Talk:Nixon goes to China

message: Wasn't this phrase and this concept pretty much coined in the star trek movie?  Or did it exist beforehand?  --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It existed beforehand. AnonMoos 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My search of Google News Archives shows this phrase to go back to the late 1970s. "It took a Nixon to go to China, and it may take a Democrat to balance the budget." Tom Foley,  Time, May 16, 1977. The same phrase was quoted a couple of weeks earlier in New York Times . (I'm sure the Star Trek movie had the effect of popularizing the phrase, though.) Hope this helps. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of phrase

message: I was thinking of adding into the article the fact that it's a phrase that (as far as I know) never used outside the US and thus other English speakers wouldn't understand it.  I can't quite see how to work it in at the moment without making it sound like I'm just bolting on a sentence.  violet/riga (t) 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal understanding 

message: This page was blanked and turned into a redirect to 1972 Nixon visit to China by User:Mgekelly, which I have just reverted.  Whether or not this currrent article should exist, it should only be deleted if it goes through the proper AfD channel. Joshdboz (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by User:Mgekelly, by User:Esperant  Shenme (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: "challenging a conservative sacred cow"
What does this mean, exactly? I can gather the general meaning from context, but this idiom escapes me, and the linked article (the literal Sacred Cow) does not illuminate. 154.5.46.28 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1972, the Luce crowd and some other U.S. conservatives viewed any lessening of support for Taiwan as a betrayal... AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Sacred cow (idiom) —Wiki Wikardo 22:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Sacred Cow 

message: I removed the point relating to Wilson's creation of the Fed. Republicans in 1913 did indeed push for a national bank, as they had been doing since Andrew Jackson nixed the Second Banks of the US; however, this bank was private in nature, funded by US tax dollars.  It was proposed in 1913 alongside the Fed plan by Republican Senator Nelson B. Aldrich. Republicans uproariously pushed for this plan, and not Wilson's public Federal Reserve.  Although the Fed is non-governmental in nature (i.e. it is an independent entity that isn't subject to the whims of voters), it is in fact a public institution, and Republicans rallied against such a bank.  The claim made was inaccurate.
Daveroo69 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fed Reference 

message: Andrew Gelman challenged the idea that only "a Nixon" could 'open the door to China' in his editorial about Obama and Cuba:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/22/only-nixon-could-go-to-cuba-not/.211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This editorial might be relevant. 

message: It matters, '72 being a Pres election year. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article 1972 Nixon visit to China says of the visit "Occurring from February 21 to 28, 1972, ...", so several months before the November elections, but not entirely unrelated I think. It has been stated elsewhere that Nixon was paranoid about winning the elections, quite all out of proportion with the actual trends and certainly the results.  Thus the ongoing campaign dirty tricks and the Watergate scandal break-in in June.  Given those extremes, how far-fetched is it to conclude that this decision to break with all conservative precedent was due to the prospect of personal popularity? It won't be the last time a politician buffed their reputation for personal gain, to the detriment of the people they 'represented'. Shenme (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: When in '72?

message: I fail to see how these two items can be compared to Nixon going to China:
* U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1996 signed legislation reforming the welfare system in the United States.
* U.S. President Barack Obama embracing Social Security reform in 2011.
Without more context to explain why those should be in that section, I think they should be removed. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton and Obama 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nixon goes to China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408093241/https://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=164 to https://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=164
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *There should be a section for John McCain and John Kerry. They both advocated for ending the embargo even though they fought in the Vietnam War.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
Kenixkil (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam