About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Enough with the foolish Obama/Nixon comparisons

October 21, 2009 10:12 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Lots of media Villagers are suggesting that the White House's public push back against Fox news, which consists entirely of publicly criticizing the cable channel's brand of faux journalism, is just like when Richard Nixon was president, declared war on his enemies (including news outlets), and used the full power of the federal government to exact his bouts of revenge.

That any semi-serious journalist would so casually compare Obama to Nixon because the Democratic doesn't like the openly partisan programming on Fox News is just embarrassing. (Did I mention Nixon illegally used the federal government to target his media foes?)

But Beltway pundits don't care. They think Obama is just like Nixon because Obama's aides have an opinion about wildly dishonest coverage from Fox News.

-"White House war on Fox: Echoes of Nixon-Agnew" [Baltimore Sun]

-"The White House's effort to target a news organization like Fox is vaguely Nixonian." [Commentary]

-"It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst." [Washington Post]

-"Two-and-a-half years into the Nixon presidency, White House Special Counsel Chuck Colson compiled a twenty person "enemies list"...It looks like the Obama administration is off to a head start." [Foxnews.com]

For a real taste of what a twisted character Nixon was, and specifically how he really did declare war on news outlets he didn't like, the recent documentary Inventing LA: The Chandler Family and Their Times is a good place to start. The film, which recently aired on PBS, takes a look at the Chandler family and how they transformed both the Los Angeles Times and the city of Los Angeles throughout the 21st Century.

One of the most interesting nuggets contained in the documentary, as it detailed the newspaper's often contentious relationship with California native Richard Nixon, was a tape recording of a telephone call between Attorney General George Mitchell and Nixon, who was giving out orders to target members of the left-leaning Chandler family, whom Nixon despised [emphasis added]: 

Nixon: I want you to direct the most trusted person you have in the immigration service, that they are to look at all of the activities of the Los Angeles Times. All, underlined, to see if they are violating the wetback thing. let me explain because as a Californian I know.

Everyday in California hires them ["wetbacks"]. There's no law against it because they are there. Because for menial things and so forth. [Times publisher] Otis Chandler, I want him checked with regards to his gardener. I understand he's a wetback.

We are going to go after the Chandlers. Every one. Individually, collectively. Their income taxes. They're starting this week. Everyone of those sons of bitches, is that clear?

Mitchell: Yes, sir.

Nixon: Do it. Give me a report.

Mitchell. Very well, sir.

Yes, that was the U.S. Attorney General being told by the President of the United States, to sic federal agents on private citizens because Nixon wanted to settle some scores with prominent journalists.

That's how a real enemies list works. By contrast, having senior members of the Obama White House publicly air their critiques of a cable channel doesn't even compare. That is self-evident. But lots of media elites like the sound of the Nixon/Obama comparison, so expect more chatter about it, regardless of how idiotic the rhetoric is.

UPDATED: Right on cue, Republicans today push the Nixon "enemies list" meme. We'll see if anyone in the press bothers to fact check the historically false comparison.

UPDATED: Politico, covering Sen. Lamar Alexander's "enemies list" speech today, passes on providing any historical context. But good news! Politico did reprint Alexander's speech, in its entirety (all 37 paragraphs), under the auspice that it's "news."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Cannonball (October 21, 2009 10:28 am ET)
      5 1
      It's not just poor journalism, it is proof that the Washington Post and some other print media are as bad as Fox. They have no compunction concerning using such a biased slant in supposedly straight news reporting. They word choice, the sarcasm, the allusions are all purposefully designed for a negative slant. That is the style of Fox News and why it is not a legitimate news channel, but is instead a conservative propoganda tool. I think the Washington Post is no different.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (October 21, 2009 10:30 am ET)
      6  
      Nixon specifically threatened the broadcast licenses of his critics. Obama's people merely criticize stuff like this.

      The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)

      Fox distortions

      In March, Fox News's Martha MacCallum presented a clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" -- and presented it as from an interview that weekend. In fact, the clip came from a 2008 campaign event at which Biden was quoting Sen. John McCain.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 21, 2009 10:40 am ET)
      6  
      It is okay to compare Obama to Nixon because Nixon is one of the many disgraced Republicans that fell from GOP graces, so to evoke his name and Obama's will only further their support among the base. Nixon is a political curse, and the conservatives are trying to frame Obama and the corruption of the Nixon administration together... why else mention Agnew too?

      ---------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (October 21, 2009 11:11 am ET)
        7 1
        To them, it's a great way to portray Nixon as some kind of anomaly amongst Republicans. It's especially amusing when they attempt to turn Nixon into a victim of his manipulative inner circle.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (October 21, 2009 11:12 am ET)
        6 1
        I agree here, it might backfire. That's how desperate The Heritage Foundation and the Rove Rangers are.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ToddK_Chicago (October 21, 2009 11:14 am ET)
      4  
      And here is another compliments of Reuters -- I had no idea what to make of this and my jaw just dropped that this was even a news item: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/pl_nm/us_washington_summit_politics_enemies

      "Senator Lamar Alexander told Reuters he has begun to see the Obama White House adopting an attitude similar to that of the Richard Nixon White House four decades ago, that "everybody is against us and we are going to get them."

      Alexander cited as examples the Obama administration's suggestion that it may support stripping the insurance industry of its exemption of federal anti-trust laws, its clash with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the president saying he will call out people who oppose him and boycott Fox News network."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Truthseeker37 (October 21, 2009 11:50 am ET)
      4  
      Faux News is not an actual NEWS outlet. It's like banning The Daily Show, except John Stewart & Co. actually do report facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (October 21, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
      4  
      seems the villagers have this obsession with comparing Obama to every president of the 20th century. Every one.
      For a week he is Carter, then he is just like Nixon then like Harding, ect., ect.
      They are always saying he is like another president expect for one: #44. Obama is never allowed to be just like Obama.
      They never allow him to be known for or judged just for himself.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (October 21, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
      5  
      Plus they always seem to forget: Nixon was their guy. So was McCarthy - another comparison they like to try to make.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foresyte (October 21, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
        3  
        And is it just me, or isn't Beck just like McCarthy?

        I would love to see him publicly humiliated, but what could possibly embarrass that slug that he wouldn't be able to spin into some form of martyrdom?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Tbone Slickens (October 21, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
      1 7
      Well, we know the Clinton's collected info (illegally) from the FBI on prominent Republicans and you can bet the Obama admin is doing the same sort of opposition collection.

      Enemies lists

      I'm not so concerned with the list as I'm concerned with our Party Prez. He's done 23 fundraisers in seven months. By comparison, Bush did 6 in his first seven. How much has that PARTY cost the American tax payer?

      Rock on people!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (October 21, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        6  
        Assuming that were true it would kind of make you regret giving the president all of those warrantless wiretapping powers, huh?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (October 22, 2009 8:28 am ET)
            1
          Ah...the warrantless wiretaps that Obama has expanded? Seems Obama is totally on board with it!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        8 1
        Let's see, the Clinton Filegate controversy was investigated by Ken Starr in regards and in connection with the Whitewater investigation, and guess what Ken old boy found? Nothing illegal took place in regards to the alleged Filegate:

        "The matter was investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, who found in 2000 that there was no criminal activity by anyone in the matter,[7] and that there was no credible evidence that senior White House figures or the First Lady had requested the files or had acted improperly or testified improperly regarding Livingstone's hiring.[7]"

        "On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated both President Clinton and the First Lady of complicity in the FBI files matter, saying "while there are outstanding issues that we are attempting to resolve with respect to one individual [we] found no evidence that anyone higher [than Livingstone or Marceca] was in any way involved in ordering the files from the FBI. Second, we have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose."[22] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Travelgate matter, and to say that he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[23])"

        From: Wikipedia entry on Filegate.

        So I guess we can dispense with that little matter right? Or is this something that Clinton did, even though he was exonerated by the most rabid Clinton hater out there (Ken Starr) in this matter, and the final report also exonerated any criminal wrongdoing in this matter. But just another fairy tale that you guys like to believe happened, but actually didn't.

        And as far as Obama's enemies list, what a bunch of BS as well. The link you posted was basically a wide and varied "guess" at Obama's so called enemies list, and as seeing as how nothing has happened at all to the most rabid of Obama's critics, I'd say, again, BS on the enemies list.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (October 22, 2009 8:40 am ET)
            2
          Just because Ken ol' Boy didn't find anything doesn't mean anything illegal took place.

          Let's review the facts. Clinton requested background checks of everyone in the complex (as is his rite) but the administration failed to purge the names of the obvious Republicans, no Democrats, just the Republicans.

          That is some coincidence!

          It takes a huge leap of faith to say there was nothing there (but you keep hiding behind the lawyer) and don't forget to pick up the Rose Law Firm billing records that just "showed" up in the most protected house in the country!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
            1  
            What it means is that you can't legitimately throw out that accusation. The accusation was already thrown out there, and was debunked.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 21, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
        6  
        Well, we know the Clinton's collected info (illegally) from the FBI on prominent Republicans
        We know nothing of the sort. Any illegalities were investigated by a group of people with a $70 million budget, and all they could find was a BJ that wasn't even illegal.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (October 21, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
      6 1
      The most corrupt administrations in US History have been republican ones.

      Nixon
      Reagan/Bush I
      BushII/Cheney should be on the list but they so corrupted the DoJ they got out of office before they could be indicted. Little Georgie would only answer questions with Cheney by his side.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Meatsauce (October 21, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
          4
        What color is the sky in your world?

        And how can you forget about Spiro?


        Report Abuse
        • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 21, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
          2  
          It's blue, like most of the states.

          And he was forgetting the Grant and Harding administrations. Also Republican, needless to say.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Meatsauce (October 21, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
      2 4
      I'm just here wondering if Media Matters will issue a statement and apology to Hannah Giles for calling her and her associate liars.

      The new video proves they were there for over 30 minutes, got advice, and made an appointment for housing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg

      I wonder where the police report came from?

      And Obama, by all ugly appearances; seems to be using Nixon's playbook.

      This site will always be one big left wing joke but I'm sure you lot are proud of yourselves.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by khacha (October 21, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
      1 3
      You are absolutely correct! Nixon is an unfair example! President Obama's behavior is more Mussoliniesque.

      With a smidge of Erich Honeker thrown in.........
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Buckeye Nut Schell (October 22, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
      1  
      What is amazing to me is the Bush Administration practically hired all of Nixon's staff and the comparison to Nixon was "Off Limits" only for tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Obama legitimately says that Fox News is not a "real" news agency because they have an agenda and suddenly the Nixon comparisons are news worthy? Where is that so called "Librul" media now?
      Report Abuse