Nixon on Reagan: Not ``pleasant to be around''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/10/national1128EST0597.DTL

President Nixon didn't think much of fellow Californian and Republican icon Ronald Reagan, calling him "strange" and not "pleasant to be around," newly released White House tapes show.

Talking politics with White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman at Camp David in August 1972, Nixon switched the conversation to two Republican governors, Reagan of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Both men unsuccessfully sought the 1968 Republican presidential nomination that Nixon received.

"Reagan is not one that wears well," Nixon said.

"I know," Haldeman agreed.

"On a personal basis, Rockefeller is a pretty nice guy," Nixon said. "Reagan on a personal basis, is terrible. He just isn't pleasant to be around."

the pot calling the kettle black.

Nixon wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs either.

You've never seen the documentary "Nixon The Stand Up Years"? Ohh wait I just realized I made that up.

Would it be censored? Would the Freeps go crazy and accuse Nixon or any other Republicans of "spewing hate" or "attacking" or "smearing?"

This is a hoot. What about the other top Republicans who were around then...I remember a few hot items on their talking about their former boss and slamming Nancy. Wonder what the Freeps call that?

I'm not particularly crazy about either of them, but it tickles me to hear that Nixon didn't like Reagan, given that there's an orgy of Reagan adoration being promoted by the GOP these days.

And I do mean creeped. Start a Reagan thread, and there will be a number of people who will say they thought Reagan was nicer that Bush, or not as bad, or somehow at least amiable.

Worst president ever. W has a lot of catching up to do. Unfortunately, the hagiographical enterprises of the Reaganistas has influenced even liberals.

...quite a few of them hang around DU. I bet they just can't stand it when Ronnie gets zinged.

IMHO, Ronnie knew quite a bit more than he let on. His defense was acting like he didn't know anything. He was also very happy to let Poppy run things from the background.

Wonder what he would have thought had he known that Poppy tried to get him out of the way? Then again, Nancy seems to REALLY dislike the Bush Crime Family...maybe they did know.

and I'm no freeper. But then again, I would like to name a sewer line in each town in the country after Reagan.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No way in hell does a majority think he was a great guy.

So, Carter's grain embargo was "lift(ing) the boot"?

"Malaise", "Habitat for Loafers" -- you missed only "Go to Hell, Hanoi Jane".

But ...

Carter has been roundly criticized by the Left for his continuation of Cold War policies, and was joined by the Conservatives after the Olympic boycott in 1980. Then there was the Grain Embargo -- not a very libbrul thing to do, right? And remember Zbigniew Brezinski? He was Carter's national security adviser, a role roughly analogous to Paul Wolfowitz', and Carter didn't often say no to the man's suggestions, either.

The "leftward" movement of the Democratic Party was largely an artifact of the Press, who learned to love soundbites in the 1970s, and knew that the Feminist and anti-Racism activists would give good bite.

As for Reagan giving us our balls back, that, too, was an invention of the Press. We invaded a tiny airstrip with a medical school attached to it called Grenada, then The Gipper made a few broad jokes about the USSR -- and this constitutes giving us our balls back? Are we talking about testicles or marbles?

By playing up what isn't there and downplaying any kind of real-world problems, both the Press and the Republican Party made out like proverbial bandits. This is the way things are done nowadays, and it is easy to feel like a fool in its wake, as I myself did when I discovered that Clinton's bombing on Sudan and Afghanistan on 12/17/98, the day before the impeachment vote, was a sound decision made out of real strategic concerns.

For instance, are you aware of the Natural Gas supply situation? Michael Jackson's latest legal trouble? The consequences of losing the Northern Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation? Who's leading in the NFC East?

Which ones?

This is the way things are done nowadays. This is why the times are so dangerous. Not content to control the world, they now want to control our minds through technological proxy. No chip implants or mass hypnosis technology is required -- we have the modern black arts of Journalism Gone Wrong and Mass Media, and that's more than enough.

--bkl

I maintain that perception is vitally important to historical context. Reagan is "perceived" as having been a great president by the American people. Although, like Reagan, Kennedy was flawed, the American people "perceive" JFK to have been great. We don't have to like Reagan's popularity, but we shouldn't run from it. Name three 20th Century Presidents who have major public facilities named for them: FDR, JFK, and RR. Name two 20th century presidents who have been honored by having their images cast on US currency: FDR and JFK. The offer was recently extended by Congress to the Reagans. Nancy turned them down, I suspect because he is still living. These three presidents are modern American icons.

Carter tried once to use the military (to rescue the hostages) and failed. Reagan used the military in a small way several times; he failed in Beirut, but succeeded in Granada and Libya. These two minor successes paved the way for the first Gulf War victory, by proving to Americans that every American military endeavor would not automatically become another Viet Nam. RR also very publicly supported the mujahideen (sp?) in their stunning upset of the Soviets. (In retrospect, assisting the proto-Taliban in its victories may not have been such a great idea). And let us not forget the brilliant strategic "threat" of Star Wars. The Kremlin has admitted that this was the single most dispiriting (for them) element of the Reagan strategy. The Soviets perceived the SDI threat to be real, and therefore it became a real menace to their survival. Their eventual collapse was accelerated by their inability to counter Reagan's ratcheting up of the arms race. Like JFK, Reagan confronted the Soviets at every turn.

Carter's grain embargo hurt the Soviet peasants, it never bother the soviet dacha-set. Similarly, Castro and Hussein were never personally hampered by embargoes. Embargoes only give your opponent an opportunity for propaganda: "See, the monstrous Americans are taking food out of your baby's mouth!" Which works better than: "see, the horrible Americans are frustrating our ability to crush a small nation on our southern border!" Anything short of offering Alaska to the Soviets would have brought criticism from the Left. No president should ever concern himself with criticism from the Left (RR understood this and Gephart should learn it quickly).

Having said all of this I must come clean and admit that I voted for Carter. I do not claim that Carter was a commie sympathizer, but I believe he did not know how to effectively prevent the Soviets from spreading their system over the globe. I submit that his predecessors from Truman to Ford, and his successor, were not paralyzed by that sort of indecision. Truman showed the way to defeat the Soviets, and RR simply stayed the course.

Oh, and BTW, "Go to Hell Hanoi Jane."

is that part of Newt Gingrich's rhetoric?

Just like they are doing with the First Cheerleader, they are telling us he's loved and wise when he clearly is not. We believe whatever out teevees tell us.

that "balls" version is BS

.

"Jimmy 'Habitat for Loafers' Carter"

oh, that's rich

"You may find this hard to believe" - you got that right

"a large number of FDR-Truman Democrats voted for Reagan in 1980 and 84"

you may be confusing the treasonous PNAC crowd with true Democratic Americans.

Aroint thee, evil spirit of Rush Limbaugh!

...and he got into the nuke navy because Admiral Rickover selected him. Now, I don't know what you think you know about Carter, but he's pretty far from the way you described him.

In fact, I found your comment about "Habitat for Loafers" to be more than a little racist. Maybe you should explain your comment in more detail so that we can all get a clearer picture of who you really are.

Additionally, I was in the Navy while Carter was President, and he was basically handed a military that was winding down and demobilizing from Vietnam. Carter also pushed the legislation that moved the military toward high-tech smart weaponry...hardly a move consistent with your line of bull that Carter was weak militarily. That also resulted in obsolete air, naval, and land platforms being retired.

At the moment Reagan left office he had a decent reputation except for all of the Iran-Contra stuff. You do remember Iran-Contra, don't you? Now that fifteen years have passed, we know quite a bit more about Ronnie, and it's mostly pretty bad stuff. You need to do some more reading because you really don't know what the heck you're talking about.

In only 3 years, Li'l Georgie's gone a long way to compete for Ronnieboy's title as worst in my lifetime. So, while i quite loathe Reagan and those who worship him, i wouldn't say Georgie is that far behind. Two empty suits cut from the same piece of cloth, i would say.
The Professor

For Nixon to call someone else "strange" and "not pleasant to be around" both of which have been used to describe Nixon.

Nixon didn't like Reagan? Shocking! I'm shocked!

Which one do you like better, Matt?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Between Nixon and Reagan, I'd say Nixon was the lesser of two evils. Reagan and his administration committed far more crimes than Nixon, and at least Nixon accomplished something during his presidency other than cutting taxes for the rich and raising them for everyone else.

trotsky,

I guess I can understand someone with your name not crediting Reagan with the defeat of the evil Soviet empire.

No historian, no serious foreign policy analyst does. Just the Reaganites and part of the misinformed public. The Soviet Union was dead before Reagan took office, and that's becoming increasingly clear the more the evidence is researched. There is even evidence that Reagan propped up the Soviets so he would have an enemy to unite behind (That's a common Bush theme, too).

The Soviet Union, like most empires, collapsed from its own weight. It grew beyond what its resources could handle, and tried to use the military to gather more resources. It wasn't even communism that killed it. It was geography.

Carter's grain embargo did more to destroy them than Reagan's arms race. No nation has ever rebelled against its leaders for lack of arms, but many have for lack of bread. (And no, I'm not giving Carter credit, either.)

Maybe someone should ask some old Soviet citizens (subjects) which president did more to end Communist rule.

Glasnost and Perestroika, remember?

Who are they, the unknown Marx Brothers?

now appearing in Horse Feathers 2.

"This morning I shot Bob Haldemann in my pajamas. How he got there, I'll never know."

But if by some remote chance you're not. I think someone who doesn't know these terms shouldn't be discussing the Soviet Union at all.

Did he use his super heat-vision? Or his telekinetic powers? Or what about his superhuman ability to forget things?

As jobycom noted, historians who actually know their stuff credit a lot of things for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan and his policies are not high on that list. Former Communist Party elites have commented that Reagan's anti-Soviet rhetoric helped them hang on to power a little bit longer, since they were able to convince citizens how dangerous the U.S. was.

"historians who actually know their stuff". Hmmm...

I wonder which brand of historian that might be?

I wonder which brand of historian that might be?

The informed kind, naturally.

that David Irving would be more your speed.

...they do seem to share roughly the same adherence to facts when positing.

. . .other than the propagandists from whom you get your information.
The Professor

Nixon always struck me as highly intelligent and ambitious, and his ambition is what caused his corruption. Reagan was moderately intelligent, but mostly clever (there's a difference of depth between intelligence and cleverness), and was used to riding on the works of others. He was a user. Nixon was a doer.

I didn't like either man, or what they did, or what they stood for, but there was something at least tragic in Nixon's corruption-- like he was corrupt because he was used to struggling against tough odds. Reagan was just corrupt because he liked to take shortcuts, and was lazy, and was mean, mean, mean at heart. I can't think of another human I despise more.

As soon as Republicans start throwing stones, you know exactly what to investigate about them.

aquart. didn't copy that last one, over.

Bob Woodward once called the Nixon tapes "the gift that keeps on giving."

This one's a nice antidote to this latest wave of Reagan worship on the right.

I'm not sure how the revelation that Richard Nixon did not like Ronald Reagan is any "anti-dote to the latest wave of Reagan worship"?

Nixon did all those nasty price and wage freezes...most unConservative
and
Nixon signed in all those environmental laws...doubly unConservative
and
Nixon lost the war in Vietnam...which was unpatriotic
and
barely let Rumsfeld out of the country before Watergate broke, thus almost wrecking Rummy's career and that of Dick Cheney
And
lets face it. Tricky Dick just plain embarrassed the party.

They don't like to admit it, but they do. The wild revelry with which they promote Reagan is too shrill: they know he was a failure, but are trying to hide that. Here, on of their icons (though a secret icon for many) cuts through the crap about Reagan.

can still size up others quite clearly. I remember reading how different varieties of obsessive compulsives don't empathise with other types in therapy groups. People who are compulsive lock checkers think hand washers are nuts.

Congress - and thought no press was in the room. He got around to discussing Reagan - and essentially described meeting him (Reagan) when he was gov of California... and wondering how in the world that this man was ever elected governor... Since Reagan was president at the time - he apparently just let the statement hang in the air (eg the extension to his election to president).

First, Nixon and now, Kissenger. I'm getting more confused. I thought this was a Democrat forum. Are you guys trying to attack or defend Reagan?

Must try harder next time, friend.

Lord Byron,

Give away of what?

Your unbridled NIXON-HATRED means that you love Communism, Terrorism, and IMITATION APPLE PIE.

Damn! You guys are good. I feel so naked.

supporting him with chemical weapons and unbridled affection... no doubt you send him Godiva Chocolates and pink champagne with little chalk-tasting heart candies.

Yes!, yes! It's all true. Please help me! I know it's wrong, but I just can't help myself.

2-3 hours before going to bed. Have a fire going, and keep a good comforter within reach. Gin and/or powerful hashish is optional, depending on your reaction to the soothing drone of Henry Kissinger.

As the weeks turn into months, you'll gain a new appreciation for freedom.

Thanks, man. I've always loved Henry's drone, so I can skip the hashish.

I'll not be called "man" by a filthy longhaired draftdodging freedom hater that thinks sarcasm is an appropriate way to express his love for freedom!

In fact, "man" is a personal insult and against the rules of this establishment. I will alert the authorities and the family of Bebe Rebozo.

Man. Can I catch a break, here.

cast off those Reaganite crutches and WALK AGAIN! Shout hosanna, and can I have a Hallelujah - its a miracle! YOU CAN WALK! YOU CAN WALK!

Now walk away.

Check, please!!

Highly amusing, but it'll be over soon.

So, dirk. Who is the cat and who's the mouse?

Heyyy! I tawt I taw a putty-tat. I did, I did! No wait, that was just an acid casualty with a DSL.

and CABLE, not DSL. Wrong drug too.

GOOD OLD AMERICAN CAFFEINE along with ingenuity, insomnia, and a profound respect for Richard M. Nixon.

thought I'd add some acid-scarred graphical illustrations.

"Objection - tampering with evidence, your honor!"

JUDGE: "Objection overruled. The plantiff is a twit."

"Thank you, your honor. Your witness, m'lud."

JUDGE: "Don't call me that in public!"

Sufferin' succotash inddeed! ;)

even pathetic criminal types like Kissinger and Nixon could spot how bad a human being Reagan was.

What's with the "you guys?" Aren't we all friends and liberals here? No bad guys on this board. It's all "we." Right? That's why we have a board, so all of us liberals can talk, for a change, without being shouted down by Limbaugh-istas. All that noise gets in the way of honest, factual, logical discussions.

Reagan was creepy. He was always mean, phony, slimy and condescending, and he thought he was too clever for anyone else around him. The affability was a bad act. I'm always amazed by people who couldn't see through that.

Nixon could, and apparently Haldemann, although the latter may just have been afraid to contradict his boss. He's on a lot of these tapes saying "yes."

Yep, I've read this stuff and Nixon's cabinet conversations resemble Burns and Smithers, or Dean Wurmer and the 'Hitler Youth'

One of the surprising things about Nixon was that he really was very bright. It's just that his considerable intellect was dwarfed by his acting like an asshole. Sorry for the lowbrow expression, but that's just the way it was.

One should never feel the need to apologize for using the word "lowbrow" when talking about Republicans.

It's not the Republicans about whom I'm worried. But thank you.

Lets all vote for Nixon's corpse in 2004 - it'll be a significant improvement over the status quo.

"Later, Nixon said Reagan’s economic policies were unduly harsh and cautioned against giving him too much credit for winning the Cold War. “Communism would have collapsed anyway,” he told Monica Crowley, a Nixon aide in his last years, according to her 1996 book, “Nixon Off the Record.”"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003609.asp?0cv=CB20

(and it wasn't the Pope either, as the Vatican likes to claim). It
imploded from within, for all the reasons stated by Jobycom earlier.
Gorbachev knew what the problems were, and tried to reform the
system by opening it up and making the government more accountable,
but his reforms took a direction that he'd never intended. It wasn't
Reagan, it had in fact already happened, it was just a question of
how long the secret could be kept within the bureaucracy.