Deny! Deny! Deny!

.
My fellow Americans,

In the aftermath of the assault on sitting US Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), which left several others dead, there've been questions as to motive. What on earth could have driven the young man responsible to intentionally target this Congresswoman.

Naturally, since the victim was a democrat the press and the more hysterical leftists automatically assume that the shooter, one Jared Loughner, was directly influenced by conservative rhetoric.

They gleefully pointed to such things as the somewhat aggressive nature of conservative talk show hosts and commentators like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc; the propensity with which right-wing candidates (such as Giffords' opponent in the recent election, Jesse "Machine Gun" Kelly) use militaristic and combat metaphors in reference to their opponents; the negative, confrontational, and occasionally exceedingly angry and violence-tinged tone of the recent tea-people protests; and much, much more.

Yet the subversives and hippies have reserved their largest scorn for our intrepid and plucky semi-Governor, Sarah Palin.

They note how Palin had at one point Twittered (in reference to congressional campaigns including Rep. Giffords' seat) "Don't retreat. Instead -- RELOAD!" imploring the public to visit her website which showed Rep. Giffords' district as one targeted for action with a rifle's crosshairs.

So, what are conservatives in general, and semi-Gov. Palin in particular, to do?

Exactly what they are doing now, and (not coincidentally) what I did back in 1972 when word of the Watergate nonsense first broke: Deny, Deny, Deny.  When those two pinko reporters first started writing about Watergate I made sure that everyone on my staff - from the Vice President to the guy who mopped the puke in the men's room - vehemently denied it. And just like I did then, the tea-people and republicans are feverishly and bravely denying any blame now.

The beauty is that it doesn't matter that the accusations are correct.  Sure, technically this Loughner guy was just one deranged individual acting on his own.  But one can't expect to shit the bed then be surprised that it stinks.  Of course all the violent, angry, belligerent, brutal, and confrontational bombast pouring from various republican candidates, tea-people websites and pamphlets, and conservative media is poisoning society and has created an atmosphere in which violence is inevitable.  There's no doubt!  One can't constantly refer to the opponent as anti-American traitors and terrorists; use images of guns, targets, bullets, and wanted posters in propaganda; or exhort supporters to take action using thinly veiled metaphors for attacking, warfare, and defending one's self from an enemy bent on destroying their freedom and then be surprised when some unstable geek decides to go on a shooting spree. 

The point is, so what?  Since when has the truth mattered, or since when do politicians or agitators accept responsibility for their behavior?  The only way this will stop is if the orthogonians do something about it, and they won't.  Because pandering to the most base level of fear, hatred, and paranoia works.

So it's important that the conservatives not only deny, but take the initiative.  After all, denial on it's own appears like an admission of guilt.  Therefore, one must try and turn the tables to implicate the other guy, because in politics, like football, the best defense is a good offense.  I turned the tables against all of my enemies by insinuating at every opportinuty that their crimes and malfeasance made anything for which I was accused of seem like swiping bubblegum from the corner market. And the right is doing the same thing now: not only audaciously scrambling to wrest victimhood from the hands of those who were actually shot, but pointing the finger right back at the left, claiming that the whole shooting is their fault.

In an artful bit of deflection, Rebecca Mansour, semi-Gov. Palin's aide, not only dismissed suggestion that Palin's belligerent behavior and combative rhetoric were related to the shooting, but that it was actually Palin who was the real victim in all this.  Mansour called any criticism of our plucky little reality television personality "obscene and appaling" implying how unfair and hurtful such claims are, and how deeply they are affecting the innocent and pure Sarah. Why, one can almost see our beloved Sarah plain-and-small laying face-down on her bed in a dimly lit room, clutching the skin of a bear she recently shot from a helicopter using a high-powered semi-automatic rifle equipped with a marksman's scope, softly weeping over how everyone is being so mean to her and paying all that attention to some stupid congresswoman (who wasn't even killed!).

It's enough to make a grown man need to take a moment to gather himself.

Nixon is: Impressed

Morning Constitutional

.
My fellow Americans,

One of the things I find most fascinating about political strategy is it's apparent paradoxical nature.  In almost every case, the more transparently mendacious, outrageously slanderous, and obviously patronizing a political accusation or statement is, the more likely it will be accepted by the orthogonians as being honest and sincere.  I've always intuitively known that and my instinct was confirmed in my first campaign back in 1946 agasint incumbent John Voorhis, in which I blatantly lied about his communist sympathies.  The more extreme my accusations were, the more the voters believed them. Needless to say, I won.

So, when I see as utterly ridiculous a stunt as the new tea-people in congress opening the session by reading the constitution, I have to applaud.  This is something even the most depraved Hollywood PR agent couldn't have dreamed up.  It's elegance lies in it's simplicity. On the surface, it seems innocent enough.  What could be more American than starting congress by reading the seminal document in American history?

And therein lies the pearl of aggressive genius.  By not only reading the constitution, but making it clear that it's never been done before in the entire history of the US government, it politicizes the act and allows the tea people to claim ownership of the constitution.  And so, ispo facto, they must be the only ones who are dedicated to it and to protecting America's freedoms and liberty.  The implication is clear: if the left truly believed in and supported the constitution, they would have done this a long time ago.  But they didn't.  Why?  The answer is obvious.  The left must consist of anti-American barbarians dedicated to overthrowing our freedoms.  After all, the devil doesn't read the bible.

The problem for the tea-people who want to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution is twofold.  First, there are the embarrassing little bits and pieces such as Article 1, section 2 and a few other not-very-flattering parts. Secondly, they also run the risk that reading the constitution in full may begin to awaken some curiosity in the minds of the public and spark the realization that some of their stated positions may not adhere to the spirit of the document (particularly in regards to application of the 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 16th amendments).  However, it's a pretty safe bet for the tea people that most Americans won't see through this clumsy stunt. The Great Silent Majority out there is far more interested in the sizzle than the steak.  Packaging, illusion, style over substance, hype - whatever you want to call it, the rubes in the heartland are persuaded by perception rather than reality, and by and large they are far too drunk or lazy to actually try and figure something out for themselves.  In that way the orthogonians are quite passive and will rarely question whether a pig is wearing lipstick or that someone is pissing on their shoes while calling it sweet summer rain. 

The only sad point in all of this is that no matter how hard they try, the tea-people will never be able to do as good a dramatic reading of the constitution as Capt. Kirk.

Nixon Approves

The Chosen People

.
My fellow Americans,

In what can only be labeled a cowardly attempt to kick me when I am unable to defend myself, the Democrats yesterday started squealing like a stuck pig alleging that I am an anti-semite because of a memo written by Fred Malek, a low-level lackey in my administration.

Let me be perfectly clear about this.  The American people deserve to know whether their president was an anti-semite.  Well,  I am not an anti-semite.  If I were, would I have had Henry Kissinger as my second in command - someone in whom I had the ultimate confidence, trust, and respect?  And let's face it, Henry's about as Jew as one could be.  He's what the Hebrews would call a real "Mensch" (which I think means either stand-up fellow or shrewd negotiator).  Heck, Henry is more a Jew than most rabbis out there.  And he's not the only Jew I knew.  Golda Meir was a friend of mine, and I had the distinct pleasure of being embraced by no less a Jew than Sammy Davis Jr.

Are these the pictures of an anti-semite?

The Democrats are basing their preposterous accusations on a few recently released memos attributed to this Malek guy.  Among them are one in which he supplied a list of people who he described as "ethnic" with "Jewish sounding names" for removal from their positions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Malek's role, overseen by Bob Haldeman, was to identify those within the Bureau who were pinko sympathizers, agitators, or otherwise hostile to the efforts of my administration.  Naturally, we wanted these men out.  But not because they were Jewish.  It was because they consistently misrepresented economic statistics with the sole intent of undermining my credibility and authority.  It's simply a matter of coincidence that these people were also Hebrews. Jew or not, I wanted men who were loyal.  And, in my experience, I have found that, overall, Jews can be among the most loyal people around.  I think it's something their mothers instilled in them (you know how big a role mothers play for Jews), and along with an instinctive understanding of calculating interest, this extreme loyalty is something in which those people can take justifiable pride.

Also, consider this: the individuals specified by Malek were accountants, economists, statisticians, and other financially-related professionals.  Do you honestly think that I could have ever replaced them with non-Jews?  So again, tell me, how on earth could I be a anti-semite if I replace a pinko Jew with a true patriotic, loyal Jew?  If anything, those who claim that republican Jews are less Jewish than democratic Jews sound like the true anti-semites here.

But none of this fools me.  Defamation and character assassination is the Nixon way, and I can smell a smear campaign from a mile away.  This whole thing is just a cheap hustle by the Democrats trying to use alleged anti-semitism to slander the republican candidates in the upcoming mid-term election. But once again, the democrats prove that they're pikers when it comes to dirty-campaigning.  Do they really think the Orthogonians would be sympathetic toward a pack of whiney, subversive, pointy-headed, intellectual Jews in the government?  What the democrats don't understand (or, what they simply refuse to acknowledge) is that while the rich folks may hate the poor folks, the catholics may hate the protestants, and the hindus may hate the mohammedans, everybody hates the Jews.

Nixon Disapproves

Here Comes The Judge

.
My fellow Americans,

President Obama has nominated his second Supreme Court Justice today, United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Now, selecting a Supreme Court Justice is almost entirely a political thing - pandering to your supporters and extending influence into the Judicial branch.  But it's also about paying off political loan sharks and balancing the books on unspoken deals made over handshakes and whispered promises. This was particularly true for me during my presidency.

You need to realize that getting nominated for president in 1968 was very different than today. There were only a handful of open primaries and most of the delegates needed in the convention were awarded through seedy deals made in small, dark rooms filled with sweaty men chomping on cigars, knocking back slugs of bourbon, and telling jokes about Jews and Blacks. These repulsive swine were small-minded men with selfish agendas who would deliver the necessary delegates but only if you agreed to repay at an astronomical vig.  I had to supplicate myself in front of these cheap hustlers, hat in hand, and make a lot of promises - particularly to a group of racist old ward-heelers from the south.  And when it came time for me to name my first supreme court justice, these yowling rednecks demanded repayment.

I knew that the sort of person a Klansman like Strom Thurmond wanted as Supreme Court Justice would be anathema to the rest of the country.  So, I would nominate a Bircher, Clement Haynsworth, or a repulsive hack like G. Harold Carswell, knowing full well that they would be rejected by the senate.  But the hayseeds and bumpkins couldn't complain, because I had tried to give them one of their own.  That was the Nixon way.  Game the system by following the letter of the agreement but not the spirit.

It's through that sort of prism we must view President Obama's recent nominee.  While he didn't have to face the degradation of kowtowing to a gang of ruthless thugs, he still had to make a pack of promises. So, which debt does Kagan pay off?

At first glance, Kagan seems to be a very shrewd choice to address the concerns of the Orthogonians in the middle of America.  A dowdy old lawyer with an all-American story of achieving success.  Since she's not a judge she has no track record of decisions that opponents can use against her. About the worst that could be said about her is that she seems very much a Franklin; a pointy-headed Dean of Harvard Law school who sits in an overstuffed leather chair, parsing out the subtleties and nuance of legal philosophy.

There is little doubt that she'll be confirmed.  The Democrats will force a vote before the mid-term elections, guaranteeing that they have the support needed to pass her through.  It's a safe pick with a safe strategy.

The thing is, however, Obama will have at least one more nomination before the 2012 election.  Justice Ginsburg is in ill health, and likely to retire after the next session.  Had I been in Obama's position, I would have made a more bold choice for this nominee, especially knowing I had the votes needed to confirm.  Save the safe pick for next year when you may need it.  Because from here on out, things will only get more contentious.  Particularly when/if he gets to replace one of the Raging Right: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, or Thomas.

That's when the real fun starts

 

Nixon is: Contemplative  

Mexican Standoff

.
My fellow Americans,

As the protests and reactions to anti-Illegal Immigrant legislation in Arizona continue to swirl the lawyers are now getting ready to argue whether or not the law is constitutional.  If you stop and think about it, the fact that a law making illegal immigrants illegal may itself be illegal is kind of ironic.

The actual legislation has plenty of problems, and is most likely going to be struck down by the courts. Not only does it appear that it will encourage institutionalized racial profiling, but the provision mandating investigation of immigration status seems to violate the protection against unwarranted search and seizure guaranteed by the 4th amendment, quite probably rendering the law unconstitutional.

But let’s be honest with ourselves.  This law was never really about addressing Illegal Immigration.  There are already more than enough laws about illegal immigration on the books. This law is about whipping the flag-sucking dunderheads into a frenzy by telling them that it’s necessary to protect our sovereignty.  It’s just a shiny piece of foil dangled in front of a group of retards.  It plays on their latent fears and draws their attention while letting them raise a righteous anger and drape themselves in patriotic slogans.  More than that, it assures them that things are not their fault.  It’s because of the other guy.  In other words, it’s another ploy to make the Orthogonians feel like they are being victimized.

And it’s as old as time itself.  The ancient Hittites would constantly complain about those un-cultured Assyrians.  The Romans used the Gauls as their whipping boy.  The Soviets would scapegoat the filthy and lazy Uzbeks.  And back in the 1800's we had the Irish and the Italians.  And now we have the Mexicans.

It’s a subtle political strategy I used throughout my political life. I knew that the boogeyman of communism is fine, but it’s a conceptual threat.  It’s not real. Not tangible.  So, I also used real scapegoats, like hippies and civil rights activists.  Real threats that the Silent Majority can see, hear, and smell.  And just like hippies and civil rights activists, Mexicans are a good release for the inherent Prejudice and Fear of the Orthogonians.  Someone real on whom we can blame all our problems.  The economy stinks?  Well it’s because the Mexicans are taking all the jobs.  Healthcare is broken?  It’s because the Mexicans are flooding the emergency rooms without paying.  Too many drugs?  It’s because the Mexicans are pushing dope.  Teen pregnancy?  Those hot-blooded Mexicans are sexing up our daughters.  Traffic? All the damn Mexicans on the roads.  Global warming?  Well, Mexicans eat a lot of beans, which causes them to fart, which increased greenhouse gasses.

You get the picture.

And it works. We conservatives have always been able to solidify our base by manufacturing a common enemy, then using it as a way to scare the feeble-minded into supporting us. It’s the political analogy of the second law of thermodynamics. In physics kinetic energy increases in proportion to entropy.  In politics, power increases in proportion with fear.

Which brings us back to the Arizona law.  This law was written with the 2010 mid-term elections in mind, and was intentionally designed to fail.  The Orthogonians out there waving their flags and shouting patriotic platitudes are just sheep, bleating along in their willful ignorance as they’re herded by the GOP.  And when this law is overturned the republicans intend to convert the anger of the rubes into votes against the liberals who coddle  immigrants.

Manipulation never goes out of style.  Because there will never be a shortage of nincompoops out there.

Nixon Approves

The Silence of the Dopes

.
My fellow Americans,

Today I’d like to take a moment to talk to all of you about silence.

Some say that silence is golden.  Others say it’s a virtue.  While still others claim it’s the best way to avoid confirming one’s idiocy in the mind of others.

It seems that someone on Semi-Governor Palin’s team must truly believe the latter, because our plucky little functionally retarded conservative crusader has been conspicuously absent from the news for the last week or so.

Which is strange, because this last week has seen a growing environmental disaster from the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, increasing agitation over Arizona’s illegal immigrant law, and an attempted terrorist car-bombing in New York’s Times Square.  And someone who wants to be taken seriously as a potential candidate for president dreams of exactly these sorts of situations, so they can capitalize on the opportunity to make the people see them as a strong, calm, and dependable leader.

Back in the mid 60’s, when I was carefully preparing my candidacy for the 1968 presidential election, there was no end to these opportunities.  Race riots were flaring up seemingly every weekend.  The war in Vietnam was beginning to become more and more a disaster.  The college kids were spreading subversion in the form of free love and drugs.  And whenever anything boiled over Nixon was there.  You didn’t see me running for cover like a frightened schoolgirl.  I was always ready to offer a word or advice or analysis, and this added a veneer of leadership to my persona that helped make the Orthogonians see me as slightly less unlikeable.

Unfortunately, these are also situations in which the less capable can destroy any aspirations they have, the way George Romney's presidential bid was ended after he muffed questions about Vietnam in '67.  And as we all saw from her unscripted interviews with Katie Couric, little Sarah-Plain-and-Small is perhaps the least capable public figure around.  In fact, having her speak would be inviting disaster.  I think, perhaps, that Sarah’s handlers realize that the best strategy is to keep her hidden. Her strength is name-calling and fear-mongering, not calm, measured reassurance.  Besides, what could she say?  That even though the Bush administration deregulation of oil companies she preaches in her "Drill, Baby, Drill!" sermons helped make the disaster in the gulf worse, opening the coasts for an orgy of speculation is still a good thing? Even worse, she would very likely burble something almost completely incoherent while winking at the camera like a boozed up skank at last call, desperate for a one-night stand.

So, perhaps in this case Sarah’s silence is a good idea.  Not only does it prevent us further confirming our suspicions about her idiocy, it also gives us all a good break from the Wasilla Half-Wit.

Nixon is: Ambivalent

Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming

. 
My fellow Americans,

I wanted to speak to you today, on the 40th anniversary of the unfortunate incidents that occurred on Kent State University.

Now, some have asked whether I feel any personal responsibility for what happened 40 years ago. To them I say that I wasn't the one who called in the agitators and militant demonstrators.  I wasn't the one who chose to violate the law by assembling in an illegal manner.  And I wasn't the one who provoked the National Guard.  The words I said then still apply today: when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.

Still there are some who continue to think that the actual cause of that event was the negative rhetoric I and other republicans used from the mid-60's through my election in 1968.  Well, if that’s true, then the entire political process should be held to scrutiny, because the very DNA of political campaigns is a tightly wound double helix of demonizing your opponent and exploiting the Terror and Outrage within the populace.

We republicans understand the power of Fear at a cellular level, which is why you’ll continue to hear our candidates portray the other guys as un-American monsters, who have nothing less in their hearts than the ultimate destruction of our Pure lifestyle.  It doesn’t matter if it was me in the late ‘60’s painting the intellectuals, civil rights activists and the anti-war faction as being a real and imminent threat to society, or today’s candidates snidely questioning Obama’s citizenship, or insinuating that Democrats will allow unwashed packs of wild-eyed muslim fanatics to rape our young boys then sell their spent carcasses for opium.  The game hasn’t changed.

But, as Kent State showed, it takes more than exploiting Fear.  Not only do you have to demonize the other side, you have to make sure that the Orthogonians are complicit in any actions taken to act on that Fear. Distort and lie. Create a fictive boogeyman to menace the security of the rubes, and portray yourself as the only one with either the ability or balls to stand up to it. Fear drives power much better than hope, and people will gratefully accept the most unthinkable atrocities if you scare them enough. After all, a few napalmed children or massacred students is a pretty cheap price to pay to protect a freezer full of TV dinners and a new patio set.  And just like an abusive alcoholic who beats his wife because she "made him do it," one must never forget to blame the victims.  Because, once the dust settles and the bodies are exposed, it’s critical that you assure the straights that those now suffering deserve their fate.  The National Guard would never have fired if those long-haired pinkos had just stayed home and relaxed in their barca loungers.

So, the next time you see one of those massive teabag rallies just remember that the politicians whipping up the Hysteria and Fear with their inflammatory speeches aren’t to blame. They’re just doing what politicians have done since the very beginning. No, the fault lies with the dimwits and cretins who believe all the paranoid gobbledygook about a secret socialist cabal within the government with plans to round up the white Christian men for service in salt mines, while the women are carted off to be pleasure toys for hyper-libidinous Arabs. After all, propaganda only works if the simpletons believe it. 

Nixon is: Sanctimonious

The Marching Morons

.
My fellow Americans,

Today I'd like to take a brief moment to open up to you about something that has really been chafing my hide: the annoying practice shown by the extreme right-wing elements (such as the tea people) to make it a point to portray President Obama being a socialist, only to then (often in the same breath, or in the same poster), associate him with Hitler.

Now, I know some of you may be wondering whether Nixon has gone soft. I want to make it absolutely clear that is not the case.  I know the value of painting someone with a brush of lies, and I support any and all efforts to that end.  But even within the libel, distortion, and blatantly outrageous defamation of a political campaign, there has to be at least a level of consistency in order to make them plausible.

So, this trend of simultaneously calling Obama both a Socialist and Fascist within one breath is not only grotesquely embarrassing, but also shows a stunning ignorance.

Here's a perfect example:

I'll just give you a moment to allow the utter idiocy of labeling an image of Obama with three Communist icons "Fascism" to sink in.

I know. The ignorance here is pretty alarming. How can Obama be both a Communist and a Fascist at the same time?  That's like saying he's both wet and dry. Communism and Fascism are a zero-sum game.  You're either one or the other.  Choose a side and stick with it.

Now, I know that I should be the bigger man in this case and just let it go.  But that's not the Nixon way.  I was never the bigger man. I based my entire political life on not being the bigger man, and making sure to exaggerate every irritant, offense, and inaccuracy no matter how insignificant or inadvertent.  In fact, I was the smallest man of all - which allowed me to be so effective in my slander, character assassination, and manipulation of the truth to whip the ignorant masses into a frenzy. Remember, I was the one who raised Communist-baiting and treasonous innuendo to an art form.  And, I think I know something of the difference between Communists and Fascists.

So, allow me to offer a quick primer to all of those morons out there who continue to remain confused, because it is pretty simple, actually.  Communists are extreme leftists.  Fascists are extreme rightists.  Left/Democrat = Communist.  Right/Republican = Nazi.  How people can be such blithering idiots as to mess that up astounds me, and leads me to wonder what sort of difficulty they have in putting on their shoes in the morning.  As a leftist, Obama should be portrayed as Stalin, Lenin, Che, or Castro.  And, as the counterpoint, rightists such as Sarah Palin should be portrayed as Hitler, Mussolini, or as a stormtrooper for the SS.

Besides, the whole idea of Obama as a Nazi simply flies in the face of reason.  Nazis are about racial, cultural, spiritual, and national purity.  So it's pretty asinine to portray a mulatto as the leader of such a movement.  No, the people who represent the Nazi ideals are those who preach hatred and intolerance of others - Birchers and reactionaries like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Jan Brewer.  A good Nazi wants to eliminate those who don't conform to their racial/cultural/religious standards (through imprisonment, deportment, or execution), not one who wants to open the borders to everyone or provide government-sponsored healthcare and assistance! To give a simple example, the Arizona anti-Illegal Immigrant law is fascist, while those amnesty laws would be Communist.

So painting Obama as Hitler is just stupid.  He is not Hitler.  Besides, do you think those fiercely conservative militias out there, with Swastikas and Nazi-inspired slogans and artwork decorating their remote clubhouses in the wilderness, and who preach their white power and anti-government liturgy want a black man as their figurehead?  Think about it.

It honestly makes me wonder about the intelligence of the right.

It's more and more apparent that people are simply not as well-educated today as they were even 20 years ago.  Particularly, I am ashamed to say, republicans.  Now I know that we republicans were always less intelligent than democrats - but that gap is widening.  And with every day and every new display of right-wing propaganda that gap is more and more evident. Of course I realize that when trying to get the support of the Orthogonians one has to dumb things down considerably.  Aiming for a 5th grade education is about correct for the dingbats and nitwits who make up the republican base.  But even then, one doesn't have to be Sarah Palin and go full retard.  You can still hit the lowest common denominator while maintaining simple factual accuracy.  The accusations of Obama being a socialist are perfect for the nincompoops out there who have no idea what socialism actually is (i.e. the tea people).  And while the claim that Obama is a socialist is obviously false, at least it falls within a broadly appropriate tautological application.

The worst part is that this whole confusion of Socialist, Communist, and Fascist makes us (the real and true republicans) seem just as stupid as the tea people.  And Nixon can not abide that.

Nixon Disapproves

Tradition

.
My fellow Americans,

The dog days of the 2010 mid-term election are starting to really heat up.  The normal sniping and random shots across the DMZ have started to become coordinated and targeted.  Individuals are being pointed out, names are being called, accusations raised, and challenges leveled.

I love the smell of politics in the morning.

Yesterday, the NRCC (National Republican Campaign Committee) fired a shot across the DNC’s bow by claiming that they were “playing the race card from the bottom of the deck” because they (the Democrats) are working to bring out the minorities to vote in November.   The sheer balls of that statement is bewildering!  And, very gratifying to this old race-baiter.

Now, you have to understand that using race as a campaign strategy is an exceedingly delicate proposition. Back in 1966 when I was laying the foundation for my presidential run in ’68, I saw that the nation was ripe for using race as a tool to stoke the fires of Dread and Revulsion burning in the hearts of white people. Had I tried this in either ’64 or ’65 I would have been flogged like a heretic in the Inquisition. Just look at what happened to Goldwater and his cadre of Birchers and segregationists. But by 1966 race riots had been popping up in cities all over, and the radicals like Stokeley Carmichael had begun to give the equal rights movement a bad name.  The glow of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act had vanished as white people started to feel as if the minorities were ungrateful for all that was done for them. The tide was turning and the Orthogonians just needed a spark to come alive.

 

And I was there, manipulating the deepest and most vile nightmares of Joe Sixpack and Sally Lunchpail.  The Franklins snickered at me, saying that people were sophisticated enough to realize that the unrest within the minority population was due to economic inequalities and entrenched social injustice.  They scoffed at the notion that white people would quiver in terror over the idea of integrating schools.  They mocked the idea that folks would be so gullible as to fall for such obvious and depraved tactics as preying on the myth of hulking Negro men defiling the flower of pure white innocence.

I love it when Franklins underestimate me.  My instincts were true.  The Orthogonians are sheep, easily led by exploiting their most primitive fears, and before you knew it the feeding frenzy was on.  The result was that Republicans had won the day in the ‘66 elections on the back of pure and unsoiled racial fear.

Now, as then, my fellow Republicans are turning to race, just as they have whenever things looked bleak over the past 40 years.  And once again the time is right.  Just look around: the bigotry, hatred, and prejudice among the right is close to boiling over.  Teabaggers are flaunting the same segregationist KKK slogans we used so skillfully in the 60’s – only more artfully disguised.  Propagandists are working overtime to insinuate ethnic causes for problems around the country.  And the disgust among conservatives regarding a non-white president is mouthwatering to someone clever enough to channel that Anger and Loathing for their own use.

So, the strategy of the NRCC attempting to whip up some reaction among white people by painting the Democrats as racist for working to get out the minority vote is the sign of returning to the tried and true – much the way a dog returns to his vomit.  And of course it doesn’t matter that it’s absolutely prima facie absurd.  In politics (like advertising) perception is reality.  It helps that the Orthogonians already believe these things. They just need someone to verbalize the lie to justify their hate and soothe their nascent consciences, so they can go out and act on their instinctive racism.  And trust me when I tell you that there are more of them than there are of you.

It’s nice to see that the Hebrews aren't the only ones with a sense of tradition.

Nixon is: Energized

All the Tea in China

.
My fellow Americans,

I'm not unfamiliar with protest movements.  I've had to endure groups of smelly, unwashed, communist-influenced, sign-waving malcontents for almost my entire political life. So naturally I am pleased as punch to see the right muster a similar movement, complete with frothing-at-the-mouth hysterics and semi-literate troglodytes whipped into blind rage at a liberal President.

I love the fact that these inbred nincompoops are out there holding racist, hate-filled signs, threatening violence and irritating the liberals.  But most of all I love how they've adopted the Nixon way of creating and spreading the biggest and most outrageous lies possible. I built my political life on telling ghost stories about communists lurking in corners, so it warms my heart that these savage dimwits have chosen to resurrect socialism as their monster, and I admit to an admiration of the sheer audacity of this strategy.

Now, of course the whole complaint of these Tea people is completely baseless.  President Obama is no more a socialist than Eisenhower or I were.  The yelping and gnashing of teeth at this health care reform is a clever ruse to hide the real cause of anger, because even these Tea Bag nitwits understand that the health care reform is really no more socialist than Medicare, Social Security, the National Parks system, the CDC, or the money the federal government spends on schools, roads, and protection.  No, the real burr in the saddle of these Tea people is the fact that Obama is a mulatto.  After all, it's not a coincidence that the whole Tea Bag movement is filled with conservative, middle-aged, viagra-popping, xenophobic white men.

The danger, however, is to the Republican Party as a whole.  This Tea Bag thing is a tricky issue.  The GOP needs to keep the extreme reactionary lunatics happy, but can't risk alienating the vast, moderate Orthogonians out there.  Embracing the Tea people, with their racist anger and violent tendencies, could turn off the rational center of the country.  On the other hand, denouncing them as fanatical bigots could trigger a George Wallace type of candidate in 2012.

It's a tightrope for the GOP.  But before the hammer falls the sight of this group of wild-eyed waterheads shouting about socialism brings a nostalgic warmth..

Nixon is: Amused

Send In the Clowns

.
My fellow Americans,

I don’t need to tell you that political campaigns are built on equal parts mendacity, pandering, and charisma.  But for some reason I’ve always had difficulty with that last bit.  Inexplicably, people just weren’t attracted to the Nixon charm. Children would cry whenever they saw me and my campaign managers would constantly remind me to never smile because of the intense feeling of distaste it caused.  Even Pat said that while she loved me, she really didn’t like me at all. 

This wasn’t a problem at first, because I was able to insinuate myself with the rest of the Orthogonians out there and deflect attention from myself through the use of communist boogeymen.  However, in 1960 it became an issue, and by 1966 it was a crisis.  So I did what so many successful politicians did: I hired a joke-writer. Two years later, I was elected the 37th president of the United States.

 
Since then, the charisma thing has elected five of the last six presidents: Carter was the naïve aw-shucks innocent, Reagan played the wisecracking game-show host, Clinton was the suave party-guy, W was the folksy dullard, and Obama is the earnest visionary.  So, it’s not really any surprise that potential candidates for 2012 are already honing their acts.  The one who has the biggest head-start has to be Sarah Palin, trying a Reagan-Bush hybrid of mean-spirited folksiness and one-liners. 

Her speeches are nothing more than a collection of sardonic insults and precisely calculated “zingers” designed to create a persona and give the fawning crowds something to wildly applaud.  Oh, there’s no doubting it’s effective, but it’s also very hollow and at the end of the day, unsatisfactory.  One gets the feeling that Sarah Palin will wear out her welcome very quickly  – sort of like that “Wild and Crazy Guys” thing SNL used to do.  Because gags and insults will only get you so far.  At some point you have to serve some meat to go with all the appetizers.  And the danger for her is that Sarah Palin is quickly becoming nothing more than a warm-up act.  A one-dimensional, insult-spouting MC that whips the faithful into a frenzy, but who then cedes the stage for the main attraction.

Look, when I was unveiling the new, likable Nixon I did the whole Bob Hope thing too, shooting one-liners at people like LBJ.  But I also included a lot of self-mocking gags, and in the end I had the gravitas that comes with experience and knowledge behind me.  Sure, people enjoyed my jokes, but they also knew that with Nixon it was all-business.  Palin gives the opposite feeling.  People look at her and just know that there is absolutely nothing behind her makeup.  Take away her joke-writers and all you have is a nasal-voiced, intolerant nincompoop.

That seemed to work okay for Reagan and W, but at least with me you knew there was more than just a friendly face.

Nixon is: Smug

God Hates You (and Jesus thinks you're ugly)

.
My fellow Americans,

I’ve never been a fan of prostituting my religion for political gain.  It’s always seemed to me to be the most base, vile, and repulsive way to pander to the rubes.  I always preferred aligning myself with the Orthogonians; exploiting the latent racist and xenophobic fear of the people through insinuations and implied threats.  My bread-and butter was always to side with the average stupid and lazy American by claiming that the other guy doesn't understand them, and is actively threatening the safe, soft, middle-class lifestyle of the people.  It worked because Joe Six-Pack and Sally Lunchpail will always be terrified at the thought of communist takeover, or by the horror of filthy, dope addicted hippies overthrowing the nation and raping the women.

So, whenever I see current politicians try to bring God into things, I naturally shudder.  But it’s become the trendy choice for politicians today.  Oh, they don’t come right out and say they are chosen by God – that would be not only too much an ostentatious display of arrogance (on par with the patronizing air of the East Coast elite Franklins), but also just feel too Jewish.  No, the politicians have come up with a much more sinister way of linking themselves with God’s favor.

Whenever asked about a possible candidacy, or about strategy, policy, or position on the issues, the politician will now answer that they have prayed on it, or are waiting for God to provide guidance.  The logical conclusion being that whatever the candidate then does is not only sanctioned, but ordained by the Big Cheese, and thus beyond question or criticism.

I admit, I admire the subtlety of this strategy.  Not only does it convey divine blessing, but has the added bonus of hinting that The Supreme Being isn’t a fan of the other guy.  Yet despite it's advantages, it still isn’t right for me.  I much prefer rolling up my sleeves and diving into the cesspool of slander and calling someone's personal integrity into question.  It would have been easy for me to prey on the fear of subservience to the Vatican by hinting at a Roman Catholic president kissing the Pope’s ring.  But seeing as how it depends too much on the voters being very stupid, easily manipulated, and prone to outbursts of righteous violence, religious exploitation will never be as effective as us-vs.-them tactics. 

Except in the South, that is.

Nixon is: Not Impressed

Presidents' Day

.
My fellow Americans,

Monday is "Presidents' Day."  I'm not sure I like the idea of having only one day stand for every president.  It seems it gives too much credit to those that are unworthy.  After all, one could argue that while some presidents deserve special recognition (like Teddy Roosevelt, or Rutherford B Hayes), others ought to have their graves exhumed and their bones ground into paste for use as a salve for shingles (I'm looking at you, Grover Cleveland!).

Why should I, the president who opened the door to China and faced down Leonid Brezhnev, share a day with some spoiled pretty boy whose greatest accomplishment was spouting off some grade-school German?  You didn't see me in South Vietnam saying something silly like "I am a Saigoner" in whatever bloop-bloop way those people have of speaking. I never could get the hand of that language like Henry did.  It was too hard on my Quaker tongue.  Now French, that's a Language for me.  Sure, it makes you feel a little fruity when speaking it, but it's a good language.  A clean language.  A republican language.

But no, the country loved that Rum-Running sonofabitch's kid. Even though I was the one who nailed that pinko Alger Hiss.  I was the one who went toe-to-toe with the Soviets.  I had to clean up the mess in Indochina.  I had to deal with that insane demagogue in Havana.  I had to put my foot down and keep those smelly hippies in line.  I did all the hard work, while that playboy got by on looks and that goddamn Harvard accent.  I didn't have daddy to clear my path through life.  I had to do it on my own - working in my father's grocery store in Yorba Linda.  You know ... an Orthogonian, like the rest of you ...

All I ask is while you're drinking your Gin & Tonics, to give a little thought to how much you're all missing.  After all, you don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

 

Nixon is: Angry