Richard Nixon was a better president than John F. Kennedy

As the opponent did not disagree with the Rebuttals: First, I would like to challenge the validity of his sources used. My main point of contention is "http://www.theamericanconservative.com...;. This website, in addition to being clearly biased by its title, was written by Patrick Buchanan, whose books include several anti-minority works and far-fetched horror stories ("State of Emergency: The Third-World Invasion and Conquest of America" and "The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization"). Buchanan also in the article addressed the ousting of Nixon due to Watergate as a "coup d'etat" by an "elite press". I am sure that my opponent can agree that, while the media may have been biased, Nixon's impeachment trial was completely justified. He also at the end of the article compares Watergate to the Iran-Contra affair, saying they were both attempts by a liberal media to stop conservative presidents. Whether or not this is true, it ignores the essential fact that both were irresponsible, immoral, and unethical. A source such as this should not be considered valid. Secondly, "http://seekingalpha.com...; is taken from a blog, and cannot be considered a reliable source for that reason. Otherwise, I would be able to win this debate due to the sheer number of Kennedy-idolizers out there. However, this is an academic debate on which president had a better impact on history. Finally, a majority of the sources used are from Wikipedia, which can be edited by almost anyone. In terms of content, these are my rebuttals: 1) "It should also be noted that Watergate was a failure and did not even accomplish anything; in spite of this, Nixon won the election in the 6th biggest landslide in American history, with a majority in 49 states." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that a president's greatness can be measured by how well they do in elections. Andrew Jackson managed more than 76 percent of the electoral vote when he ran for re-election; however, he committed crimes against the Native Americans, openly defying John Marshall's ruling that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation and had certain rights; as well, he sank the U.S. into a financial crisis late in his term. Many elections have been won even by a 2/3 majority; according to the list my own opponent cites here (http://en.wikipedia.org...), twenty-two of the fifty-seven elections were won by at least that margin. Even more in contrast to my opponent's point is the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, won re-election by a landslide as well, with more than 90% of the electoral vote. Source for statistics used unless otherwise noted: http://www.archives.gov... 2) "...the [Cuban Missile] crisis only took place as a result of Kennedy's failures in foreign policy." It is strange that my opponent considers it a problem solely caused by Kennedy, when the original Bay of Pigs plan was set forth under the Eisenhower administration, with Richard Nixon as vice president. Nixon had a very strong role in the plan, in fact. The plan was set to come to fruition very soon after Kennedy took office, and his hands were tied by the previous administration. 3) "As mentioned before, his speech threatening the Soviets over Cuba nearly destroyed the world in nuclear war." I would like to see factual evidence of that. 4) "When Kennedy made his now famous phone call to King's wife while King was in jail, it was only to win his support afterwards. When the call made the news, the Kennedy's were terrified that the election had been lost by his indiscretion, though it turned out to increase his political stock among liberals and helped him narrowly win." There is a gap of logic here, and no source to back up this claim. My opponent states that the sole reason for supporting King was to get an endorsement in the election from him to gain support from the civil rights movement; however, he also states that the Kennedy's were terrified that the fact that the call went public might have lost him supporters. If he was going for MLK's support, and consequentially the support of the civil rights movement, it would be inaccurate to state that he would be afraid of getting the support; having MLK's endorsement would have lost Kennedy voters in the South either way. The whole paragraph this statement is taken from is rampant with "facts" without sources. 5) "Had all of this [corruption under Kennedy] come to the light, any damage Nixon did to people's trust in government would have already taken place." This is purely speculative. The important fact of the matter is that it did in fact happen under Nixon. The scandal that Nixon was involved in changed the face of government forever, it destroyed the Republican party as it was known then, and it helped to bring the incompetent Jimmy Carter into office. Through all of this, Nixon indirectly caused the foreign policy issues that plagued America in the later 1970s and early 1980s. (Sources: http://www.examiner.com... and http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...).