Ford was long before my time. I don't know anything about him other than he became president after Johnson (and I'm not even 100% sure about that.) I have no idea about anything good or bad he did. Now, when Bush's funeral comes around, let me know so I can piss on him and smack the corpse up a bit.

I'm tempted to say "don't speak ill of the dead..." but I have to say that I'm beginning to find his near-beatification into an icon of Middle America a bit over-the-top. I remember the Ford era quite well, although I was only about 10 or 11 when he took office, but Watergate had been big news and everyone around the world watched Nixon resign then fly off with his crass victory "V" salute. For a while afterwards it was expected that Ford should have done something about Nixon's crimes, but then he went and pardoned him! This is now being presented as "healing the nation" but it wasn't seen like that at the time. Letting your old boss off the hook was how it was seen, which is why Jimmy Carter trounced Gerry Ford in the '76 elections.

As it turned out, there hadn't been any deal to let Nixon off cut with Ford, although deals had been offeredby such hawkish luminaries as Alexander Haig and rejected; Ford pardoned Nixon off his own bat for his won reasons. But the current debate goes to show that it really didn't work, the American public have never really forgiven Nixon for what he did or Ford for letting him get away with it. In a way I admire the man for doing what he thought was right both personally and politically, even though i think history will always consider it the wrong decision. And to be fair, he strongly disapproved of Nixon's conduct, but out of loyalty and duty kept his criticisms private.

Rather more relevant to today is that many of the more "liberal" republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller were ousted to make way for the hawks who became the current crop of strident "Neo-Cons" who've caused so much trouble in the past few years. I'm quite sure that Gerry Ford was a thoroughly decent man who worked hard and served his country to the best of his ability, and wasn't as stupid as he was made out to be at the time and since; but he made cardinal errors, i think he was politically quite weak, and he tried manfully to grapple with enormous economic pressures without really having the clout or the insight to do so.

He had a bit more success in foreign policy, SALT, detente, cooling off the antagonism between the Soviets and the Chinese which was far deeper than most people realised at the time or since, the Helsinki Accords, and the G7, but these were totally overshadowed by the collapse of South Vietnam, for which I recall he was scathingly criticised by right-wingers, even though there was nothing he could have done to stop it (and Nixon had already withdrawn the last US troops in '73) What options did he have? Send the troops back in?

He wasn't a coward and he wasn't a crook and he wasn't a liar and he wasn't a warmonger, and if people could say similar about me when I'm dead, I'll be happy with that. He wasn't a stellar success and he made a major, major blunder over Nixon, but he did it for honest reasons; unlike many since and currently, at least he believed in something and had the welfare of his country at heart.


Edited by - Tawakalna on 1/2/2007 12:23:40 PM

Not only that, but Ford strongly criticized Rummy and Cheney for this whole debacle in Iraq, despite the fact they used to work together. He was certainly up front about it. He may not have been the best president we've had, but he certainly was a hell of lot better than the garbage that we've got now. Of course, that's not hard to do.

I agree whole hartedly there freaky one, JOIN THE OBAMARAMA 2008

BILL CLINTON '08 FTW!

Shroud: Which freaky one would you be referring to? Me or Taw?

i don't pretend to understand the man or his motives for what he did, and i don't want to piss on his grave, all i can judge his presidency by is the result; an executive office with no accountability and a total loss of confidence in the government.

(oh, anyone want a preview of the next 2 yrs in politics i got it; democrats will pass 'civil union' law+immigration "reform", bush will "surge" troop levels, and the war will grind on and on until he finally hands it off to a democrat)

Everday that he was in office as POTUS, Gerald R. Ford carried a copy of the decision page of a US Supreme Court decision which held that the acceptance of a pardon was an admission of guilt. I am looking for a reference for the specific decision that Ford relied upon but I am not yet able to find it.

I didn't know this back in the day. It changed my opinion of Ford. I didn't dislike him but I was hugely disappointed in him when he pardoned the guy.

The odd thing is that I don't remember anyone mentioning this to any great effect when the pardoning was done. I suppose that, for political reasons, it was expedient not to ballyhoo this legal technicality.

But I think it would have served some good to emphasize this point at the time.

its circular logic crap (psychiatrists call it rationalizing), thats why he never mentioned it to anyone outside his personal circle - the truth is that he destroyed a keystone in the check and balance system. go ahead and ask a democrat why they aren't even attempting to impeach bush... bingo 'cheney would pardon him, and become president' - it's a nonstarter! now, if we had a bipartisan presidency this would not be the case..

besides all the other things that stink about him, ford was appointed to the warren commission by johnson (who many believe was behind the assassination), and he was a freemason

p.s. the reference you're looking for can be found on ford's wikipedia page

Edited by - Cold_Void on 1/3/2007 7:38:03 AM

If Cheney would pardon Bush, why could they both not be impeached?

And I thought that a president/former president couldn't be pardoned for castrating the Constitution on every level.

well, i think we're getting a little too contemporary here. let's try to stick to the point, shall we?

I find it interesting that Gerald Ford and his successor Jimmy Carter became close friends after they both left office, and worked together on various committees and charitable institutions, and in a parallel manner, the same seems to have happened with George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton. I wonder why? Is it because having achieved one of the highest offices in the world, and dealt with contemporary and related issues, they're the only people who can really relate to each other and understand the pressures of the office? Or is it maybe a purely personal thing, that they just "get on," or maybe both, or something else entirely? You'd have thought that the last person they'd want to be best buddies with are the men who either whupped them in the polls or whom they whupped, yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm always amused by those delightful intimate moments where Bush Sr and Clinton can be seen laughing, joking, slapping each other ont he back, and Dubya is off to one side looking very miserable and put out indeed while his dad hangs with his pal, Bill

CV: so were George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Paul Revere, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Paul Jones, Revolutionary War heroes one and all; Benedict Arnold also had a funny handhsake and rolled-up trouser leg.More recently, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Harry Truman, all were members of that fraternal society.


Edited by - Tawakalna on 1/3/2007 11:58:35 AM

hehe - well, I'm not sure i would call them heroes anymore, they were a bunch of greedy tax dodgers really - lol. re masonism, i didn't say "masons are evil" i just said it stinks to high heaven: the country was founded by masons, and has been run by them off and on for two centuries, and based on their record it's not a training course for effective governance, which makes me wonder; why would someone with such important things to do as running for the oval office (or second chair) waste time learning hokey rituals and playing table tennis at the lodge? if these guys are conspiring benignly or even benevolently, they're doing a pretty half assed job, and we should really consider giving someone else's 'secret' society a chance next time

1: what was the sum involvement of masons in the revolutionary congress? is it imaginable that the revolution could have happened without a conspiracy, or at least some collusion? the colonies were by no stretch of the imagination united, even after such great agitprop victories as the boston massacre and lexington.

2: how such a diverse federation could have endured and eventually reach consensus without some conspiracy is hard to imagine when one looks at any other revolution in history; a revolution is accomplished by conspiracy (cromwell, lenin, hitler, mao, ho chi minh, castro, etc) not by rebels with no greater organization than a local militia. so it begs the question, was the conspiracy merely to get out from under a heavy tax burden (seems a little weak) or was it to establish a new social order? well, we did ban titles right in the constitution... so theres a point

3.the question i'm getting at is what nags everyone about masons; what the heck do they really believe and what are they doing about it? people don't seem to think twice about electing a mason, yet (generalizing) they would certainly regard a mormon candidate with some wariness.

phew, that was kinda OT lol

@C_V

Yeah. Thanks for that but I've read the Burdick case and thought that maybe Ford was relying on something else. But it does say that there are two aspects to a pardon.

Firstly, that a pardon does not take effect until the accused accepts it or asserts it as his right (which presumtivley means that the pardon has been accepted).

And, secondly, that an offer of a pardon, upon acceptance, takes the presumption of guilt and makes it an admission. Or at least, can be seen to be an admission. The Burdick case doesn't actually say this as a matter of law as the question really was about whether a pardon that is issued has any legal effect if the person to whom it is being directed has not accepted it. The answer is: No.

@Taw:

Carter and Ford had more in common than people realized when you consider that both of them were not "consummate" politicians. Both saw their job to be one of re-establishing integrity in the Executive Branch ... something that was publicly trashed because of Watergate ..... I do NOT mean to say that previous Administrations before Nixon's were pristine and pure .... far from it.

Carter did what his moral center believed in. And is still doing it, regardless of consequence as you know. Ford did what his moral center believed in, regardless of consequence as well ... although I still disagree with his choice.

You have to think that the two have a lot to talk about because the issues Ford confronted carried over into Carter's term and they both had to deal with the same external threats and powers, etc.

Likewise with GHWBush and Clinton, some of things that GHWBush started, Clinton had to see through as well and they had to have had some questions for each other on those continuations.

Also, Carter never faulted Ford for anything publicly. Clinton never faulted GHWBush for anything pubicly either. I think that speaks for those two how they would be able to get along with their predecessor.

GWB, on the other hand is different in that regard.

---

GWB, on the other hand is different in that regard.

---

Well in GWB's defence, Clinton administration policies have been directly responsible for every bad thing that has happened from 2000 up until today and quite possibly for any future blunders.