Gerald Ford

[yesthattom]

I was upset that the story about Gerarld Ford’s death on CNN said that he didn’t get re-elected because of inflation. Inflation? He got canned because everyone hated him for pardoning Nixon, damn it! Geeze!

Greg Saunders said it best:

Ford’s presidency began by pardoning a criminal scumbag. It wasn’t “closure”, it was driving the getaway car. And while it may be impolite to point out Ford’s complicity in this shameful nadir in our nation’s history, it could be worse. When Bill Clinton dies, every obituary will contain the name “Lewinsky”.

http://thismodernworld.com/3418

Comments

[lilbjorn.livejournal.com]

And now we find out that Ford thought the Iraq war was a huge mistake, but because he loved the Republican party more than he loved America, he kept his mouth shut.

Why is it again that the media is promoting this guy for sainthood?

[awfief.livejournal.com]

because he's a dead president. Reagan was also promoted.

[syringavulgaris.livejournal.com]

While stuck waiting at the doctor's office yesterday (why do they tell you to come in early and then don't see you until half an hour late?), ABC's news coverage was all about Ford Is Dead. They touched on how at the time polls showed that everyone was pissed about the pardon, but then harped on how more recent polls show that everyone thinks it was a good idea in retrospect.

Which I don't see as being news, since it's not exactly a big shocker that outrage has a shelf life. It's interesting from a slant perspective, though.

[qnetter]

To me, the Clinton impeachment trial shows us what the country would have been like had the pardon not been given. Just as impeachment would be a terrible idea for Bush -- if we do it, every single minority-Congress president will be impeached -- criminal proceedings would have been a terrible and crippling idea. The fact that Ted Kennedy can see that is good enuogh for me.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I'm curious: if neither Nixon nor Bush the Lesser committed crimes that warrant impeachment, do you see any purpose at all to even having an impeachment process? If so, what would a President have to do to get impeached

[qnetter]

An eye for an eye, and soon we're a nation of blind men.

Both of them definitely committed crimes that reach the standard. But a crime-and-punishment view of the issue is simple-minded: what the country needs for its health and its political process must come first.

The frivolous Clinton impeachment requires us to raise the bar and overcompensate. If majority parties impeach minority presidents twice in a row -- despite the fact that this one deserves at least for the charges to be brought, though could the case could probably not sustain a conviction -- it will then become standard practice for every minority presidency. It is more important that we restore the rarity of the tactic than that we go through the motions of attempting to remove this one man from office. If we do not, we move several steps closer to a parliamentary system.

The big difference, I think, is that Nixon could have been impeached by his own party. Even then, though, Ford was right: it was more important that we move on.

And, by the way, you demean your own question by using that silly nickname.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Um.....

Impeachment doesn't mean a crime was committed. It means there's an *accusation* that a crime was committed. And, as we found with Clinton, it doesn't necessitate leaving office.

I think Bush is guilty of crimes against his own people. How different is it really to be Saddam Hussein grabbing people off the street and sticking them in prison for years without due process versus being Bush and doing the same thing?

Sure, Bush doesn't gas his own people, and who knows what he'd do if, say, China decided to put an embargo on us. But it's still the same crime, on a lesser scale. He's sending the most loyal and nationalistic Americans off to die.

[qnetter]

Impeachment is not just an accusation -- it is a formal charge and a commitment to trial. You don't bring charges unless you believe you have a very good chance of making them stick. Charges are not filed to initiate an investigation -- they are initiated as the result of an investigation.

As we found with Clinton, the process brings the government -- both the executive and legislative branches -- to a standstill.

"Sending the most loyal and nationalistic Americans off to die" is what war is. You join the military knowing that you stand some chance of dying in the process -- if you don't, you're a moron.

As for how different Bush's behavior is from Saddam's -- certainly many would say that the difference is whether you do it to your own citizens, and the scale you do it on.

Your approach still puts crime and punishment first.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

My preferred way of government is not the way the current US government is run. The US is a police state, so yes, "my approach" puts crime and punishment first.

I agree that the charge -- which is also an accusation -- does have to have merit. I agree that a charge does not start an investigation. However, a charge also does not end an investigation.

And I agree that the process brings government to a standstill.

You agree that Nixon committed a crime, but given that the impeachment process brings government to a standstill, believe it wasn't worth it to impeach Nixon.

What levels of crime should impeachment be used for?

I wasn't around at the time, but I do not think that a sitting president should be allowed to continue the presidential duties while being accused of breaking into the opposing party's offices and perhaps sabotaging an election. ie, from what I know, in 2007, I would say "yes, you should stop the government, because if this is true, this jerk shouldn't be allowed to be president."

However, Ford giving a presidential pardon doesn't necessarily irk me -- sure, Nixon should have gone to jail, and it breaks due process, and that irks me -- but once Nixon was out of office, he's out of office, so no need to impeach and, as you point out, put government to a standstill.

I, and most of America, felt at the time that whether Clinton was guilty or not, who cares if we have a leader with a mistress in the presidency?

So, in your opinion: for what crimes should we say "stop the government, we need to check on the president!"????

Any reason for calling disadvantaged youth who see the military as their only hope of college "morons"? Or are you thinking about your life and the opportunities you had, and not considering other people's situations, and just calling them morons because you're privileged?

By the way, why did you say "an eye for an eye, and soon we're a nation of blind men"? Ghandi never put gender to the statement, why are you? We're already a nation of blind people.

[qnetter]

In order:

- I believe it was worth it to impeach Nixon. However, once he chose to resign, since the highest sentence an impeachment itself could impose was removing him from office, the issue was moot. The separate issue -- the bringing of criminal charges after he was out of office -- is the one that I believe we did better for the nation by cutting off with a pardon -- the acceptance of which is explicitly a confession.

- It doesn't really matter what you think about whether we should have a president with a mistress. First, the charge filed was not adultery. Second, it only matters what the majority party Congressional delegation thinks, not what the American people do.

- Again, for Nixon's crimes, which were unambiguous, we should have impeached -- but he headed that off by imposing the highest penalty impeachment could impose. For Bush's, many of the people who believe he was wrong do not believe he committed impeachable offenses.

- I didn't call "disadvantaged youth who see the military as their only hope of college "morons'" -- I called anyone, disadvantaged or not, who goes into that commitment without understanding they are committing to a non-zero chance of coming home in a body bag a moron. One does not preclude the other.

As for your last point, you might as well just kill me, because I am clearly lowlife scum that actually uses sexist speech once in a while.

[lilbjorn.livejournal.com]

once he chose to resign, since the highest sentence an impeachment itself could impose was removing him from office, the issue was moot.

Pas du tout. Nixon could have been impeached until the day he died. His pension and Secret Service protection could have been revoked. And he would not have had a pretext to claim that those tapes were 'his'.

If punishment has any deterent effect at all, then wouldn't it be better for our country to punish leaders who commit crimes against democracy? Instead, the people who lied to us about Vietnam, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and Iraq go unpunished, so no president fears doing something just as bad.


For Bush's, many of the people who believe he was wrong do not believe he committed impeachable offenses.

What could be more impeachable than starting a war under a false premise? War makes a horror of people's lives. If Sadam is to hang for killing 148 Iraqis, I can't even imagine what Bush's punishment should be.

[qnetter]

I wholeheartedly believe that, had Bush gone to war solely on the "the guy is dangerous, inspections have failed, we need to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom" message, he would have had only a minimally lower level of support, gone to war, and followed exactly the same course.

(And, of course, Saddam is only hanging *officially* for killing 148 Iraqis -- he is really hanging for Shiite revenge.)

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Oatmealman.
Anytime you have someone timid,
Anytime you have someone tepid,
Anytime you have someone middle of the road
Anytime you have someone who's been in Congress
for twenty five years
And no one knows who he is...
You have oatmealman.

Gerald Ford... who once joked
that you could fit all his black friends
into a volkswagon bug and still have room
For the Republican Elephant...

-- Gil Scot Heron

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I was moved by his pardoning Nixon, and so probably were most people who were politically conscious then whom you hang around with now. But I think CNN's closer to describing what cost him the support of the swing voters he needed to get reelected.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, NPR did make significant note of the pardon, and it's impact on the Ford-Carter contest.

[gizbot.livejournal.com]

Umm, no. I listened to Gerald Ford on a few occasions, including one non-mob sized Q&A session. Here are the two odd bits that came out of this.

* Gerald Ford ran for President primarily because he did not want to allow Ronald Reagan to run. He did not feel a great desire to be President again.

* Gerald Ford was in favor of far *less* public disclosure. He felt that sunshine laws inhibited honest debate and negotiation because all parties were posturing.

No, I have no audio recordings. This was two decades ago.