I'm fascinated to find so much religion in an article by Christopher Hitchens. His comments are so vast in their scope, so broad in their application and so pointed in their content that they resemble nothing so much as theological dogma. He has condemned vast swathes of the American people from His papal seat based on His own stereotypes.

The tenor of his arguments lead me to beleive that He is a great religionist. By the subject of his comments, namely that He is the final arbiter of acceptable civic conduct and political opinion, I conclude that He worships Himself.

He also worships Pope Johnnie Walker the Black.

I conclude that you can find no defense for Richard Nixon, and so you attempt to trash Hitch.

Go ahead, but his comments on Nixon are spot on.

Nixon was lower than a snake's belly in a bicycle track.

northwoods:

I conclude that you can find no defense for Richard Nixon, and so you attempt to trash Hitch.

Go ahead, but his comments on Nixon are spot on.

Nixon was lower than a snake's belly in a bicycle track.

And Dubya was holier than thou, right? So was Wolfowitz?

I don't have to defend or attack Nixon to demonstrate how Hitchens is not afraid to be hypocritical in order to argue against anyone or anything. On the surface, as a stand-alone article, Hitchens makes a lot of sense. However, unlike you, I've read numerous Hitchens articles which demonstrate in their totality that the only conviction in which Hitchens truly believes is that "Religion is wrong".

Great, now have another scotch and stay out of politics then.

My question is, why would anyone defend OR trash Nixon. His relevance to the Republican party is as timely and on-point as, say, Abraham Lincoln.

FBH:

My question is, why would anyone defend OR trash Nixon. His relevance to the Republican party is as timely and on-point as, say, Abraham Lincoln.

Well it's either this or slam Turkey ad nauseum.

BTW, where is the North Korea post? Considering they want to strike at us this week?

Say what you want about Nixon, he doesn't plan on attacking the US anytime soon.

Don't tell the (non southern) publicans that they are not the heirs of Abraham Lincoln! They think that they own racial desegregation and can't understand why their dark-skinned bretheren don't "get it."

But Richard Nixon? They hardly knew him.

You misunderstand. I was not defending Hitch; I was attacking the attempt to trash Hitch as a way of fending off one more richly deserved airing of the Nixon linens.

If you know me, you know I am no friend of W or anything that even slightly resembles neoconservatism.

But I was commenting on the article, not Hitch, not W, and not neocons.

northwoods:

You misunderstand. I was not defending Hitch; I was attacking the attempt to trash Hitch as a way of fending off one more richly deserved airing of the Nixon linens.

If you know me, you know I am no friend of W or anything that even slightly resembles neoconservatism.

But I was commenting on the article, not Hitch, not W, and not neocons.

Understood, for the record I'm no fan of Nixonger either (yes that's Nixon + Kissinger). Not enough has been told about how Nixonger prolonged the Vietnam War, helped stage the Chilean coup in 1973 (a.k.a. the other "9/11"), helped Suharto oppress the people of East Timor and helped Pakistani general Zia al-Huq kill over a million people when Bangledesh wanted its independence.

My problem is Hitchens claiming that he is wary of this form of "moderate Republicanism" when he wrote an article titled "The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan" yet seemed to have no biting criticism for George W. Bush (a.k.a. the WORST President in US History). Hitchens has no problem going all over the map when it suits him and his only conviction that "Religion is WRONG".

My question is, why would anyone defend OR trash Nixon. His relevance to the Republican party is as timely and on-point as, say, Abraham Lincoln.

Nixon is very much at the center of the modern GOP. In response to the Civl Rights movement, Nixon formed a winning coalition using his "southern strategy". For the passed 40 years, the results have been a GOP dominance in presidential politics. But changing attitudes and demographics have made this a losing strategy and are very likely to mean permanent minority status for the republicans until they can repair the damage done by the past 40 years of overt and covert racism.

Addendum to my last post: How many Bush administration officials got their starts during the Nixon and Ford presidencies?

That's funny! Although he can probably afford Blue.

"saloon singer wrote the following post at 06/29/2009 8:41 PM: That's funny! Although he can probably afford Blue. "

We should all be so lucky. I think Hitch specifically stays away from the Blue because it's proof that there is a God.