:01AM
Perhaps the biggest problem here is that in places like South America, Europe and elsewhere the general population tends to think that any current President of the USA is a "total" refection of the majority of the population who elected him/her.
The joke is really on all of us because many average folks the world over are starting to think that we are all a bunch of spineless whimps who can't or won't even stand up to defend our own honor in a public forum let alone our country regardless of what they say about us.
The jailing of the American/Iranian reporter just days after Obama's olive branch to Iran should be a real wake up call to all rational/patriotic members of the Democratic Party.
Actually, and I mean this in a respectful way.
Obama would be a good UN leader.
Being friendly with everyone and talk about world peace and bash the rich capitalists etc is really where he belongs but I guess that job was already taken.
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 11:04AM
Mattled -- I have no hope for liberals and really don't care what they do with the Democrat party. This is not because of social issues as I agree with them far more than you social conservatives, but they have absolutely no perspective when it comes to fiscal issues which I believe are the ultimate importance when it comes to government.
However, people like you cannot stand reason -- and in that sense, are just like the people on the far left. YOU don't like people like me because I don't support your anti-abortion and gay marriage positions. YOU are unwilling to accept that I am probably much more fiscally conservative than most of you. Because of my social positions, I am a RINO and a "lib". So how can someone who was against the bailouts, against the Iraq war, had severe criticism of the Obama budget, believes we nee to strongly address entitlement reform be a liberal?
Think, Mattled -- Think!!!
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 11:05AM
Ken,
Obama's handlers strategy is to focus on People Mag, US and Cosmo---that's where his voters get their news. "Ooh look--a garden---Ooh look at Michelle's arms---Ooh look, a shiny penny."
Remember the Zogby poll after the election? They're mostly dolts---except "Bob" of course.
I'm sure these sheeple know all about his New Party ballot, Marxist mother/father/mentor/racist pastor/pal Ayers/Jailbird Rezko.
If we had a media, the newspapers would be thriving with the background on this hipster doofus (apologies to Seinfeld's Kramer).
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 11:08AM
Bully in the kitchen « Aeronaut links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 11:09AM
"He does not react hastily. He is a professor and that is not his style. "
(rolls eyes)
"Mr. Lord, in your otherwise excellent note to Bob (posted at 10:14 AM, you forgot that obumah failed to carry even half his 57 states. "
That's PROFESSOR OBAMA OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL to you Gill. Where they are much too busy to worry about whether or not their students passed 4th grade geography.
Bob, I do not find your arguments compelling, and your rhetoric is not persuasive.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 11:10AM
bob,
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You disqualified yourself after the "rag" comment.
Really, go away.
Facts logic and reason are a trait of Conservatives.
Liberals claim both sides of an issue (It's Hot out=Global Warming---It's Cold out=Global Warming) and cut off debate. I think they call it "nuance".
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 11:12AM
Do you suppose that those missing seven states could all be populated by Democrat tax cheats?
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 11:19AM
Tim,
I think those are ACORN regional offices.
Al Adab| 4.21.09 @ 11:39AM
Exactly what message is the President trying to send with his "dictator of the day world tour?" All of us need to be wary of a world where America is perceived as a pandering, diplomacy obsessed nation where there is no right and wrong only shades of grey. Unless the U.S. actually stands for the values of Western Civilization, freedom and economic liberty, it fails to stand for anything. In such a world only might makes right and the values which promise much to many around the world will fade slowly into a long night of opression and tyranny. Indeed, mighty oaks from little acorns grow.
Jeffrey Lord| 4.21.09 @ 11:43AM
Bob...
"Populism and closemindedness are exactly the wrong tools to use, not very smart, and tend to be divisive rather than uniting"
This Bob...respectfully...is what I perceive from you. Liberalism has long sinced morphed into a closed shop. It honors faddishness (Global cooling yesterday, global warming today), racism (Vote for Obama! he's black! Lynch Clarence Thomas! he's black!) emotionalism (But the Europeans don't LOVE us!!!!)
In 1980, Reagan won 50.7 % - in a three way race where the third guy, Illinois Republican Congressman John Anderson- carried 6.6% of the vote insisting RR was a right-wing extremist. The country did not agree. Obama got his 52 percent in a two way race. It is easily predictable that Reagan would have won at least 2% more had Anderson not been there.
With respect, I think an analysis of the Nixon-Khrushchev kitchen debate does indeed "attempt to provide some level of objectivity and then take a reasoned position."
"I rarely saw the outright name calling in the past that I see now. " Two things. First, as someone fairly familiar with history and American politics, this kind of thing has gone on from the get go. In fact, things are a bit better. In 1798 Congressman Roger Griswold of Connecticut disparaged the military record of Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont, whereupon the Honorable Mr. Lyon spit in his face on the floor of the House. When the House declined to expel Lyon, an enraged Griswold attacked him with a cane, Lyon grabbed a pair of fire tongs and they dropped both to wrestle each other on the House floor. As high-strung as our modern Congress can be, I don't see this kind of behavior out there. In 1800 Alexander Hamilton penned a pamphlet called "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States." Safe to say, it was not a high-minded discussion of monetary policy in the Adams administration. Adams responded by calling Hamilton a "creole bastard." I could go on - endlessly - with these kind of examples that march across the pages of our politics. That said, I must say I do think the Internet and its impersonal nature does encourage people to sling insults once not seen in newspapers. It has coarsened the dialogue. Name calling is seen everywhere, and I am not a fan. "So's your old lady" or variations thereof do not a solid response make. But like it or not, this is the world we live in now.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship, and AmSpec was founded as a conservative magazine specifically to challenge the liberal media worldview, something it does splendidly. The people who get published here have conservative points to make. They are generally made well. The magazine version this very month carries informative pieces on politics, economics, literature, journalism and so on. Among the contributors are the iconic Midge Decter (aka Mrs. Norman Podhoretz and Mom to Commentary's estimable John), Brian Westbury, the chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, L.P. , former British MP and biographer Jonathan Aitken to name but three. Not to mention the rising stars of the generation of conservative journalists like Phil Klein and Jim Antle. I have to say either you aren't reading these things or your idea of serious substantive people is considerably..what...narrow? Out of the mainstream? I don't quite know what to think.
What you seem to be expressing as a political ideal, Bob, is what might be called "country club Republicanism"...a decided failure at the ballot box from Wendell Wilkie and Tom Dewey to Nelson Rockefeller (for president) to George H.W.Bush (who ran as a Reaganite, governed not-as-a-Reaganite and got utterly clobbered for re-election.)
And as political soap, trying to say you are the same as the other guy just less so is certainly a non-starter.
The $100 million Obama "cuts" are not a "start" Bob...they are a ploy. This is a man of the Establishment Left. He has no intention of making seriously dramatic cuts in spending. From his point of view, why should he? It would infuriate his base. But for those of us on the other side not to understand this is not a good idea. George W. Bush caused real problems in this area as well...but...in truth? I can't write a book this morning!
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 11:46AM
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 11:05AM
"Obama's handlers strategy is to focus on People Mag, US and Cosmo---that's where his voters get their news. "Ooh look--a garden---Ooh look at Michelle's arms---Ooh look, a shiny penny.""
Ooh look--"Sarah is pro-life, I don't care if she knows nothing about the Supreme Court or foreign policy? Ooh look, what a VERY shiny penny."
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 11:09AM
"Bob, I do not find your arguments compelling, and your rhetoric is not persuasive."
Of course not because you are an ideologue and not open to discourse and reason. I do understand your position.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 11:10AM
"You disqualified yourself after the "rag" comment. "
AmSpec is as much of a rag as is moveon.org or Huffington Post. Do you understand the concept of a "rag"?
"Facts logic and reason are a trait of Conservatives."
That's hilarious. Have you read your own posts?
"Liberals claim both sides of an issue (It's Hot out=Global Warming---It's Cold out=Global Warming) and cut off debate."
So let me see, issues are so simplistic that they are entirely clear on the surface? Talking about cutting off debate, isn't that what all of you are trying to do with me? Hmmm....
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 11:49AM
Take “Das Kapital” And Shove It, Nikita : The New Nixon: News and Commentary about t links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 11:58AM
Jeffrey, you make some good points, especially about the name calling. But I see the closed mindedness of the left matched by the closed mindedness of the right. Bush was reelected as a "compassionate conservative". The truth is that the 2000 election was close and that if he had run more to the right, he would have lost to a cigar store indian like Gore.
You are certainly wrong that your brand of ultra right wing conservatism is a winning strategy. Most political operatives on both the right and left say that with the demographic and generational changes we see today, Reagan would have lost 4-5% of his vote tally. For that reason, people like me are NOT "country club Republicans". We believe in fiscal conservatism strongly but believe you win through the superiority of conservative thought, not through ideological rhetoric. You win elections with swing votes, not base votes. You also win by opening up your tent, not closing it. Remember, you can't implement conservatism unless you are elected.
Also, the fact that social conservatives have taken over the base of the party calling the rest of us RINO's means that we will continue to have a losing strategy.
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 12:06PM
Getting back to the point, Nixon was humble enough to go to Dulles' bedside for advice.
I somehow wonder if that humility is lacking now. Maybe it was never in great supply.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 12:12PM
Bob,
I've been reading TAS for a while and have noticed you always have to "define" who you are:
"So how can someone who was against the bailouts, against the Iraq war, had severe criticism of the Obama budget, believes we nee to strongly address entitlement reform be a liberal?"
"By my nature, I am a strategist and an experimentalist. I'm willing to see if there are positive results to this action. It wouldn't be my style, but I certainly knew who we were electing. If he succeeds to any extent, then it will make Republicans disappear because of the lines drawn in the sand that you and others show.
My background is in corporate America developing businesses for large companies. Right now, the Republican party needs rebuilding. Populism and closemindedness are exactly the wrong tools to use, not very smart, and tend to be divisive rather than uniting".
You've done it ad-nauseam/infinitum and just shows you're a narcissist who like reading his own posts.
Who cares if you're a corporate grub hounding widget maker who is against DDT in the sub-Saharan who studies zen promotes development of salamander mating while feeling Republicans don't understand themselves so-it's up-to-me-to show-the-way organic gardener.
Who, on this site, cares who you ARE? Except you of course.
IF this is a "rag", then really go away---OK? You disqualified yourself as a supposed "thinker".
Go "describe" yourself elsewhere----not this "rag".
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 12:13PM
"What angered Khrushchev? The resolution called for prayers for those trapped behind the Iron Curtain. "
A telling detail.
Bob Miller| 4.21.09 @ 12:14PM
The difference between then and now was that Nixon saw himself as being on our side.
stmichrick| 4.21.09 @ 12:31PM
Bob bob bob;
Your 'superior' tone decrying the labels of scialism and marxism being called of Obama is SOOO ironic. Maybe you will explain to all of us how Obama's core beliefs do NOT lean in those directions? Besides the fact that Robert Gibbs says so.
I really think you've met your match in Mr. Lord as he devastated your arguments in his response; something I would not take the time to do.
This thread lends itself to another we engaged in the other day; Obama's popularity is less do to the ideology than the messenger (see that Washingtonian cover? hubba hubba) As soon as the results of His Radically Chic approach to America becomes clear, hopefully hastened by an effective messenger of the American Right, his place in history will nestle right next to Jimmy Carter's.
Your uneducated, anti-intellectual, right wing extremist friend,
stmichrick
Akaky| 4.21.09 @ 12:34PM
And then, there's Khruschev's response to Nixon, which was to tell him to go f%#k his grandmother.
This was a bit garbled in the translation, the translator not wanting to start a fistfight that might end in a nuclear exchange, but the Russian born photographer, Elliott Erwitt, heard Khruschev say it.
JeffW| 4.21.09 @ 12:42PM
Obama orders $100 milion in cuts (about one weeks interest on his deficit) yet just a short ways back stated that $8 billion in ear marks was trivial. And now he is asking for $100 billion for the IMF and we are supposed to believe that he is honestly trying to cut goverment spending? Come on Bob, how do you expect us to swallow that?
JeffW| 4.21.09 @ 12:46PM
Forgive the cut and paste but this sums up my point Bob.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.
The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.
The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.
For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:
_Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.
_4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.
_Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.
_7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.
_1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.
THE SPIN:
"He will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days," said a White House news release. "Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days."
"I'm asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets," Obama told reporters afterward. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."
I think the tone he set is different from the tone he is trying to sell us. I for one am not buying and if the mainstream media labels me a racisist because of it, then so be it. Where is his fisical contraint?
Gill O'Teen| 4.21.09 @ 12:51PM
I heard that obumah took notes during ortega's diatribe, just like the good student learning from the master.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.21.09 @ 12:53PM
Someone stated that Obama is a professor. He's a professor all right. The class would be entitled, "How to blame America first, while stabbing it in the back, and telling the public it's all for their own good."
Alan Brooks| 4.21.09 @ 1:04PM
Krushchev: remember, he worked for Stalin for about 20 years.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 1:36PM
From Bob/David Mathews:
......It has changed from being a "thought" leader, to being a "belief/religious" rag.
Mr. Lord writes a thoughtful essay, a personal response and this is what you get from critical-thinker Bob.
Loser ---*yawn* to Bob.
Moving forward--
For a good read:
The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry (Hardcover)
by Steven F. Hayward (Author).
True story:
The worst day in my life: sitting on a plane in Boston circa 10/01 thinking about how the terrorists had boarded the planes and all these innocent people getting on planes to go see clients or families with their small children. They had no idea their unfortunate fate.
All of a sudden, a hand appears in front of me and I [instinctively] reach to shake it. Sitting in the middle bulkhead of a wide body, I didn't see IT coming down the aisle. It was Jimmy Carter. My stomach turned at what I had just done---the man at heart, the father of, responsible for today's modern day terrorism (and a nuclear N. Korea ) that led to 9/11 and I took his hand. Blech.
Gill O'Teen| 4.21.09 @ 1:52PM
Robert Rosencrans, obumah taught Constitutional Law at Bill Ayers University in Chicago. This is akin to my teaching quantum physics to anyone.
Alan Brooks| 4.21.09 @ 1:55PM
are you sure it wasn't Howdy Doody?
JJ JR| 4.21.09 @ 1:56PM
Y'all,
Expecting Obamanation to feign outrage when given a book castigating our capitalist society is like expecting Clinton to feign outrage if given a copy of Penthouse Forum! The collective writings and speeches of Obamanation could be included in the book.
Oh wouldn't it be nice to have had Ronald Reagan there--besides putting out an extemporaneous and biting critique of socialism when handed the book, he probably would have told the tyrannical Chavez to "put it where the flies are thick!"
Alan Brooks| 4.21.09 @ 1:56PM
the guy on the plane reached out his paw, it was Howdy himself.
Dick Leed| 4.21.09 @ 2:37PM
Most of the article is accurate, but this identification of the American guide as William Safire is incorrect. The American guide whose post was that kitchen was Dick Leed, i.e., me. Unfortunately, the kitchen debate took place during my lunch hour, and when I came back to my post I saw a huge crowd of people leaving it. My lunch-time replacement, NOT William Safire (who was not one of us guides), said: "You missed it, Dick; Nixon and Khruschev were here having a debate. Khruschev shook my hand and thanked me." It was an unforgettable moment in my life--iconic, as you say: an icon with the caption "You missed it, Dick".
Todd| 4.21.09 @ 2:55PM
We all know by now Bob is full of crap and arrogance. Lets breakdown this sentence from Bob, "So how can someone who was against the bailouts, against the Iraq war, had severe criticism of the Obama budget, believes we nee to strongly address entitlement reform be a liberal?"
Bob says he is against the bailouts but said repeatedly how great the economic team of Obama's is with tax cheat Geithner and Keynesian worshiper Larry Summers. He seems to have backed off Geithner but I have never heard say anything against Summers who fully supports the bailouts and this crazy irresponsible deficit spending. So if you expect us to take seriously as a "fiscal conservative", why don't you tell us you were completely wrong about Obama's economic team Bob? Maybe because you are an insufferable jerk who can never admit to being wrong. As for your contention that Obama can be trusted for entitlement reform, that is pure fantasyland garbage that has no chance in hell of happening. Take a look at what Obama has done to welfare Bob and reversing the positive changes made under Clinton and tell me that with a straight face.
Your arguments Bob are nothing but anti-intellectual drivel and everyone sees through it. How come Bob the only people on this site that ever support your comments are the liberal trolls? As I recall, jharp always seemed to appreciated your comments.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 2:55PM
No doubt jimmy carter is laying low cheering Obama on to pick up where he left off, so as to lose the label "Worst President in Modern American History".
I'd say President Alinsky is off to a great start.
Jeffrey Lord| 4.21.09 @ 3:04PM
Dick Leed....
I drew from the book Before the Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House by...William Safire.
The book begins this way:
"I first met Richard Nixon in a kitchen in Moscow.
It was 'my' kitchen; that is, I was the press agent representing the homebuilder who put up the 'typical American house'..."
He even says he drank the beer from the refrigerator...which was warm because he forgot to plug in the refrigerator. Perhaps the confusion is the term 'guide', which, in reading his account, he certainly sounded as if he were. He even says "at my signal" a Russian-speaking American guide did such and such, meaning he had some charge of a guide.
Tell Safire you will boycott his book. Published in 1975 you might be too late! But apologies if needed. Having met my share of "press agents" I thought the term both generic and accurate as to the task. Thanks for holding up the flag in 1959!
Melvin| 4.21.09 @ 3:05PM
Jim Carter gave us the current mess in the Middle East and to this day we are still paying and Americans are dying for.
What foreign policy mess will Barrack Obama give us, one thing for sure is more Americans will die from a naive foreign policy because no matter how many hands that are shaken, there will always be lawless tyrants in the world who will not follow the rule of law but rather make their own rules, much like the criminal element in this Country.
Bill Croke| 4.21.09 @ 3:21PM
And to think that Obama couldn't deal with two tinpot dictators, Chavez and Ortega. Putin must be salivating.
Mattled| 4.21.09 @ 3:31PM
stmichrick,
Just saw on Jake Tappers (might be the ONLY journalist left, except the Brits) the Washingtonian Pech-tacular.
Loved posters comments on Tappers site:
Posted by: LuKuj | Apr 20, 2009 10:27:21 PM
He's a punk. W could Bench 200lbs for reps. Those aren't pecs, those are t!ts.
OR
Posted by: ConservativeWoman | Apr 21, 2009 7:48:41 AM
The photo looks quite odd to me. He shaves his chest and he has man boobs. If I cover his face, he appears to be a topless woman. I can't believe he would consent to such an embarrassing photo.
Anthony| 4.21.09 @ 3:35PM
We have come full circle folks; Obama now reprises the role of Khruschev, castigating the sins of capitalism, American greed and exploitation, while the Russian premier warns America, under Obama, to steer clear of Socialism. If Dulles and Khruschev were able to observe this from on high, they would ask God why his sense of humor favors the theatre of the absurd.
Helen Donnelly| 4.21.09 @ 3:53PM
David Matthews.
I'm afraid you will be among those "crying" when, after we have capitulated to every tyrant in this crazy world, they have taken full advantage at every chance. Do I have to draw you a picture of what will happen? Probably, but I don't have the time to deal with short sighted, historically ignorant blowhards like you. Get a life.
Jeffrey Lord| 4.21.09 @ 5:12PM
Bob...
"You are certainly wrong that your brand of ultra right wing conservatism is a winning strategy."
The fact that you believe Reagan conservatism to be the "ultra right wing conservatism" indicates you really are a liberal. Your arguments for the Big Tent seem clouded. Opening the tent to bring in more than just liberal or moderate Republicans is exactly what Reagan did. Those social conservatives you disdain used to be Democrats. We are about enlarging...you about shrinking to comfort. We have won...you have lost. In the hard world of vote counting, that spells the difference between running the government or being on the outside. And most of the time in the last several decades, we have been "in"...
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 5:36PM
Topics about Automobile-owners » Blog Archive » How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khru links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John| 4.21.09 @ 6:30PM
Wow.. this one was interesting. The Matthews Bot, and Bob... with only Bob attempting anything close to an intellectually grounded set of arguments.
Hum... on the wall of my apartment while at college oh so many years in the past. I had a number of posters... A few from some cynical cartoon cat that had just appeared from the pages of obscurity to long lasting fame... Not overweight... just undertall...
However... right over my "entertainment center" I placed a poster of a parachutist... On that poster was the common aphorism of the collegiate elite... "A mind, like a parachute functions only when open".
As I often pondered that picture, beer in hand... smoking a cigarette, and meandering through Pink Floyd, or Elvis Costello.. I was struck by a simple law of physics taught to me by actually jumping out of an airplane... one beautiful summer day...
The parachute must be "open" but if the canopy isn't stitched together tightly, and carefully, it will amount to nothing more than a streamer that marks the hole the parachutist smoked into the ground.
Bob and Matthews Bot... without some clear fundamental underpinnings of morality and reason to tie an intellect to a thought, you are pulling the rip-cord on a bright streamer of cloth... Your holes await you.
Mr. Lord, as a former historian (I have the degree, but now only dabble... computers are my gig...) I find your essay to be thought provoking, and spot on. Nixon might have destroyed himself politically by handing himself over to his domestic enemies; but on foreign policy he had few peers. You illuminate a turning point, perhaps...
One wonders (historical fallacy, I know...) what the world would have been like had Joe Kennedy not bought the 1960 election for his son. This nation will pay for Cook County and the Kennedy clan for years to come.
Thanks for the good read.
r/John
D. Higgins| 4.21.09 @ 8:29PM
I will give credit where credit is due: The Left and the various posters on this and other sites have not changed their tone one iota since he events of this past election. YOU WON! Now get to work!
(Incidentally, the poster who tried to say that President Obama received a higher percentage of the popular vote than Reagan '80? Nice try... so typical of The Left in the wake of the truth standard set by the boy-President and his quest for the definition of "is". Technically correct but missing the point entirely, see John Anderson's Perot-esque showing. Even more incidentally: Observe the states that Mr. Carter won, Georgia (his home state turned forever Red by his tenure), Hawaii (really? The 57th State?) Maryland (Beltway sops) D.C. (Inside the Beltway sops) Rhode Island (isn't it no longer a State?) West Virginia, and Minnesota. I wasn't impressed then, and am not impressed now. Thank you for your "technically correct" observation, though. You are either a intentional deceiver or a terrible student of history.
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 12:13AM
Topics about Beijing | How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khrushchev links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 12:39AM
How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khrushchev links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Osamas Pajamas | 4.22.09 @ 12:44AM
I see that some clown in this string is annoyed with Nixon. Nixon's spying on Democrats was no different than spying on the Mafia, as both of these gangs want your money and they are willing to kill for it.
As for OhBummer, I think he admires this cheap killer, Hugo Chavez. OhBummer's principal heroes appear to be third-world dictators ---- and the left-wing extremists who infect and infest the American "educational system."
David R| 4.22.09 @ 1:31AM
Sorry Bob.
Obama was a Senior Lecturer, not a professor. His students may have adressed him as 'Professor' in the classroom but he was never in tenure.
Denise-Mary| 4.22.09 @ 1:43AM
This was an outstanding analysis, and Shucky, your comments were equally so. Excellent synopsis of what the Democratic party has "accomplished" over decades.
jonny_ox | 4.22.09 @ 3:55PM
Let the libs have their defaulted day in the sun, it will be light-years before they see it again. Let rational people see their hearts for what they truly are, and be afraid. Let us remember the consequences of losing our way, and be steadfast in our principles. Let us prepare our future on the foundations of the past, and once again lead the way to a brighter tomorrow.
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 4:07PM
Topics about Poland » How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khrushchev links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ivan Ivanovich| 4.22.09 @ 5:37PM
I'm glad you mentioned that the photo was not seen in the USSR. I'll show it to my wife who was a Soviet citizen at the time. Although she had no love for Nicky, she speaks very derisively about Brezhnev. Good article!
Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 9:42PM
=>"young American Vice President"
From recent articles it would appear that "The American Spectator" likes the "young American Vice President" Nixon more than it does the American President Nixon (or even President Eisenhower).
President Nixon (socially conservative, fiscally liberal and "A man of peace").
The Republican Party presidential candidate Nixon who was the DOVE candidate in 1968 (Humphrey was the MODERATE and Wallace was the HAWK).
The President Nixon who met with Premier Brezhnev (minus any finger jutting), and initiated Detente with the U.S.S.R. (remember the SALT talks?).
[Cold War Detente, circa 1972-79].
The President Nixon who was a fiscal liberal (for which he was dubbed a “socialist” by the John Birch Society in its “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” conspiracy theory book of the mid 1970s, but by no one else).
The President Nixon who was the first to open negotiations with the People's Republic of China PRC) (A.K.A. Red China) by traveling to mainland China and meeting with Chairman Mao, established a diplomatic liaison office, all leading to American rejection of the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) as the dejure government of China (formal American government position, 1943-79) and recognition of the PRC as the dejure government of China, on 1 January 1979 (formal American government position, 1979-present), by the Carter administration.
Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 9:47PM
"I'm glad you mentioned that the photo was not seen in the USSR. I'll show it to my wife who was a Soviet citizen at the time. Although she had no love for Nicky, she speaks very derisively about Brezhnev." [Ivan Ivanovich| 4.22.09 @ 5:37PM]
Hi II:
Show her the photo, but don't show her the article. If she didn't like Brezhnev, then she shouldn't care much for President Nixon either, since he initiated Detente when Brezhnev was Primier (SALT talks, trade agreements and so forth. . .).
Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 10:10PM
=>President Nixon (socially conservative, fiscally liberal).
The so-called RINOs should detest President Nixon.
President and Republican Party presidential candidate Nixon who was the Socially Conservative candidate in 1972.
George McGovern was the (then) radically socially liberal candidate (with American liberalism undergoing a radical redefinition, on the basis of social issues: especially pro-Abortion, pro-pornography, and pro-other cultural revolutionary movements).
President Nixon won all 49 American states, with the exception of Massachusetts.
George McGovern won only in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia (D.C.).
So-called RINO conservatism can be called conservative only in a crudest literal sense of the term: To conserve the gains of the social revolution of 1969-1998 (all of the elements of eugenics that have been introduced and the BRUTAL form of capitalism that no Americans ever had to grow up under, until beginning in the last 20 years, but especially the last 10 years).
In truth, there’s absolutely NOTHING conservative about so-called RINOs.
They are libertarians
Libertarians are the worst of both extremes: Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in the present-sense of these terms.
The Democratic Party is rotten with their own versions of libertarians calling themselves liberal and Democrat.
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 10:26PM
Obama and Nixon | The Blog of Record links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 11:07PM
Actually, everyone who calls himself Republican today should detest President Nixon, for one reason or another. . .The same holds true for President Reagan (the President whose administration implemented tariffs and continued federal funds to support Chrysler Corporaton).
Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 11:25PM
Lest We Forget.
President Reagan.
I remember the late President Reagan when I heard him speak as a candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 1976 (no rebel battle flags, no neo-confederate nonsense, or anything remotely like it):
He received two standing ovations:
One each, for declaring forcefully and clearly that:
1. Abortion is murder and legalized abortion should be abolished.
2. This country should never again send its servicemen into a war, that it has not formally declared (as was done again in 2001 and 2003).
[Reagan had been a steady opponent America waging war in Vietnam, due to the failure of the U.S. Congress to have formally declared war].
**
I remember the late President Reagan when he was the Republican Presidential Candidate in 1980.
He had the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and other unions, and boasted of his once having been president of a labor union himself.
**
Does all of this, the tariffs on imported steel and Japanese motorcycles 750cc and above, and federal funding support to Chrysler Corporation make Ronald Reagan a “socialist?”
To the so-called RINOs (and the majority of Republicans, from what I can tell): Both a “socialist” and a social extremist.
Pingback| 4.23.09 @ 7:27AM
Greened to Death links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.23.09 @ 1:15PM
Instant Credit Approval - How to Handle a Bully: Nixon vs. Khrushchev - Spectator.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.26.09 @ 4:44AM
Credit Instant Approval - April 2009 - Weblogs.sun-sentinel.com « Credit Instant Appr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.26.09 @ 4:57AM
Instant Approval Credit - Obama Economy Speech: Major Address At Georgetown Universit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.7.09 @ 8:37PM
Bully in the kitchen | wade edwards links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jordan| 8.27.09 @ 12:11AM
For an alternative take on the Nixon-Khrushchen encounter, try this piece by Khrushchev's son, Sergei: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....rival.html
Lingerie | 9.12.09 @ 11:02PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie
Pingback| 9.18.09 @ 12:30PM
eisenhower and nixon biographer | Random Hot News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 10.4.09 @ 1:12AM
Grand Baby Talk, on Grand Baby Talk, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
EllenaSmith| 4.27.12 @ 1:05PM
Bullying is a major problem in schools and communities around the world and it's something most children encounter in one form or another. As parents, we certainly hope to protect our kids from harm and danger. We must listen to what our children saying and be supportive to them. Reassure them, you will consult them before taking any action. The idea of my children being harmed or lost is not something anyone wants to consider. I would like to share this link, about a service on how you can protect your children: http://safekidzone.com/