Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The ultimate irony: By today's standards Tricky Dicky Nixon would be a Dirty Fucking Hippie..

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:37 AM
Original message
The ultimate irony: By today's standards Tricky Dicky Nixon would be a Dirty Fucking Hippie..
No shit..

Wage and price controls..

Environmental Protection Agency..

And even introduced an arguably better universal health care bill than the current clusterfuck.

The DLC would have hated him, from the right, not the left.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan

February 6, 1974

From The American Presidency Project, University of California at Santa Barbara


To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:

--Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
--The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
--The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.


For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can 'be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.

Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws :

First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective:

--Forty percent of those who are insured are not covered for visits to physicians on an out-patient basis, a gap that creates powerful incentives toward high cost care in hospitals;
--Few people have the option of selecting care through prepaid arrangements offered by Health Maintenance Organizations so the system at large does not benefit from the free choice and creative competition this would offer;
--Very few private policies cover preventive services;
--Most health plans do not contain built-in incentives to reduce waste and inefficiency. The extra costs of wasteful practices are passed on, of course, to consumers; and
--Fewer than half of our citizens under 65--and almost none over 65--have major medical coverage which pays for the cost of catastrophic illness.


<snip>

More at the link..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. He was also an advocate of a Guaranteed Minimum Income n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh yes, I forgot that one.. Thanks.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. How I wish that had happened. Just think of the money and time saved
without the ridiculously complicated Earned Income Credit scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's true. And he called himself a Republican!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. He pushed for mandated and subsidized insurance before it was cool and audacious
Till Teddy stopped him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. And Kennedy said no ...

Thus forming his self-proclaimed greatest regret of his Senatorial career.

It wasn't good enough, wasn't exactly what he wanted, so he said "no."

Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him? - HST

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. If he had not been such a hateful paranoid character, and that little Watergate thingy...
Edited on Fri Dec-18-09 01:51 AM by avaistheone1
Nixon may have had a decent presidential legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Basically ...
Edited on Fri Dec-18-09 02:04 AM by RoyGBiv
... if he hadn't been himself.

My problem with Nixon is based in a broader context than the standard narrative. It does all boil to do, "if Nixon hadn't been Nixon, I would have liked him," so I'm not suggesting that he was in reality redeemable, rather that the primary reason I hate him is that he had to be who he was.

The Republican party transformed because of that little twerp and in the most negative of ways. While I would not have been a Republican in '68, I at least could have respected them as a viable opposition party with a platform that wasn't evil. What Nixon did, from my perspective, was invalidate the place of a moderate or liberal position in the party. Most people lay that on Reagan. I think Reagan merely took advantage of it. Nixon, imo, created the opening for the extremists, fully aware he might do so, even if he didn't agree with them. He didn't care because it was always about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
28. Precisely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nixon 2012. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Hilarious!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Nixon/Obama 2012
with Obama being to the right of Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. He's tanned, he's rested, he's ready..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. RFLMAO - Ding, Ding, Ding. We do have a winner!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. "Put down your crack pipes and your beer bongs, and pay attention
as I sign a historic peace accord with Ambassador Kong of planet Nintendu 64."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Take away his warmongering and his obsession with spying and intrusion of privacy and you've got ..
a quasi-liberal in Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. Warmongering?

He first tried to end an inherited war by "winning" it and opening a secret front in an adjacent country, same as Obama.

Then he opened the Paris Peace Talks, and negotiated a withdrawal. He got us out of Vietnam.

On the larger picture, he began arms talks with the Soviets which led to SALT I and SALT II, and he opened diplomatic relations with China.

He began the US role as a broker for peace in the Middle East.

He was a stronger advocate for diplomacy than Reagan or Bush II. Watergate was a foible compared to Iran-Contra.

Nixon would be unrecognizable as a Republican today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
14. Why the difference? I posted this on another thread but I'll post it here too
The political cost of failure

Failure does not bring with it a better chance for future success. It brings a trimming of future ambitions.

Truman sought single payer. His failure led to Kennedy and Johnson, who confined their ambitions to poor families and the elderly. Then came Nixon, whose reform plan was entirely based around private insurers and government regulation. He was followed by Carter, who favored an incremental, and private, approach, and Clinton, who again sought to reform the system by putting private insurers into a market that would be structured and regulated by the government. His failure birthed Obama's much less ambitious proposal,
which attempts to reform not the health-care system, but the small group and nongroup portions of the health-care system by putting a small minority of private insurance plans into a market that's structured and regulated by the government, and closed off to most Americans.

Failure does not breed success. Obama's defeat will not mean that more ambitious reforms have "a better chance of trying again." It will mean that less ambitious reformers have a better chance of trying next time.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_political_cost_of_failure.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
15. He also believed, personally anyway, on treatment over incarceration. K&R
Edited on Fri Dec-18-09 01:59 AM by 20score
On edit: I hated him, still do. He was the epitome of stick up your conservatism, but so much better than the right wingers now. (If you had told a liberal 40 years ago that Nixon would be left of the Democrats in power in the future, he would have been laughed at... at least.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pissedoff01 Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
16. "the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110"
The good old days!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
18. He was the last domestic economic progressive the nation has had
He was a duplicitous RWer and quasi-fascist on foreign policy (see under: Cambodia and Chile), but there is no question that he was almost unrecognizable when it came to crafting domestic economic and regulatory agency policy. Nixon was a very complex individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Foreign policy: what about China?
Although he might've been really conservative on Cambodia and Chile, under conservative standards he would've been soft on Communism by opening diplomatic relationships with the then-and-still Communist "People's Republic" of China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Keep telling yourself that the most heinous criminal to occupy the Oval Office
was just, well, doggone, it, a little quirky. This man was the single greatest threat to the Republic and the rule of law in its history. Bar none. Jefferson Davis was a goddamn American saint by comparison.

DU's unfailing sliding scale ain't ringing true here. He was complex, yeah. So were the times. So are the times now. Maybe we should all use a somewhat sharper and wider lens when examining what's happening - as Walt Starr famously put it - right the fuck now...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Hardly

Nixon engaged in obstruction of justice in a domestic criminal matter.

Reagan was illegally dealing arms with a terrorist state, and funding an insurgency in Latin American against a specific law not to do so. It was a rogue foreign policy.

Bush started a war on false pretenses, engaged in wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment and authorized torture in secret detention facilities.

Come on. Nixon spied on Ellsberg, collected dirt on political opponents, and tried to stop a criminal investigation of both. But that's like jaywalking compared to what went on under Reagan and Bush II.

There is just no comparison. His policy program was not geared toward destruction of the middle class and enriching the silver spoon brigade.

He did not believe that regulation and economic intervention were inherent evils.

There is no question he abused his authority and obstructed justice. He tested the limits of executive direction of the Justice Depatment. The irony is that most here would PREFER to see executive direction of the DOJ criminal division, and are upset that Obama is not setting a prosecutorial agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I agree, Reagan was far worse
probably the worst president, overall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. He was a goddamn crook then and he'd be a goddamn crook now.
Yeah, swell that he makes a convenient and utterly fanciful "oh-how-ironic!" touchstone these days for a political and social reality that is four decades removed and radically different from the one we live in. Big fucking deal. I say dig him up and put his corpse in the stocks in front of the Capitol. And let's quit using this titanic miscreant as some sort of yardstick by which to gauge reality as it stands two generations after this criminal was hounded into resignation one step ahead of impeachment proceedings and two steps ahead of likely conviction on the articles being drafted thereto.

It's 2009 and the shit is pretty self-evident, no? Nixon has nothing to do with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. When Obama is done, let's compare body counts and crimes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yeah. Let's just do that.
Meet you back here in 2016. We'll talk, okay?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I hope I am eating crow, that's all I have to say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Hey, I hope you are too, but I also hope both you and I
feel a lot better then than we do now. Cheers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. True ... now he'd be a better Democrat
than many that call themselves that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
27. hell, does anyone remember how Sen. Joe McCarthy first came to fame?
He took a stand against torturing german prisoners, he pointed out that torturing prisoners until they confessed to something and then hanging them was just not okay.

Although as far as Nixon goes, it is interesting to see the fantasy projection conservatives try to apply to him today, inventing positions on subjects he never would have had any reason to take a position on, or even think about in an attempt to cast him as a modern neocon. If Nixon were living today he would been horrified by modern conservatism.

Democrats today are far to the right of Republicans of the 1950's!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #27
33.  Democrats today are far to the right of Republicans of the 1950's!
That was pretty much my point..

And yet "centrism" and "moderation" are seen by so many "Democrats" as being a good thing, those of us who lived through that time know that today's centrists and moderates are really at least as far to the right as Tricky Dick and in many ways further to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
30. I don't much care for your choice of words there fumesucker
and you'll probably just tell me to fuck off, huh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Eh, I *are* a dirty fucking hippie..
Let your freak flag fly..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Peace
flag flying :hi: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
35. A sobering realization
How fucked up things have become.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TiberiusGracchus Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Says more about CURRENT DEMS than it says about Nixon, but yeah tricky Dick was from
California after all. It was always inevitable that he would be a little moderate. Fact is Ted Kennedy listed as one of his biggest regrets the time when he refused to accept the deal with Richard Nixon's national healthcare plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-18-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. And funded the National Endowment for the Arts. What a lefty. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC