Nixon and Bush

Eleanor (Rodham) Clift at her Nixon/Bush bashing best. Jon Meacham calls this journalism? Again, yet another columnist on the left bashes Bush without any real facts or argument:

"Wallace had a point, but one a tad too generous to Bush, whose place in history (and in the competitive Bush family) was also at stake as he rode roughshod over those who might challenge the course he had chosen. Do the ends always justify the means?"

What is Clift talking about? Innuendo without any argument or facts to back it up. Clift has made a career with this kind of sloppy personal-attack (aka, slander).

Meacham continues to print this nonsense and Newsweek's subscriptions continue to fall.

Gee...wonder why?

Bruce W.

I have not seen the film, but there are many parallels between Nixon and Bush, You have to keep in mind it was Nixon who first opened the door to China; It was Nixon who declared the US a "service economy" and we first heard "If you lost your job, go get a degree" and manufacturing started to leave the country in search of cheap labor, and the effort to destroy collective bargaining began also in the effort to make working Americans cheap labor at home.
Since collective bargaining is what created the middle class; the effort to destroy it is by default a war on the middle class, a war the Republicans have waged for the last 40 years.
So while many see similarities between Nixon and Bush, the similarities between Nixon Bush and even Reagan are indeed striking.
When you consider the fact it was the middle class that set America apart from the rest of the world any effort to change America into something that more closely resembles a third world country as is the Republican vision for America, has to be questioned.
But perhaps the very sanity and patriotism of these men is questionable as well.

What is so predictable about Clift and Howard is that they are both products of the same 60's generation that spawned the evil hybrid best described as infotainment and that, as such, we can expect only these types of self-important but nonsensical effusions from them. Unlike some hybrids that combine the best of both sides, this incarnation took the worst of both. They play to and off each other like paranoid twins trying to get even with their parents for disciplining them. Face, it folks, until this generation and their wannabe progeny retire or die off, we'll be faced with tripe parading as filet.

Two very different men, with very different intellects and personalities and very different motivations, who both happened to run roughshod over the constitution.

The better comparison to Nixon is LBJ, who also was a mass of insecurities, depression and paranoia, and made a presidential living out of lying to the American people. Both LBJ and Nixon knew precisely what they were doing, knew it was wrong, and did it anyway.

Bush still has no clue.

While the pyschiatric bible, the DSM IV, has several diagnoses that might fit Nixon, there is no diagnostic code for Bush's problems: immature, impulsive, and stupid. Bush just never grew up - he was and remains a spoiled child. Nixon, like LBJ, was much more adult, and therefore, more evil, and much more flawed.

Come on Clift. Your ''some audiences''are a pack of latte limosine liberals,same as yerself. FOX NEWS Chris Wallace showed guts reaming out your pals at the main screening,which yet produces no parallels between the two worth mentioning,with the possible exception[as yet unproven] of boths JD. Nixon would have eaten Bush. [and used Clift for a toothpick]. No paranoia with GW,a Nixon staple. No Kent State gunslinging,which Clinton mastered at Waco. No CONTELRPOS or secret wars in Middle East versions of Cambodia either. Wallace was right. Bush only erred in going overboard in trying to protect a nation that could give a damn. Ironically,Obama will have the same problems, and civil liberties challenges,indeed,has already embraced Bushs FISA agreement, to the rage of the left, as asymetrical warfare was nearly unknown in Nixons time outside of the Vietcong.[which yet had no designs on a ''Great Satan''which would evidence an attack on our shores] and saw no comparison to the technological world in which we,and al Qaeda,now live. Just as ironically,it becomes Democrats who are now raising the alarm [or ''fear'' if you will],of another WMD attack here in America. They have become what they have beheld. What the asinine American medias role is in all of this, is already too damned predictable.