RSSGerald R. Ford (1913 - 2006)
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 27, 2006, 2:08 PM
BetaNews notes this afternoon with sadness and reminiscence the passing of the United States’ 38th President. Gerald R. Ford was never elected to the office – in fact, he had been appointed House Minority Leader in 1965, as well as to every office thereafter.
Having calmed, if not completely soothed, the country’s mood after Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Ford became the personification of the quintessential pinch-hitter: reliable, safe, sturdier in his policies than at times on his own feet.
He may never have achieved greatness among the annals of presidents, but those with the thankless job of reassembling the country in a time of chaos run the risk of sacrificing their legacy in order to achieve their mission. Ford nearly did that, but his suburban Michigan decency and soft-spoken temperament helped secure him a place in Americans’ hearts, if not atop their pedestals.
He would be the last US president of the era before microcomputing took hold; the first Popular Electronics magazines touting individuals’ ability to build a real computer inside their own garages, were published during Ford’s tenure. Had he been re-elected, there’s a good chance Ford might not have immediately appreciated the magnitude of the onset of the computing era.
But had he never been appointed president in the first place –- had Nixon never resigned, or had a less capable man been appointed instead -– the US economy might never have stabilized enough for it to have become feasible for Americans to have ever wanted to purchase the raw materials to build Altair 8800s in their garages in 1975.
The seeds for economic turmoil had already been planted, and did indeed sprout under Carter’s later tenure. But Ford’s fiscally conservative policies -– some of which remain unpopular –- held the storm at bay for at least two years. As a result, the economic conditions were more favorable for the germination of new companies such as Apple and Atari, and the resurgence of HP.
Ford’s effect on the computer industry was indirect, and certainly unintentional, but nonetheless measurable. For that, as well as for the fact that he was simply a good and genuine person at a time the country needed one so desperately, we thank him and wish him peace.
Great man..blah...blah...blah...blah.
Score: 0
And finally, if you don't believe Ford was as big a criminal and traitor to our country as Nixon, even long-time conservative Bob Woodward tells us how Ford traded the presidency for Nixon's pardon. But neither the conservative press nor ol' multi-millionaire/government welfare Ford told you that tidbit over the past 32 years, did he, and that it had nothing to do with "healing the nation." Repubs who peddled this hackery owe real Americans an apology. And for me, it'd also be nice if the Ford family were forced to pay back all the pension, salary and healthcare he enjoyed for breaking the law and lying about it all the way to his grave. Ford's words, not mine that shuts up the "healers":
"I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma."
Cry me a river. Now Saddam's all the rage this weekend and everyone's back to asking, "Gerry who?"
Score: 0
Your a disgusting waste of human flesh. Don't breed.
Score: 0
Bob Woodward is quickly becoming a useless hack. Told to wait to release the interview until after his death he waits what....2 minutes?
Niiiice.
They now claim he was *against* the war. Never said it. If you listen to the tape, he disagrees with the *reason* (WMDs) used to justify it when the simple fact that he (saddam) was a genocidal maniac would have been more than enough.
As for the Washington Post article? Please...
Ya know it *is* possible to disagree with someone, even vehemently, knowing they've made disastrous decisions, and still remain friends. it's this thing called being human.
Kind of like not ripping the current administration to shreds. It's respect. I may dislike Bush's reasoning, tactics, and demeanor, but he's the countries leader at the moment. That alone calls for a certain amount of respect, even for the worst of 'em. Something about being the "Leader of the free world".
Of course, I'm in the minority here. It seems in the press, and listening to you folks, that we as Americans now hate our country almost as much as the insurgents do.
Score: 0
"we as Americans now hate our country almost as much as the insurgents do."
I will agree that it seems that some on the far left AND far right actually do "hate" America, at least in it's current state. However, this commonly used and now trite expression is more targeted at telling others that if they don't hold the position of the speaker, then they "hate America" or are "unAmerican" or are "unpatriotic." None of these things is actually true. In fact, those of us who care enough to participate in the dialog, on either side, obviously do love our country or we wouldn't be trying to improve it. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become so divided that we cannot see any point that the other "side" might be trying to make, because we are too busy sticking up for our "team." We've reduced the conversation down to silly playground rules. The best example ever is the whole "flip-flopper" thing (still used by a few idiots) that basically says that no matter how the information changes, you have to stick with your original position.
As for respect for the current administration, don't you think that criticism of those in power is one of the basic principles of this country? I don't recall the founding fathers giving The Crown a free pass and it seems to me that throughout our history criticism and questioning of authority was been a major part of how we grew as a country and maintained freedom. When did that change? This President, as others have in the past, has drawn the ire of a large part of the population. When that happens and you get criticism. After all, he is not a king. That's democracy.
Your post is puzzling in that you make a claim that we "can still be friends" but you do so as you have called someone a useless hack because they released information before you thought they should, and dismissed a news source, probably just because it's one of the big two that your "team" hates. This would be like someone left of center saying that the Washington Times is a right-wing rag owned by a Moonie and therefore everything printed in it was complete crap. But can't we just be friends?
Score: 0
Bob Woodward is a conservative? HAHAHAHA! You are so misinformed it's not even funny.
Score: 0
The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become so divided that we cannot see any point that the other "side" might be trying to make, because we are too busy sticking up for our "team."
Point. Hit the nail on the head.
but you do so as you have called someone a useless hack because they released information before you thought they should, and dismissed a news source, probably just because it's one of the big two that your "team" hates.
Guilty as charged. I was a tad irate at the time. :) I've had my coffee now, so all is well with the world again.
Score: 0
No problem, I'm the same way before the morning java. ;o)
Score: 0
They need to add a 'pre-java' tag to their BBCode here. :p
Score: 0
"Bob Woodward is quickly becoming a useless hack. Told to wait to release the interview until after his death he waits what....2 minutes?"
-----------------------------------------------
You're full of it, Tool. He waited, and a lot longer than 2 minutes.
Score: 0
Naw,, we hate the slimballs, that we " AS AMERICANS", elected into office. At the end of the day, we are responsible for putting these slimballs in office.
Score: 0
I would love to see any quote from Bob Woodward where he even implies that Ford traded the Presidency for Nixon's Pardon. Just one source PLEASE. Just one. A small one liner would do.
Score: 0
RIP - Gerald R. Ford
Score: 0
You people are all fools.
Score: 0
He loves us....
He really loves us....
How sweet.
Your opinion of all those posting here warms my heart and strengthens my faith in the human race. You, sir, are truly a man to be admired.
Score: 0
You can remove the /sarcasm. I actually do like you folks.
I only chastise the ones I care about. :-D
Score: 0
Then you must *really* care about Google. :p
Score: 0
Hmm....
well fiddlesticks.
Score: 0
What is with :p? I guess PC_Tool never made it past high school or our school system just past him on to the next grade. I bet PC_Tool still uses LOL.
Score: 0
What an incredibly useless comment. No point to make other than the fact that you're a flaming troll?
Well, you definitely succeeded in making *that* point.
Score: 0
Good use of "passed." Well done.
Score: 0
"I guess PC_Tool never made it past high school"
Pot/Kettle?
Score: 0
Even Ford thought it was a bad idea.
Score: 0
Your complete disregard for the deceased sickens me. The man is DEAD. Show some farking respect you arrogant twit. I really don't care what your political opinions are, this isn't the place for them. Perhaps the man made mistakes, I really couldn't say, I was all of six. That doesn't change the fact that the man died, a man who was once president, even if on accident. It's still a feat to be proud of and you treat his memory like some sort of antichrist. You disgust me.
Have we truly fallen so far in this country that we use the death of another human being as the soapbox for our own political wrangling? Your a prime example of what's wrong in political America these days. Too many people polarized on one end of the political spectrum or the other that they can't find their way to middle ground with a map and will use any and all means, including ridiculing a dead man, to try and sway others.
Score: 0
Thank you, Arakiel :)
Score: 0
Have we truly fallen so far in this country that we use the death of another human being as the soapbox for our own political wrangling?
Isn't that what everyone has been doing since 9/11...and to a lesser extent prior to it.
Score: 0
Everyone?
No.
That was too easy, give me another one. :p
Score: 0
How about "many"? :P
Score: 0
Yeah, that's a given.
Score: 0
Can I give the eulogy at your funeral? I want to tell everyone how retarded you were. Your comments on this story will be the highlight.
Score: 0
RIP
Score: 0
Wouldn't this be a better place to simply pay respects to the man and his family?
RIP Gerry Ford. You served your country as you thought you should.
Score: 0
RIP.
Score: 0
I spent three weeks attending the Watergate hearings in the summer of '73. He pardoned Nixon for high treason, a crime punishable by death. For those of you who didn't live back then, Nixon was the first Bush, who claimed that the government can do anything it wants to you, regardless of that "silly" Constitution, and if the president breaks the law, then he can't be punished or tried because "when the president does it, that makes it legal" as Tricky D.i.c.k would always say in interviews over the years. For 30 years after Gerry Ford left office and lived off taxpayer expense as a multi-millionaire, his only accomplishment in that time was to open the jail and release America's second biggest criminal ever, Tricky-D.i.c.k. Nixon (the biggest is currently in office). If you look back, there was another partisan who was there the whole time — D.i.c.k. Cheney and his gang of Don Rumsfeld, et al. His other accomplishments included losing the Vietnam war, ruining the economy, nurturing an addict for a wife, losing an election, and quietly being run out of town.
In other words, when he had his chance to make a difference in office, he failed miserably. And unlike Carter and Clinton, who have done great things since leaving office (Habitat for Humanity; Global Initiative), Ford chose to spend his time playing golf with repubs. My eulogy of the man is America's conclusion for his personal and public failure: a complete and utter disgrace to the nation and does not deserve a taxpayer-financed, big government funeral. Let Betty and kids pay for that parade.
Score: 0
lmao..
Yeah, Ford single-handedly lost the Vietnam war.
Wow.
The man didn't make a nuisance of himself after his presidency, he didn't try to ride his past presidency in some pathetic attempt to remain a media darling. The man carried himself with dignity and respect for his former position until the day he died.
The economy was in a recession when he entered office, and it was still in one when he left. After an upheaval such as the one he followed, it's amazing the country didn't fall completely into Chaos. *That* is his legacy.
He pardoned Nixon, he gave the draft-dodgers a freebie, and lost his bid for re-election because of it. What a small price to pay for nursing a torn and wounded Nation back to health.
Score: 0
"...nursing a torn and wounded Nation back to health."
Uh... what planet were you living on, if you were of age back then? Trust me, that ain't how it happened. His failed presidency only made everything worse. There was nothing healthy about it. Even repubs hated his administration and lined up to run against him. The big repub challenger in '76 was Reagan, who I saw on the campaign trail several times and you'd thought he was running for class president. (He'd land his huge plane, stand just outside the door of the plane and deliver his 4-minute campaign speech, and then run back inside — no one knew who that guy was who acted like he didn't want to be there.)
If you were around back then, compared to what the conservative corporate media networks are telling you today, what was Gerry Ford's biggest initiative? Do you remember? It wasn't SALT, he walked away from that. If you do, then you've got to be laughing right now. If not, reply, and I'll tell you. It was on the same scale of Nanny Reagan's 'just say no' campaign, only sillier.
Score: 0
"..no one knew who that guy was who acted like he didn't want to be there"
Yeah, and look what that got us - Jimmy Carter - one of the worst presidents in the history of this country (though he does rate a notch above Clinton)
Score: 0
Yeah, Clinton was soo horrible. Look at all those wars he started, all those tax dollars he wasted, all the favors he gave to big businesses, how he couldn't find oil in Texas... oh, wait, nevermind, I was thinking of George W.
Score: 0
[deleted to save the hassle of dealing with idiotic replies]
Score: 0
you are a jerk
Score: 0
you jerk
Score: 0
"nursing a torn and wounded Nation back to health."
Or from another prespective, circumventing the rule of law and proving, once and for all, that the rich and powerful are above that law.
Score: 0
You're right. He had no "Big Initiative", there was no grand scheme. Why does there have to be? Especially when the country isn't ready for one??
Seriously, when you look back at his presidency, you *shouldn't* see anything more than a stabilizing presence. He didn't provoke anyone by pushing an agenda because he knew the country needed time to heal.
Yeah, everyone hated him. *laughs* Just like every campaigner hates the administration they're running against now and thinks they can do better.
Score: 0
i think this and the sub comments make it clear that none of us know enough to qualify on having a useful opinion. You would need years of research to really say something, i think people these days throw around opinions too easily, deminishing their value.
Score: 0
Jesus Christ. Show me where Nixon was ever charged with Hight Treason. As for what Mr. Ford did after he left Office? How about being one of the first and largest contributors to AIDS research and treatment? And that is just one of the many charities he contributed to. Unlike Carter (who was possibly the worst President in the last 150 years) and Clinton (who never heard of sex), Ford didn't need to have his ego stroked by trumpeting what he did after he left Office. Based on the diatribe you posted up there, the only way could have attended the Watergate Hearings was in you mother's womb. Unless of course you are trying to convince us you are a 60+ year old with limited education.
Score: 0
Considering I was actually around during Watergate( I was 26 when Nixon resigned) and have a Master's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida I think I will take exception to your statement.
Score: 0
I was around then. Why don't you tell me about it troll?
Score: 0
LMAO (hope that wasn't idiotic :)
Score: 0
Yes, a very narrow-minded perspective.
As he once said, "We needed to get the matter off my desk in the Oval Office so I could concentrate on the problems of 260 million Americans and not have to worry about the problems of one man."
I think he was trying to save a country from years of potential finger-pointing and instead focusing on real issues. I do see your point, but it is nonetheless an invalid one IMHO.
Score: 0
Of course. All opinions and perspectives are welcome.
But since the Constitution provides for presidential pardon, I really fail to see how this circumvents the rule of law.
The President's pardon power is established under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Score: 0
Rather than engage in the 4 dozen or so arguments I have regarding where Clinton wasted our tax dollars, let's just stop this kiddy "my President's better than yours!-- No, mine is!-- Is not!!!--Is too!!!" argument.
Score: 0
Don't call him Jesus, his ego's inflated enough as it is... :p
Score: 0
Come on guys. He was probably the single biggest boost to Chevy Chase's career.
Score: 0
And you thought we couldn't agree on anything.
Score: 0
...let's just stop this kiddy "my President's better than yours!-- No, mine is!-- Is not!!!--Is too!!!" argument.
But they are soo entertaining. ;)
Score: 0
Resisting temptation to accuse you of being my Political Science teacher again....damn, I failed.
Score: 0
Nah ;-p I just wrote out a lengthy reply specifically regarding Ford and then decided it was pointless to waste the energy on receiving replies and rather than leave the message and not respond to any replies I just removed it altogether.
Score: 0
LOL
:->
Score: 0
He loves us too. :p
Score: 0
He was slightly before my time (born in '77) but I can see how he could be a slightly controversial man.
He was chosen to replace Spiro for his level headedness and moderate tone. He was hardly a divisive politician.
His decision to pardon Nixon, at the time, could be considered horrible politics and it was from the game point of view. It most likely ruined his chance to get elected but in the overall scheme of things, really helped heal the nation from Watergate and Vietnam.
I respect his decision as it was ballsy as well as forward thinking. Was a shame that our country had to endure Jimmy Carter.
Ford certainly would have had a stronger foreign and economic policy than Carter but we will never know.
RIP Pres. Ford.
Score: 0
The guy sat in a chair for two years - whoop de doo! BTW Hollywood__, sarcasm doesn't worked when it's typed out. :P
Score: 0
How patriotic of you.
You wouldn't be American, would you? Were you even alive when this happened, or just read about him? Ford came along after one of the most controversial President's ever had resigned from office. Nixon was more hated than even Bush--I know you'll find that impossible to believe--and Ford is the President that finally ended up closing the book on the Watergate scandal.
He should serve as a reminder as to what path we COULD have taken would he not have pardoned Nixon. He didn't do it to be nice to Nixon, trust me--he did it so that the next 4 years or so would not be focused on a huge scandal over a former President, and rather to remain focused on the current issues.
I think Pelosi should remember this well before she plans to unveil her pandora's box of scandals against the current President, but I shouldn't always assume the worst in people, even if they do appear to have nothing but hellfire and destruction in their past agenda... :-}
Score: 0
You truly are clueless. I hope you're not an American or our education system has failed miserably.
Score: 0
Wow, didn't realize the Young Repub Party is here. bourgeoisdude, I have a question for you: If you are so patriotic, why aren't you serving our country in Iraq? We'd love to know why playing on your computer is more important than serving your country in a time of need. Isn't it funny how only Democrats sign up to serve in the military, and when they come home and run for office, they all run as Democrats (at least all the ones that win landslide elections this year!). Your president is now recruiting illegal aliens and offering them US citizenship to fight in Iraq because repubs won't sign up when called to duty (of course, they're just following their leaders, bush and cheney, who went AWOL during Vietnam, one choosing 7 deferments and claiming he had 'more important' things to do, and the other working on political campaigns — among other psychodelic experiences — down in Alabama).
But please lecture us dirty f'ing hippies on why if you are so patriotic, why aren't you serving our country in Iraq?
Score: 0
Having served 20+ years in defense of this country I have to ask, wtf are you talking about? Only Democrats sign up to serve in the military? not the military I served in - in fact, the majority of Democrats I knew were too busy whining and protesting to have the time to serve.
Score: 0
Yeah, yeah, yeah.....I served, too, and you are STILL full of crap! Quit waving your uniform and point out where something he said isn't true.
He may have misused the word "only" in the heat of the moment, but other than McCain, the Republicans really do seem like a bunch that likes to send others off to war while they (and their children) stay home and wave the flag. Whether or not this is statistically true is open to debate, but the current leadership sure gives that impression.
Score: 0
I did 24 years in the USMC, served in Nam (69-70) and several other little skirmishes until I retired in 1991. So where were you during all that time? You are on the skyline and in my cross hairs troll, let's rock and roll.
Score: 0
None of this is true or is a distortion of facts.
"Your president is now recruiting illegal aliens and offering them US citizenship to fight in Iraq because repubs won't sign up when called to duty (of course, they're just following their leaders, bush and cheney, who went AWOL during Vietnam, one choosing 7 deferments and claiming he had 'more important' things to do, and the other working on political campaigns — among other psychodelic experiences — down in Alabama)."
And you comment about the Children of Republicans not going to war is also untrue. I would love to see any statistics you have that proves otherwise.
Score: 0
sophist..don't waste your time - he can't...and chevy..exactly what did I say that is "full of crap"? I merely stated a fact based on my experience...-- waving my uniform....too funny
Score: 0
I am serving my country in many ways. One need not join the millitary to do so, but please understand I was very close to volunteering--then I had that Scoliossis surgery to correct the 48 degree curve in my spine. That kind of killed my chances of serving for a while at least...
Hahaha, Dems in Iraq? All 13 of them...no wait, 14? Bah, I'm sure there's more than that--my point is you live in a dream world if you believe our troops feel they are 'stuck in Iraq' like Kerry believes. I have seen dozens upon dozens of interviews with individuals in Iraq who support the war--this is from earlier this month! If they did not support it, they would not have volunteered.
By the way, I registered Democrat for the 2006 election. Explain that one to me? Our local Judge was a good man and honestly more conservative than the Republican that was running against him, so I decided to vote for him in the Dem primary. Sadley, a true liberal took his seat--but I registered Democrat to vote for a Democratic candidate.
BTW, Bush and Cheney did not go AWOL in Vietnam, cheif. Research facts instead of listening to accusations. If I accuse someone of committing treason on national television, I would have written proof to back it up--yet in politics, you can say anything in the name of "First Amendment Rights". You are entitled to your opinion, but it is only that--opinion, not fact. See here: http://www.nationalrevie...rk/york200402180840.asp
Score: 0
"Yeah, yeah, yeah.....I served, too, and you are STILL full of crap! Quit waving your uniform and point out where something he said isn't true."
Done.
Score: 0
Reading is fundamental:
"Whether or not this is statistically true is open to debate, but the current leadership sure gives that impression."
The rest of your comment is partisan fog. The AWOL and the deferments are public record, although the number of deferments was five, not seven. (http://www.chicagotribun...chi-newsnationworld-hed)
Score: 0
"The AWOL and the deferments are public record, although the number of deferments was five, not seven."
Public record verifies he did not go AWOL, but some choose to read the records differently than others. Look at the records themselves, not the biased-bull$@#^ that many news orgs say about it--clearly he did serve during the time in question. Don't you recall this is THE reason Dan Rather was 'retired' in early 2004?
Sadley, there is very little "news" on the web, TV or newspapers, since most of them "interpret" the news rather than giving the news and allowing the people to decide on the meaning.
That's an entirely different issue, though...
Score: 0
Yeah, THAT's a non-biased source! It'd take me 30 seconds to find some liberal site to say the exact opposite.
Score: 0
You can't look at the records, they were mysteriously lost. Readings of the public records BEFORE they were lost AND eyewitness accounts from military officers say the opposite.
As for the deferments, I assume you are now satisfied.
Score: 0
"The source of the documents, Burkett, admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them or even definitely tell whether they're fakes. But the network has given up trying to defend them." --CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/s...litics/main641481.shtml
"You can't look at the records, they were mysteriously lost."
Funny...what's this then: http://lawcrawler.findla...s&sites=findlaw.com
Yeah, it took me a long time to find the significant and relevant ones in this huge list, but I found what I needed:
A. http://news.lp.findlaw.c...h/gwb72-73usaf-rprc.pdf
B. http://news.lp.findlaw.c...sh/gwb72-73lloydmem.pdf
C. http://news.findlaw.com/...wbush/gwb73arfspe2.html
I'm sure you can find some more. Also, please note that findlaw.com is not some johnny-come-lately biased Bush lover blog, but a real source of legal information. While there are some message boards/etc. from the site, this data is not from message boards.
I have spent nearly an hour researching this between calls--I've gone through several search results, and posted only the big ones. Feel free to search the others I did not link to.
The deferments are honestly a waste of my time, because I have not yet seen any proof of those accusations, just like I have never seen proof that GWB went AWOL. It's all political B.S., and the records seem to indicate that as well.
Say what you will, claim the documents are fake and the whole thing is a cover-up, but until you show me any substantial evidence that shows that GWB actually went AWOL, keep your opinions in the opinion category--stop spouting opinions and then saying they are facts.
Score: 0
Yeah, well I finally found some real stuff below.
Again, I cannot DISPROVE that GWB went AWOL--but you, on the other hand, have no real evidence that proves he DID go AWOL. Since all that can be said in between is personal views and opinions, why not just come out and say it? Why say "Bush went AWOL" when that is NOT PROVEN FACT? Say "IMO, Bush went AWOL" instead.
Score: 0
I'm not going to continue arguing the AWOL with you, because we both know that there is "evidence" on both sides and neither side accepts the evidence of the other as "proof."
What I do find strange is that you would try to deny Cheney's deferments, when even he has never denied them. That's a lot like saying that there was a connection between Hussein and 9/11 even after Bush has stated there was not.
Score: 0
President Ford was in my view a decent President for excpet for the fact he pardoned a crooked President one Richard Nixon, this act in my opnion cost him the election in 1976. The other slight failure was the WIN program (Whip Inflation Now)despite those 2 shortcomings he was a good Pres during a trying time for America and I am a die hard Democrat.
Score: 0
While it may have cost him his re-election, it is the opinion of *many* that it healed a lot of burgeoning divisiveness in the country.
If he should be known for anything, it should be for bringing the country back together after the single most divisive political upheaval short of the Civil War. Yeah, he pardoned Nixon, yeah, he gave the draft-dodgers a freebie. Small price to pay IMHO for the unity of a Nation.
Do you realize that in virtually every other nation that has ever undergone such a political upheaval that war, massive casualties, and years of reconstruction were the results?
He proved our system *worked*. That the Constitution was valid and that the process and the people could work together.
We could use another like him. This rhetoric and vitriol being flung about by both parties right now is damn near making a mockery of our system.
Score: 0
You highlight *many* like that makes your point, but all it really does is highlight the revisionist history that goes on, in large part, due to people like Mr. Ford.
You also highlight *worked* when, in fact, Mr. Ford proved only that our system does NOT work. Had the system worked, Mr. Nixon would have answered for the crimes he committed. *That* would have been the system *working.*
As for the "rhetoric and vitriol" you speak of, perhaps you should do a little research (no, I won't do it for you) and read the quotes from Republicans who went after Clinton primarily as revenge for Watergate. Had Nixon stood trial, and been found innocent or guilty, there would have been closure on that issue. The true mockery of our system occurred when that was prevented by Mr. Ford's pardon.
Score: 0
Good lord...
Yeah, we're one of the only countries that survived the removal of the person sitting in our top office without a bloody revolution. What a failure...
He pardoned Nixon for the sole purpose of ending before it began what would have turned into a three-ring circus, dividing the country even more than a pardon would have. I'm sure you would have loved a public hanging, but we're a little past that, thankfully.
As for my comment regarding rhetoric and vitriol... I believe I stated this was coming from both sides of the political fence. Anyone who was alive in October of this year is well aware of the mudslinging and crap that has gotten way out of hand on both sides.
Research, indeed. Try actually reading the post.
Score: 0
One day you will respond to a post without gross overreaction and ad hominem attacks, but until then let me point out that I said he might have been found innocent or guilty. The fact is that the system was not completed and judgement was not made, leaving it open to interpretation decades later. That lack of closure led many in the Republican Party to believe that they needed to avenge the perceived wrong done to Nixon and the GOP image, and the best way to do that was to impeach a Democrat. I'm sure you can see how this led to the "rhetoric and vitriol."
Score: 0
Riiight. A trial would have been much better. Everyone would have banded together and we'd all have been singing and holding hands.
Do you honestly think a public trial would have been *better*? Seriously?
Score: 0
Look how the Clinton hearings unified the country.
Score: 0
"Look how the Clinton hearings unified the country. "
Look at how unwilling he was to resign like Nixon was. Also, if he just admitted it in the beginning, we wouldn't have had the mess. In addition, he survived the political firestorm, while Nixon was still considered by the majority even in 1994 that he was a "crook". Interesting parallel--but I believe these are two incredibly different issues.
Score: 0
Yeah, Nixon perpetrated a felony and resigned from office to avoid impeachment. Clinton lied about something perfectly legal, but did so under oath, which made him a target of impeachment. Instead of resigning like a coward, he stood against the witch hunt of the opposition.
Score: 0
"Clinton lied about something perfectly legal, but did so under oath, which made him a target of impeachment. Instead of resigning like a coward, he stood against the witch hunt of the opposition."
That's another way of looking at it :)
Score: 0
lol... "ad hominem"?
I doubt you even know what that means... at least not until you look it up on Google and reply to me "proving" that you do.
Sorry dude... you weren't even close with that one. He didn't attack you at all except to say you were wrong right after he proved you were.
Score: 0
*sigh* yeah, okay.
The ad hominem reference was in regards to general and consistant behavior, whereas the over reaction was more specific to the particular comment. Sorry to confuse you by covering too much ground.
Of course, you could simply have ignored a comment not directed toward you. Then again, that's not the BetaNews way, so I don't blame you for trying. ;o)
Score: 0
...and one day the world will realize the error of their ways and worship me.
Well, we can all dream, right?
Score: 0
Why post that kind of news on here ?
Score: -1
Well, the negative score at least seems odd--nonetheless it is off topic I suppose...perhaps it was your tone of voice?
Really, a former President dying isn't some 'whoopty-do' news, so this doesn't surprise me. If you read the article, they also try to make it into relavent news to this site as well.
Score: 0
Because you are an idiot. Complaining about this story is just down right lame. Go away.
Score: 0
Apparently Mr Fulton knows nothing about the American Political Process. President Ford, as a Member of The House of Representatives, was elected to Office every two years until he left the Congress to become Vice President. He was not appointed President, he was appointed to be Vice President under Article 25 of the US Constitution when Spiro Agnew resigned that office. President Ford SUCCEEDED Richard Nixon as President when Nixon resigned the Office (also under Article 25).
RIP Mr Ford.
Score: 0
It's nice to have people like you, dreamer: we always need the bitter criticism of a wise guy for such important matters. :)
/sarcasm off
Score: 0
I could swear reps only come up for election every 6 years, with only 1/3 of the house up for elections at a particular time. Also, he did not say never elected to office; but to the office.
Score: 0
I hope you're not a US citizen, because if you are, this is a dismaying show of ignorance of the Constitution. *Senators* are elected every six years, with one-third of the seats voted on every two years. Elections for Representatives are held every two years.
Technically speaking, the House Minority Leader is not an office, and to some extent, minority and majority leaders are usually elected by the members of the party within each particular wing of Congress. With regards to office, Ford was *elected* to the House of Representatives, *appointed* to the office of Vice President, and *assumed* the office of President upon Nixon's resignation. All three are different means of reaching office.
Score: 0
Yep, I am a US citizen. However, I think your "ignorance" remark was a bit harsh. I didn't know you were my political science professor expecting me to remember the arbitrary specifics of the Constitution. Do you still remember all the state capitals off the top of your head too? Does that information come in handy in your every day life?
If you think my post was a "dismaying show of ignorance", you should abandon all hope now because I am well above average.
Score: 0
And we can also tell whose above average with stupidity.
Score: 0
Aww, you shouldn't sell yourself short like that.
Score: 0
Even when it makes a total fool of himself~
Score: 0
If you are well above average Glazer I despair for the future of this Nation. If you don't even know how often you vote for the persons who represent you in the Government perhaps you NEED a lesson or two in the arbitrary specifics of the Constitution.
Score: 0
Read it again Grazer:
Quote:
"Gerald R. Ford was never elected to the office – in fact, he had been appointed House Minority Leader in 1965, as well as to every office thereafter."
He was appointed to the Office of Vice President in 1973. Given that he was the House Minority leader in Congress when he was appointed, he would therefore have to be ELECTED to Congress every two years from 1966 to 1972. And yes this is a lesson in the arbitrary specifics of the Constitution. Apparently you also need reading comprehension lessons.
Score: 0
No, it wasn't harsh. You're just feeling stung because you didn't know something that you really should have.
The basic structure of the government is not composed of "arbitrary specifics of the Constitution." It is learned, at the latest, by middle school/junior high. It's not hard -- one president elected for four year terms, 435 House seats with two-year terms, a 100-member Senate with six-year terms, and a Supreme Court which members are appointed for life.
Do I remember the state capitals off the top of my head? No, I couldn't rattle them off, and I'm sure I'd get a few wrong if I tried, even if presented with multiple choice. Not terribly useful on a daily basis for my job. But I do know the Constitution pretty well, including how the government is formed and more or less what its powers are. Knowing how your government works is one of the more fundamental things that any citizen -- or even resident -- should know, average or not.
Just for reference...
http://www.law.cornell.e...stitution.overview.html
Score: 0
No matter when it is learned, the specifics, such as term lengths, are still arbitrary. I might actually have troubled myself to remember (or experience) such things more accurately had there actually been anyone worth voting for in the last decade. Despite the abysmal election results of recent history, it can't really be said there was much of a choice in candidates or that things would have turned out too much different, what with them all being too polarized on the issues that don't matter and too similar or non-committal on the issues that do.
I still stand by my claim that it was too harsh, as it is an arbitrary figure, that is correct for the Senate at least; and incorrect as it is, it does not reflect the accuracy of my overall knowledge of such matters. I am much more familiar with the government's theoretical divisions, powers, structure, etc... than I am with what time they choose to take lunch, go on vacation, or choose to use the bathroom.
Score: 0
When I see someone that I feel represents me more than their opposition, I'll vote for them. The last several years, I've seen nothing but wackos and shadows. Elections are like going into a fertilizer store looking for a computer. Not much to choose from, it all stinks, and none of your choices will accomplish what you want it to.
Score: 0
(bourgeoisdude claps excitedly for Martin)
Right on, Martin, right on...
Score: 0
They say ignorance is bliss. Grazer must be the happiest guy in his town.
Score: 0
"I am much more familiar with the government's theoretical divisions, powers, structure, etc..." (emph. added)
Theoretical, eh? Not actual?
Score: 0
You mean "who's".
Score: 0
Yeah, theoretical, because it hasn't always worked out in practice as it has on paper.
Score: 0
All I have been disputing is that the author of the article was not intoning he was not elected more than once, but only elected to his initial office. Apparently you need reading comprehension lessons. When a person writes "the office" in this context, it is rightly assumed that "the office" is the presidential office; and it can be easily forgiven that "every office thereafter" was intended to exclude his original one.
So you concede the Constitutional specifics in question are arbitrary?
BTW, check RedBoar's post higher up, you'll see why I said I am above average.
Score: 0
What? No response that actually relates to the post, so you come up with something like that?
Score: 0
Maybe he isn't selling himself short. :P
Score: 0
No I don't conceded that questions concerning the Constitution are arbitrary. What part of "he had been appointed House Minority Leader in 1965, as well as to every office thereafter." don't you understand? What I do concede however, is you are a troll and not worth spending anymore bandwidth on.
Score: 0
"I think your "ignorance" remark was a bit harsh."
LMAO! You're kidding, right? Nothing anyone has ever said in this forum has been considered harsh, certainly not by the author of said comments. Thanks for the morning chuckle!
However, in your defense, you are sadly correct in that your knowledge is probably greater than the average idiot. Instead of giving up hope, perhaps you and Martin should help educate some of the rest of the electorate. Without harshness, of course. ;o)
Score: 0
"...it hasn't always worked out in practice as it has on paper. "
While I certainly cannot disagree with you there, the problem is that the theoretical is highly opinionated. I try to argue over measureable issues, unless I specifically say that 'I believe' or 'IMO'. The problem is that you do not always distinguish between opinion and fact as you should, hence nothing you say can be taken as truth.
We also will never hope to come to agreement regarding opinions, and likely even proof one way or the other would not change your mind due to what I call the 'moral roots' that are tied with your opinions. I could be wrong about that. The reason I argue, in most cases at least, is to attempt to defend the truth, the stuff that we know is true. Much if not all you have is theoretical and possibilities, but since you cannot prove any of them, they hold little real value.
I could join that bandwagon if I wished--what about the dozens upon dozens of accusations about Dems manipulating the polls? What about the accusation that CNN is being paid by Al-Queda to reveal classified information? Accusations that Hilary is indeed lesbian? The problem with these arguments is that none of them have been proven, and hence they are invalid.
I could out-theory you any day if I wanted to waste all of my time argueing in a frikin software website, but I'll stick with stuff that is actually real and true instead--you may see it as wasted time for me to do so, but at least my arguments are real and not theoretical.
Score: 0
yes this is a lesson in the arbitrary specifics of the Constitution
How exactly is that not conceding?
What part of "he had been appointed House Minority Leader in 1965, as well as to every office thereafter." don't you understand?
Maybe the part where you read into it that the original author was trying to claim Ford was not elected to any office thereafter, or where you nitpick on how he "assumed" the Presidency instead of being "appointed" to it.
Score: 0
I never intend to put forth my opinion as fact, and do not recall ever doing so...if you could point it out somewhere. In places where I am mistaken about facts, I have no trouble conceding the mistake.
I find it interesting that you use the word "truth" instead of "fact", as "truth" is often spouted by those of religious affiliation that have no logical ground to stand on, whereas "fact" is something used by those of a more scientific or logical bent to describe something that can be proven.
I have never had a problem changing my mind when presented with sufficient proof contrary to my current state of understanding, but what constitutes proof differs from person to person depending on how they think. I am very a logical thinker, so proof to me is different than proof to a superstitious or religious thinker.
Out theory me about what? What theories have I put forth?
Score: 0
spongy-poo said: in your defense
That's it, I think hell has officially frozen over.
Score: 0
Nah, it's actually been pretty mild here. We've had some ice, but I wouldn't call it frozen over... :p
Score: 0
Well, I would say it is a small world, but we're not exactly talking about the world. Anyways, I didn't know you were my neighbor.
Score: 0
I apologise, sir.
I really should speak less--I somehow got you and pickchevy confused with all this bouncing around :(
"...if you could point it out somewhere. In places where I am mistaken about facts, I have no trouble conceding the mistake."
Nope, can't find it. Goes to show how much you can know and yet how easy it is to make a complete a$$hole out of yourself in the process. Please accept my apology--
" find it interesting that you use the word "truth" instead of "fact", as "truth" is often spouted by those of religious affiliation that have no logical ground to stand on, whereas "fact" is something used by those of a more scientific or logical bent to describe something that can be proven."
Hmm--interesting observation, and more than likely a correct one. While I am very--well, what others would call "religious", even throughout the Grazer-pickchevy confusion, I am not coming up with facts out of my Christian beliefs, but...
Well, thanks for pointing this out. I think I need to take a break from posting in these forums for a while before I accidentally mistake somebody else in this forum as being Hitler :D
Score: 0
"...than I am with what time they choose to take lunch, go on vacation, or choose to use the bathroom."
None of which are specified in the Constitution, and little of which I care about except for how much time they put into their jobs. I applaud the incoming Democratic leadership in declaring that Congress is to become a Monday-through-Friday job, instead of the Tuesday-through-Thursday slapdash effort it has become.
Your attempts at covering your ignorance with cynicism are all too transparent to everyone here. If you knew the "theoretical divisions, powers, structure, etc.," then you would know what the Senate and House each did (they have duties that are specific to each which are not present in the other, such as budget bills originating solely in the House and consent of Executive appointments happening solely in the Senate) as well as their structure and *why* they are actually structured the way they are. So far, your knowledge seems to consist mostly of there being a bunch of people somehow selected every so often and sent to Washington to represent views that you don't like.
It would probably be good for you -- and everyone in the US -- to read the Constitution, and learn a few things. Even I sometimes come across some point that I hadn't fully considered prior.
Score: 0
Np. It can get a bit frantic in some of these threads. No matter how much I disagree with anyone, I can almost always respect them when they can admit a mistake and don't let their beliefs override rational thought.
Score: 0
Yep, just down the road... probably a bit to the er..."right". *grins*
Score: 0
I'm the one who said that he assumed the presidency upon Nixon's resignation. Had he been appointed president, it would mean that someone outside the office had selected him from among others as the person to be president, when in fact he followed the constitutional requirements of succession, specifically that "[i]n case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." (Amendment XXV, Section 1)
Score: 0
I apologize to both of you, seems I must not be paying as good attention as usual.
Score: 0
I do not cover ignorance with cynicism. I put the experiences that cause my cynicism forth as reason for my rusty knowledge of the less important specifics. And I do not believe I said they all represent views I do not like, merely that they are all too non-committal in subjects that matter, and many too extreme in their views on the things they will have no real power to affect.
You seem to assume because I could not offhand state the exact details of election intervals that I somehow lack knowledge of the more important matters like the specific powers and duties of our governing bodies and why they are structured in the way that they are. What flawed deductive or inductive path or reasoning did you take to reach that conclusion? (With that kind of reasoning you could prove God does not exist.)
Score: 0
You don't know (or didn't at the time) the difference between the House and Senate and the terms which they serve, and then called the details "arbitrary" when they were structured that way for a reason. You appear to have skipped the last election because you didn't have anyone you could vote for, suggesting that you not only didn't like any candidates, but probably also had no opinion at all on any ballot measures that might have been up for vote -- and I think every state had at least one. You don't understand the difference between someone being appointed to a position and someone assuming that role due to a defined succession sequence.
Rather than defend your ignorance of the basic structure of government, you could simply say, "Yes, I should have known that. I really should go back and read the Constitution and make sure that I can fill in the gaps in my knowledge." I suspect that you would have taken less flack for it and gotten more respect in acknowledging that you had a gap in your basic knowledge of government that you intended to fill.
Score: 0
Where exactly was it that I showed ignorance of the differences between the house and senate outside of election cycles? The specifics are arbitrary despite having a reason. Here's an example. Why not have elections every year for one-sixth instead of every other year for one-third, or half every three years? The fact there is a cycle is what is important, and it never made much sense to me why both houses didn't have such cycles.
No, didn't really have an opinion on the ballot measures here, I quit smoking but don't mind if others do, and have no interest in pot one way or another. Also, I have no children so I could care less about school issues.
I do understand the difference between "appointed" and "assumed", I just feel the difference is negligible in the context of a tributary fluff piece.
I'll be the first one to admit when I was wrong, have you seen me clinging to my original claim (which I never presented as absolute fact). I am not disputing that, merely that one mistake about a relatively minor detail does not constitute absolute ignorance as your bizarre method of reasoning seems to conclude.
Score: 0
Oh, near the lake of fire? It's nice real estate there; but the wife and I were afraid the screaming would make it hard to sleep.
Score: 0
Sleep? Never heard of it. Must be some newfangled torture.
Score: 0
His contribution to the automobile manufacturing industry will not be forgotten. My grandfather had a Model T.
www.thedudwars.com
www.nexgaywars.com
www.thelookandsoundofprefects.com
www.gamesytemwarz.com
Score: 0
Unfortunately, I think you have President Ford confused with Henry Ford. Henry Ford revolutionized the automobile industry with the assembly lines, not Gerald Ford.
Score: 0
Unfortunately, I think you have failed to identify the sarcasm in Hollywood's post.
Score: 0
yea no s***
Score: 0
lol. yes, he was definitely being sarcastic.
Score: 0
And I'd like to thank him for the hotties from his modeling agency.
Score: 0
LOL, what an idiot. Did you used to skip school.. Get an education..
Score: 0