Frost/Nixon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw6LhKCYUCQ

I recently saw Ron Howard's "Frost/Nixon" and was wondering if you've seen it too. I thought the actor who played Nixon (Frank Langella) was pretty poor, mostly mumbling and quasi-senile emotional. His facial and gesture acting were better. I guess they had to make it true to the play, but I don't know why they can't have Nixon talk like a normal person (which he did mostly) instead of the caricatured style he's now famous for. "I am not a crook (flabby cheeks flapping and hands raised giving the 'V for victory')!" I thought Anthony Hopkins was an awesome Nixon in Olliver Stone's "Nixon" from the 1990s; wish they could have brought him back.

They made the film too much like "A Few Good Men" with a big, dramatic "gotcha" moment (a sign of the times I'm sure), but I guess they had to spice up the interviews beyond their original, dry 12-hour form containing mostly heavy political dialogue. Though I did like the theme of how Nixon, so tortured by the fact that he never won the public approval/love that he so craved (in fact he alienated his public), and desperate to restore his honor, grew tired of the incessant denying, blame-shifting, and making excuses for everything. Even if it wasn't the politically intelligent thing to do, he needed to confess and level with the American people (and his soul). The last scene of the film (his revelation) was so over-the-top that I had to see the real interview footage for myself to cut through the BS (sorry it's not on YouTube though). Fortunately the DVD contained some of that material, and I was amazed at the similarities (when you strip away the Hollywood excesses). A shell of his former self, slow and contemplative, with distant eyes and heavy heart, he literally said that he was to blame, he let down his friends and the American people, and most importantly, our system of government - and he'd have to live with that for the rest of his life. I couldn't believe what I saw. I can't imagine a modern politician or CEO doing something even as remotely honest as that. With the Bushies, Clinton, or others, it's always "mistakes were made", "well I can't really comment on that," "we had only the best intentions", etc. The only ones who ever admit to anything are the stupid adulterers who cry in front of the cameras and tell their families and voters that they're sorry - after they repeatedly denied it and only concede once the evidence/public opinion is overwhelming, of course.

But getting back to Nixon, he really was a living Greek tragedy. Strangely I found myself rooting for him in the movie vs. Frost, even though I knew he must fold at the end for this to be a movie. He wanted those interviews to be a vindication of his actions and restoration of his legacy (and maybe even a springboard back into Washington life), and for much of the film he deftly responded to Frost's novice and weak critiques against him with misdirection, irrelevant long-winded tangents, and party-line cliches. I mean, Nixon verbally sparred with JFK, Mao, and Brezhnev; surely he could handle Frost if he wanted to. For a pure SOB and the king of deception, Tricky Dick, to be barely prodded by Frost and mostly of his own accord, rationally admit to the world that he lied, broke the law, and dishonored his office, could be one of the greatest accomplishments of his life, beyond starting the EPA, opening dialogue with China, and detente with the USSR. I guess that is a sad reflection of our times when it's such an amazing feat for a leader to admit wrongdoing long after the fact. America loves a redemption story, and of course Nixon never got that far, but living in today's cynical, insulting-of-our-intelligence political climate, it is a breath of fresh air to see a criminal admit to us, and more importantly himself, what he is. Even if he escaped jail time and other official punishments, one of the largest abusers of presidential power (maybe only behind Lincoln, but of course he had a bigger excuse) served his penance the day he put pen to paper to relinquish the throne of the most powerful person in the world.

NIXON: When a president does it that means it is not illegal (yes, he actually said that, and not on one of his secret tapes).

.......

FROST: Is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?

NIXON: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

Compare that to Bush and his War on Terror. The only difference is that Bush won't admit that he has exceeded the Constitution, and in fact his team of lawyers seek to reinterpret it. Wartime/national security is always the excuse. Yes, surely waterboarding Osama's driver or tapping my cell phone without a warrant, just like breaking into the DNC offices at Watergate a generation earlier, is essential to the preservation of the Republic. 30 years later, the American people, our system of justice, and our leaders are still wrestling with Nixon's shadow.

---------

i haven't seen the movie but it's funny how you see nixon compare to how i perceive nixon. i was home sick with mono when the watergate investigations were going on(i was only 10 at the time). nixon was the image of the old guard, the previous way of thought left behind along with solving problems with killing. but, was i wrong, but that perception of him stays with me. now, LBJ, he seemed like a tragic figure to me. still does....

---------

I don't know how the Beltway operates these days, but I would hope that Nixon's brand of paranoid "nemesis politics" is over. I guess under Bush II, dissenters were cast out into the wilderness and Kerry was swift-boated, but it's not like Bush was using the PATRIOT Act to nail his political enemies, so far that we know. Well, I guess he didn't have to, since 9/11 solidified his job security, the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't until Nov. 2006, and most of Bush's enemies were foreigners. Heh, instead of ex-CIA whack-job plumbers, it seems these days the GOP uses 527 groups and Faux News Channel to do its dirty work.

It's funny how Nixon's people railed against the "liberal establishment" at the time, maybe sowing the seeds for today's right-wing media. As if the NYT and Hollywood were conspiring to help the Viet Cong and foment campus unrest. Nixon often gave the excuse that he abused his power because the nation was in a civil war. Well maybe inside his mind, but he never tried to "bring people together" like our current president seeks to do. Maybe someone like Nixon was more comfortable in conflict. He was always so awkward with the American public, yet craved their approval. Maybe he found his element while negotiating with other SOBs like Kissinger, Mao, and Brezhnev.

At least Nixon didn't use his position to get rich and get his friends rich at the expense of the nation, at least not that I know of. He did use his position to help kill millions of poor people and topple their governments if there was a trace of leftist inklings, but so did many Cold War presidents. Like Obama, Nixon inherited a country at war and struggling with the tensions of a changing population/culture. Let's hope BHO handles our current crisis/opportunity better than Nixon.

---------

Two of your comments stand out in my mind, but probably because I'm thinking of all the modern portrayals of Nixon in popular culture:


"America loves a redemption story, and of course Nixon never got that far..."
"He was always so awkward with the American public, yet craved their approval."


Oliver Stone's "Nixon" really emphasizes those two points in the way Nixon is depicted in the portrayal of the 1960 election: Hopkins' Nixon is anxious, sweaty, and awkward and goes down in flames in the televised debate; he cries to Pat about how the public just won't love him. Even Hunter S. Thompson (who wrote "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in '72" and hated Nixon with a passion) conceded that the only time he found Nixon to be even remotely congenial was when they discussed college football on a train ride between campaign stops where HST was (somehow) granted an interview.


When I think about the fact that Nixon was an admirer of Henry J. Kaiser's healthcare experiment in California I'm left to think that Nixon was simply "too weird to live, too strange to die"...

Goldman & Chrysler get aid but not CIT?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_cit_0717jul17,0,1042812.story?track=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17factor.html?_r=1&ref=business
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/16/pm_cit/
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/17/news/companies/goldman_sachs_tarp_ingratitude.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest

Politicians often laud the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans and claim to be supporters of "small businesses" at the core of this economy. Small businesses need a lot of credit (payroll, raw materials, etc. until sales revenues come in), and many of them fail. So interest rates on them can be fairly high if they patronize traditional banks. That's where CIT (Commercial Investment Trust) comes in. For over 100 years, that company has collected private investment money and in turn loaned it out to small businesses at more reasonable rates. They have over 1M clients and $40B worth of loans, from Dunkin' Donuts franchises to Eddie Bauer to Dillard's to Wal-mart subcontractors. They are on the Fortune 500 and service 80% of the Fortune 1,000, so it's not like they're a podunk community S&L.

Last year, Bush made his case for Wall Street and big bank rescue based on the fact that credit is the lubricant that keeps the gears of our economy rolling. CIT has already received $2.3B of TARP funds, but may need another $3-6B to stay afloat (they asked for $2B yesterday but were rejected by the Obama administration). Credit raters and analysts have already written CIT off as a dead man walking, and the company has lost $3B over the last 2 years. Maybe the company is doomed, and most of us on this email list are against "panic bailouts" to rescue "necessary" players in our economy. CIT is not too big to fail, but its credit services are crucial to retail commerce, and retail needs to rebound if we are to have a real economic recovery. So what do you do? Well, what has Uncle Sam done in the recent past?

Goldman Sachs, an investment bank (before it became a bank holding company to qualify for TARP), received a $10B bailout and government backing of its debt. Whether they desperately needed the money like AIG or BofA is doubtful, but their industry was in free-fall at the time. Did I mention that Goldman was the #2 corporate contributor to the Obama campaign, and gave plenty to Bush, Clinton, and other elite politicians too. Months later it returned its TARP portion of course (on its own accord, not due to government requests), in order to break free of executive compensations limits and other factors. Goldman also posted a huge $3.4B profit in Q2 2009, and analysts expect the company to doll out huge compensation bonuses to those responsible (mostly their fixed income division dealing with currency/commodities trading). Can't you just hear "The Boys are Back in Town" song playing? But now Goldman finds itself in a very different millieu. It's rivals Merrill, Bear, and Lehman, that invested much more heavily in toxic mortgage-backed securities to their own peril, are no more. In fact Goldman poached a lot of talent from those firms in the last half year, and now finds itself the dominant investment house on Wall Street, and they are going to be kicking ass despite this recession and however long it lasts. Less competition and mostly steady demand for their services means they can increase costs (and profits, obviously). So why can't the government give part of Goldman's returned cash to guarantee some of CIT's loans to worthy clients? Obviously they are in great shape and won't need another bailout.

Chrysler is not critical to the national economy, no matter how you slice it. Chrysler reported 58,000 employees in 2008, which is 1/6 the size of Target Corp. They were literally in the grave by the time they filed for Chapter 11 and Fiat took one for the team. As part of the bankruptcy settlement, Chrysler is guaranteed up to $8B US and 4B Canadian dollars (from the gov't of Ontario) in loans, on top of the $4.5B given in 2008 by the Bush crew. That is way more than what CIT is asking for, and those dollars won't go as far. But many Chrysler factories and their unions are very important to various Midwest Congressmen, as well as it's "sentimental value" in the American manufacturing landscape, so I guess they are worthy of rescue.

But not CIT, even though losing them would significantly impact already struggling retail and small business credit sectors. There wasn't enough credit to go around for small business needs before CIT took a nose dive, so if they fail it will get much worse. Desperate small businesses will need to turn to the Big Banks and Wall Street sharks for credit, and will pay dearly for it. Since many small business owners are emotionally and personally invested in their professions, they may go to irrational lengths to keep their life's dream going despite all their red ink. Droves of such desperate borrowers are a banker's wet dream. That tells you how bad the credit market still is when underwriters are still hesitant to loan to such small businesses, even at highway-robbery 20% monthly interest rates. Big banks even have loan vehicles where a small business owner can put his/her retirement account down as collateral. They really smell blood. So much for government reforms to protect borrowers.

It's not like CIT deserves its fate due to incompetence and greed. It was not heavily into the subprime mess. It had a tiny home mortgage arm that it is currently selling, but the core of its business was small-to-medium business loans. The problem is Wall Street investment in CIT is just drying up because investors are clutching their purses tightly in this recession, and as I said, small businesses often go under (especially now). Yet maybe CIT is "too big to fail" anyway; they are 60% of their market. They loan to 2,000 manufacturers that supply 300,000 retailers (60% of apparel makers). It's not like goods just magically appear on store shelves. Even large retailers usually don't own factories and make the goods they sell. It's not efficient. Suppliers/distributors need to be paid, and CIT facilitates that. We often hear of the "ripple effect" that losing a big auto company would have on our country (parts, mechanics, dealerships). Well losing CIT is a Maverick's wave compared to auto's ripple. I don't want to sound alarmist; it's not like CIT will disappear overnight. Parts of the company may be chopped up and sold. But for its core lending function, why can't the government guarantee those loans or even assume CIT's role (temporarily)? It's already sitting on GM's board for Pete's sake. The Federal Reserve has already broken tradition and become a direct lender to commercial banks. I think the government is doing something similar for college loans. Why can't they step in and use some of the TARP billions to support the small businesses that they constantly invoke on the campaign trail?

Well, I guess CIT execs didn't donate enough to the right campaigns. I say this with all seriousness, since they obviously qualify for aid based on the other economic considerations and rationale give to us by Washington leaders. Plus the only reason why a company like Chrysler would qualify for aid is political connections.