28 December 2006 - 3:18am
Gerald Ford: Kick him when he's dead [corrected]
I confess I never really thought much of Gerald Ford. I knew that Chevy Chase didn't resemble him much, but I probably saw more of Chevy Chase spoofing Ford than Ford himself. I knew that Ford pardoned Nixon, and I kind of understood why. I knew that Ford did not distinguish himself much in office, and yet he trounced -- trounced -- Ronald Reagan in the GOP primary in 1976.
The world didn't blow up. The economy didn't collapse, though inflation hit us hard. And in an age when politics was much more moderate in tone and liberal in values, he was known as a bipartisan leader of sorts. I never would have voted for him, had I been old enough, but as I look back at what the GOP has had to offer the White House since, he seems to be not all that bad in retrospect.
So it really is quite shocking to me, the reactions offering everything from naive praise to vehement hatred expressed towards Gerald Ford, the man who's merited scarcely a mention in blogs ... that is until he died.
Booman says:
Gerald Ford's greatest faults lied [sic] in his weakness on matters of foreign policy. That was most glaringly evidenced in his debate with Carter when he insisted that the Soviet Bloc didn't really exist. And then, as now, deeply immoral and incompetent men stepped into the breach to set our policies.
Then again, anyone who's been paying attention would know that Ford was Speaker of the House a Congressman for many years [with his greatest ambition to be Speaker] during some rather dark days of the Cold War. Of course he knew -- as anyone who had to go through duck-and-cover drills knew -- Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination! In several interviews since the election debates, Ford has offered explanations about how he misspoke. If you've seen the tape of that debate, one thing is clear: Gerald Ford was nervous on camera and was not at all anything like a great communicator.
bernadene at The Agonist blames Ford and his pardon of Nixon for the mendacious opportunists running the White House today:
And that folks is why we have what we have today: a bunch of true, dyed in the wool criminals running Washington and the White House: no redress, acting with impunity, and no fear of reprisal.
That's a stretch. Ford wasn't of the neocon ilk. In fact, as Liza points out:
Nixon, probably unintentionally, began the decline of the Eisenhower Republican. Some of those he brought into government are the very same "barking crazy rightwingers" who have systematically been destroying our nation under Bush. That, combined with Nixon's spectacular and televised downfall, discredited the reasonable, moderate Republican. The Democrats, then more liberal than now, were ready to take advantage of Nixon's downfall, and the far right wing Republicans, then marginalized but poised to strike, were ready to begin their plans to take over the nation through lying, stealing and cheating.
One man had a small chance of saving the Eisenhower Republican: President Gerald Ford.
Gerald Ford, the last of the Eisenhower Republicans who had any chance of saving the Republican Party from the barking crazy rightwingers, has died.Gerald Ford had been a well-respected Congressman, someone who could work with both parties to get things done. As criminal charges consumed Nixon and his administration, Gerald Ford was the last chance Republicans had of restoring respectability. Centrist, traditionalist and all around nice guy, Ford might have been the only person who could have saved the Republican Party from being taken over by extremists or lapsing into obscurity.
And only recently he stated his unbridled opposition to Bush's war on Iraq.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
Of course, there will always be the left's version of depraved freepers ... and the wingnutty chest-thumping of claimed superiority over liberals who (they claim) "symbalize [sic] the very definition of white trash." It truly is interesting to me, seeing the right-wing bloggers praising a man that would be considered too liberal to get nominated dog catcher today. Funny how party lines distort perspectives.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.





















Comments
that was paying attention would know that Gerald Ford was never Speaker of the House, that he was an appropriator that had very little to do with foreign policy, and that he let Kissinger, Scowcroft, and Rumsfeld do his foreign policy, while he focused on cleaning out Nixon's political operatives and getting the economy on a better footing.
You also might note Ford's assent to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, the continuation of Operation Condor under his watch, the dirty war in Angola, and several other deeply cynical and anti-democratic policies.
A totally lame error on my part. It was his ambition, but of course it wasn't going to happen with a Democratic Congress.
Nevertheless, I never said Ford was a saint, just better than your average Republican you find today -- and many Democrats as well. If Ford were living his political life today, the DNC would be all over trying to recruit him. Such is how politics has skewed so much over the recent decades.
and if you read the total of my comments on Ford yesterday you'd know that I was very reluctant to criticize him the day after he died. I did, however, want to make a point about the coverage.
Witness the love-fest over Reagan when he passed. I confess I did not see your other posts. Technorati does not cross-reference. Thanks for your comments here.
"In a 2004 interview with Bob Woodward, reported Thursday night on The Washington Post’s Web site, Mr. Ford offered another, less lofty motive for the pardon: his friendship with Nixon, which lasted for two decades after the pardon and which letters show was closer than publicly understood.
“I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon,” Mr. Ford told Mr. Woodward, “because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn’t want to see my real friend have the stigma.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/washington/29pardon.html?_...
criminals we have now.
evidence:
"And only recently he stated his unbridled opposition to Bush's war on Iraq"
why was this announcement to be made ONLY AFTER HE DIED? if he had one shred of integrity and true honesty, if he was a true "Eisenhower Republican" whom the neocons resemble only by the title and the criminals that vote R or have R after their name in Congress, that support them, he would have made the announcement as soon as he thought of it. dispicable. he was partisan and cared more for POWER, albiet that of the party, than honesty. a true kind and gentle person does not let other people's lust for power and control decide the actions they take in behalf of a moral decision. So his idea of the wrongness of Iraq is TACTICLE in nature, political. or dishonest. "unbridled"? read the statemnt again, it says nothing about even that it WAS WRONG. either way he was aiding and abetting the slaughter, maiming, pilliage and burning of thousands of true innocents.
i did not say or even imply that he was of neocon ilk. he allowed and actually encouraged what has happened today by letting Nixon get away with what he did. and being partisan before decent. like the Republicans today.
i was an adult at the time of the pardon, and to see the events unfold in this way, is not a pretty sight.
Blaming Ford for the Iraq disaster doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry. (I'm also not sure what you mean by "tacticle" -- tactical? How is it tactical?)
Why should I attack Ford for not speaking out against the war, when we have a majority of Senators and a majority of Representatives who supported the war? Ford has been irrelevant since January 20, 1977.
As for the Nixon pardon, I'm not convinced that trying him would have changed anything. It certainly wouldn't have prevented Cheney and Rumsfeld from continuing their rise within the party. Again, it's ancient history in today's political scene.
I just find it ironic that a third of the Democratic caucus stands to the right of Ford, yet they enjoy endorsements from people who attack Ford.
Some of us have been critical of Ford for a very long time because of the horror of his alliance with Indonesia in the invasion of East Timor. They slaughtered 1/3 of the population. The media has yet to mention that, however, just as they failed to mention all the barbaric and racist things Reagan did, or that Rehnquist was a drug addict. Everyone who had power and who dies suddenly has a sqeaky clean record.
I wasn't all that thrilled with Ford's cowboy rescue of the kidnapped crew, either. Without trying anything else, he just sent in the Marines, resulting in many deaths--more than the number of men kidnapped. But most people thought that was a great thing to do.
The attacks on Ford from the right wing are to be expected. At this point in the Republican Party, anyone pre-Reagan was a sissy and opened the door to "those people."