‘New York Times’: Nixon Tapes Prove That Conservatives Should Give Up Principles

If you want a perfect example of how the left works, not to mention another example of how the Old Media establishment is thoroughly sold out to the far left, we have but to look to an August 23 piece in The New York Times by Francis X. Clines where we are told that the Nixon tapes show that Republicans should give up their principles and accept the left’s concepts and political policies.

Clines spends most of her piece talking about the release of the last batch of tape recordings made by Richard Nixon in the White House. Nixon’s tapes are, of course, a never ending source of fascination for liberals and from time to time also reveal an interesting window into the man’s soul, so the release of this last batch nearly 40 years after the President ignominiously resigned from office–the first (and only) president to do so—is of interest.

But buried at the end of her piece, Clines also unwittingly give us a window not into Nixon’s soul but into both hers and the leftist media’s souls.

Clines talks of how Nixon is heard on the tapes discussing why he bucked his conservative followers when he famously opened the door to communist China. Nixon said on the tapes that he never thought anyone else would hear that he softened on Red China to avoid nuclear war. Nixon is heard saying that if the US did not approach China, “in the end we would reap a nuclear war. No question.”

OK, well and good. Whether Nixon was right or not is a matter of opinion since he did open that dialog and we never got to that confrontation based on our hard line views of China.

But hear is the window into the leftist media. Clines wrote the following:

Quite unintentionally, Nixon thus offered a lesson to politicians across the ages about the value of easing an obsessive political identity. It could resonate creatively these days as zealous Republicans cling to hard-line intransigence.

Note that Clines thinks only Republicans should heed the advice to “ease” their “obsessing on political identity”?

She doesn’t think the left should “ease” its hard line views on abortion, high taxes, big government meddling, the UN, its anti-gun positions… or a host of other hidebound, left-wing ideas?

Nope. Only Republicans should learn this lesson.

Typical, eh?

Up a tall ladder and Down a short rope
Obama's (proposed) War of Convenience
  • Paul Hooson

    When I was 17 I was a young conservative who worked with five other people out of a Portland, Oregon local regional office for President Nixon. He had a lot more charisma in real life than you’d realize when you’d see him in person. He was a born leader. And he had sharp political instincts, knowing how to achieve goals and get the job done. – But, he was also an intensely insecure and paranoid man, who unfortunately seemed to give the green light to some awful covert political tactics that eventually cost him the presidency and only brought back he worst of the political doubts about him as a honest man that started with doubts about him when Dwight Eisenhower first picked him as his running mate. – The 1960 election was so close because both Nixon and Kennedy were two of the greatest political leaders of the time, and it’s good that both were president, because the two were the best America had at the time, both born leaders.

    • 914


    • warnertoddhuston

      The 1960 vote was close because Democrat operatives stole thousands upon thousands of votes in New York, Texas and Chicago. THAT is the ONLY reason JFK won. It’s inarguable, really. And, contrary to what someone above said, Kennedy showed to have LITTLE by way of true leadership skills while in office.

      • Joe Lagle

        Do you actually have evidence to back that claim?

        • Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[31] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties, and Kennedy’s victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago’s vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago’s 1960 population of 3.55 million,[37] although Cook County also includes many suburbs outside of Chicago’s borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.[31]


          On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn’t be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that “once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen.” What’s more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon’s. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI’s findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.


        • 914


          Them dems steal votes in every election cycle. That is why everything is so screwed up. No morals = no discipline, self control or concern for others welfare. Hence we get Barry E. Neuman Soetoro Hussain

    • ackwired

      Good comment. Both were probably the best we had at the time. Both were also tragically flawed. I suspect Kennedy would have left office in disgrace just as Nixon did if he had not been assassinated.

  • Advice from the New York Slimes?

    Ha ha!

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Hey, c’mon Rodney, lookit how they helped the Maverick!

  • 914

    What does Nixon have to do with conservatives? What does the NY Times have to do with news?

  • LiberalNightmare

    Cant wait till we get to hear the Obama tapes.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      You mean like the one that the bastion of First Amendment values, the LA Times, has [but refuses to turn over]?

  • Lawrence Westlake

    What’s funny about this nonsense (in the same veins in which observing demolition derbies are funny) is that you could with a very straight face put together the following headline, but alas the various layers of irony would be lost on liberal idiots in the media (BIRM 3x): “Reality: Two Decade Swoon in NYT Co.’s Stock Price Along with Disastrous Circulation Trends Further Prove that Leftism Doesn’t Actually Work in the Real World”

  • Commander_Chico

    Nixon was a pretty good president – like Clinton, he was dragged down by one failing. Nixon’s was paranoia, Clinton’s was satyriasis.

    • Rdmurphy42

      The pathological lying didn’t help either.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, both of them were liars.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, both of them were liars.