
The Confessions of @dick_nixon - seventyhorses
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9464035/dick-nixon-first-person
======
thesteamboat
The introductory quote comes from Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Nixon in the
Atlantic Monthly.[0] It is very enjoyable read (though not balanced in any
sense of the word).

> Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we
> developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated
> Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate
> Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.

> Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, "I, too, am a
> family man, and we feel the same way about you."

[0]: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-
was-a...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-
crook/308699/)

~~~
justin66
I wish I could remember who said it, but apparently at one time somebody
cheered up a depressed or suicidal Hunter S. Thompson by reminding him that he
hadn't written Nixon's obituary yet: Nixon was still alive. Apparently it had
never even occurred to Thompson and the thought really warmed him.

 _If the right people had been in charge of Nixon 's funeral, his casket would
have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the
ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe
of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw
his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the
deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin._

------
cbd1984
Immediate response:

> President Clinton — young, smart, dynamic, the first president whom I
> understood politically (one of us, I thought) — demanded that Nixon be
> judged on nothing "less than his entire life and career."

Notice how this is neither a commendation nor an exoneration, attempted or
otherwise. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bill Clinton knew
exactly what he was saying at any given moment, and what those words meant.

Also, this is golden:

> Remember ... the far-right kooks are just like the nuts on the left ... but
> they turn out to vote.

Thus we have the Southern Strategy, which leads directly into what the GOP is
now.

~~~
parennoob
> Notice how this is neither a commendation nor an exoneration, attempted or
> otherwise. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bill Clinton knew
> exactly what he was saying at any given moment, and what those words meant.

What those words mean is...precisely nothing. So typical of Clinton. Personal
opinion, but I think way less of him for saying it that way than a statement
which is at least delicately tilted one way. The simple addition of a positive
adjective like 'long' or 'great' might have done that.

------
hebdo
Serious question, however stupid, ignorant or offensive it might sound: why is
the following anti-semitic? Because it was false in Nixon's times? I'm not
that familiar with the history of the United States in the 70s.

 _You know, it 's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for
legalizing marijuana are Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews,
Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are
psychiatrists._

~~~
huac
Um, how could it not be anti-Semitic?

~~~
hebdo
Well, what he said is: 1) he does not like pro-marijuana lobbyists/activists
("bastards" as he calls them), 2) all of the pro-lobbyists (from his times)
are Jewish, 3) he does not know why is there such a connection, 4) he provides
a crappy explanation (psychiatrists? really?). Now I have no idea whether or
not 2) is true (probably not), but correlations between ethnicity and
lifestyle preferences can and do exist. Take Chinese approach to parenting -
clearly different.

To sum up, the only thing that could possibly be offensive is either 2) or the
overall tone of the fragment. Hence my question: is it because it's plain
false? Or is it because such language is always xenophobic, regardless of
available evidence?

~~~
paulsutter
The quote is labeling a broad group of people with a polarizing issue.

That's prejudicial thinking that can't possibly be correct. And when the
statement is made by a person who is opposed to the issue (views it as
"wrong"), reasonably is taken as offensive whether the listener is for,
against, or indifferent to the issue.

This blog post gives even better insight:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-
superweapo...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-
superweapons/)

------
deckerdoes
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. "

That goes even when it's liberal bashing against a Republican.

The OP's post should be removed or HN's moderators are ignoring the rules in
favor of the US Democratic party by showing favoritism and thus reflecting
negatively on the YCombinator business.

~~~
mintplant
It's a story about a guy who runs a Twitter account. I think you're taking
this way too seriously.

