Merry Xmas Gerry Ford...RIP.

Remove all ads!

Well...Last night, Gerald Ford, the 38th President of the Unided States of America died at the age of 93. IIRC, the past few years, his health has been getting worse and worse...and he ended up loosing the battle to pnumonia.

Now, even though Gerry Ford served as president several years before I was born, my parents speak very highly of him. My dad served as a medical technician durring the Veiatnam War, and eventhough the US lost the war, President Ford was still the one who ended it.

R.I.P. Mr. President.

 

I don't know too much about him, but anyone that gives Nixon a pardon cannot be good.

 

Context is important when judging a person by their acts, or in this case I should say judging a person by one act.

There was a lot of reasons that President Ford gave President Nixon a pardon...the first being that the morale of the US was in the tank at the time for a long list of reasons, and the last thing we needed a long period of recrimination of Nixon: not that it meant much, President Carter came along and destroyed any morale we had left anyway.

President Ford didn't ask to be President. Many sources believe he never even wanted to be President and that he was used by Nixon because Nixon never believed anyone would want to get rid of him with someone like Ford waiting in the wings.

Aside from being clumsy and having a tendency to talk too much (leading him to make silly statements) President Ford was a likable, easy going person with high moral standards (extremely high based upon the last couple of Presidents we have elected) who passed up chances to play professional football to make a career in public service. Unfortunately it didn't work out so well for him in the end due more the circumstances by which he took office and the environment in which he was forced to assume leadership than any faults of his own. Among his many positive attributes President Ford was a man who believed that you have to look to the positive to achieve greatness, and who believed in the general good of people.

Rest in peace Mr. President.

Edit: What a difference an "e" can make. Sorry, Carter didn't display any lack of "moral"ity, at least while he was in office, but he did do a good job of destroying the country's "morale".

[ December 27, 2006, 16:37: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

President Ford had said many times his reason for pardoning Nixon was he believed a pardon would end the issue. In his opinion it was time for the country to look forward, not dwell on the mistakes of a past president.

I believe he did the right thing in that context.

Darkwolf: I liked Carter. He was and is still a good man who does great things for this country. His response to one incident during his was inadequate; however, he has done more for human rights than any other president. I remember Carter quite well and have no idea what you are talking about when you say Carter destroyed the morals of the country (unless you misspelled morale -- in which case I would agree with you).

 

Jerry Ford was given the Profiles in Courage award by Caroline Kennedy for his pardon of Richard Nixon. Whether or not there was a deal between Nixon and Ford, one cannot really say with certainty at this point in time. Regardless, and although many see it as an injustice, the country appeared to recover from the Watergate crisis much faster than it would have if there had been a long, drawn out ordeal over Nixon's crimes in office.

Note: This post has been edited by CTR.

[ December 27, 2006, 17:07: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Wow, Chandos actually agree on a couple more issues -- although the gratuitous quote slamming the current administration was not necessary in this thread IMO.

 

"although the gratuitous quote slamming the current administration was not necessary in this thread IMO"

Neither was the expansive, unsupported, cut at Carter.

But I'm glad we agree on Jerry Ford...

 

Chandos,

Please see my edit above.

 

DW - Ahh, I see your point. Please note that my response has been edited as well...

 

Montresor,

Well, to be honest, most Americans really don't spend much time worrying bout our international reputation, and in the 70's we probably cared even less that we do now.

I don't think that dragging Nixon through the mud would have helped Ford win the election in '76, in fact it would probably have hurt his chances as it would have prolonged the scandal and in America there are a awful lot of people that vote based upon the last/best/worst sound bite they hear (ask John Kerry and Al Gore about "voting for it before voting against it" and "inventing the internet"). President Ford was a likable guy, but he was not elected to the position of Vice-President (and thus was the only President to never be elected), instead he was appointed by Nixon...those 2 issues in themselves probably being enough to ensure a loss in an election.

It isn't like Nixon didn't pay a pretty high price for what he did anyway... being forced to resign in shame from arguably the most powerful position in the "free world".

I doubt that the Iran-Contra scandal or the Lewinsky affair would have been avoided by much of anything...in one case you had an administration that on principle believed that the ends justifies the means. In the other case you had an issue that was a combination of extremely poor judgment while under oath (and arguably poor taste in the Oval Office ) and that should have stayed between husband, wife, and mistress anyway.

 

At least he did not fall down the stairs and break his neck.

 

Yeah, and it shows.

I find it interesting that Ford had a "sanctioned" interview in which he heavily criticized Bush for going to war in Iraq. I can understand the need for sanctions only so far as a matter of protocol, but when it comes to the welfare of the American people then I have a real problem with the need for protocol over public duty. All these party loyalists seem to have forgotten that it is the welfare of the American people that should be their first concern, not their party:

As someone pointed out on one of the other threads, the two party system, and party loyalty is killing America. At this point I tend to agree.

This may seem a sad legacy, but I have feeling that there will be another about to join him:

Not to worry over that too much, Jerry. I have a feeling we are about to lose another one. But at least you lost something that was not of your own making, unlike another prez, whom we are all too familiar with....

 

Wonder why no-one mentions the Indonesian invasion of East Timor?

 

Why should anyone mention that? Many countries sold arms to Indonesia and nearly all the NATO allies viewed East Timor as a communist regime. Everyone Iincluding Austrailia and UK) just sat back and let it happen. It was certainly not the fault of Ford.

 

Regarding Ford and his comments regarding Iraq, Ford was the last "moderate" Republican President. He was very satisfied with the status quo and didn't like to see a lot of confrontation. It is interesting that political parties really don't seem to be the issue here as President Kennedy (a Democrat) seemed to relish confrontation with the Soviet Union, while Ford, a Republican was against it. But then Kennedy was President during the Vietnam war, and Ford saw the end of it and was definitely impacted emotionally by it. It is sad though that US politics deem that if one party is in favor of something the other party must be against it, though there are of course brave individuals who will step out of the party lines (Dan Boren, and John McCain jumping immediately into my mind).

This seems to be a cyclical thing...we had a couple of Presidents who wanted to leave the world alone and were happy with detente (Ford and Carter), then we had a President who decided that we could "win" the cold war and rejected detente. I am not really where I would put George H W Bush in this classification, he did free Kuwait, but didn't press the advantage into Iraq. I would say that President Clinton set up a position of detente with the extreme elements in the Middle East (though they obviously weren't willing to go along with it) and North Korea. Of course we wouldn't put the current President in the detente category.

This really doesn't seem to be all that surprising, or unusual to me. I am not that familiar with the international strategies of other nations, but looking at the Brits, they have had Chamberlains and Churchills, Calaghans and Thatchers. I would assume that this type of swings are common in many of the more powerful democratic nations.

To be honest, I think President Ford was an unusual man in politics in that I believe he tried to do what he believed was best for the American people regardless of political fall out and career ramifications...we need a Congress full of people like that now.

 

I respect him much. He was a great man.

Darkie is right. America needed more folks like him. As a matter of fact, most countries would.

 

No offence to the dead (may they rest in peace) but why does everyone always think presidents (and other leaders) are so great - after they die? Nobody ever likes the president when they are the president (in fact they usually hate them), but everyone loves them when they're really old (or dead).

Witness this thread, and the one when Ronald Reagan died (and everything Chandos ever writes about the really ancient Presidents).

I need to make sure I have a record of all your anti-Bush comments so I can play them back when he shuffles off and you're praising his patriotism in the face of terror.

 

I like George Bush