Posted on 01/03/2007 7:54:24 AM PST by relictele
Ford's big mistake
It's time to turn down the volume on Gerald Ford's funeral rites.....
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
1) The writer is apparently upset that Ford's funeral is receiving widespread media coverage. Obviously a GOP plot, the writer wants to find the nearest sandpile and bury his head because Americans MIGHT become a little more unified when paying their respects to one of a handful of men who have held the nation's highest office, to say nothing of the long, full life of a 93-year-old man.
And he doesn't want to wait until internment, either. He wants the funeral to end NOW, dammit, before any goodwill towards the GOP might be generated.
2) Our letter-writing friend makes a sweeping pronouncement about the Nixon pardon. Unfortunately, he includes the time-honored weasel phrase "in the perception of many," which means strictly in his opinion. His mention of the "nascent prosecution" is a tip-off to the fact that he's still in a 30-year snit because there was no pointless show trial. Like many hang-em-high liberals, the writer betrays his (intentional?) ignorance of the Constitution by claiming that granting a pardon (to anyone) somehow "repositioned" the presidency.
Hardly. The full and unconditional power of pardon granted to the president is one of those pesky little checks and balances that liberals usually claim to love, especially when the courts override the will of the people as expressed through state and federal legislatures.
I doubt Mr. Kichi from Sewickly (almost rhymes) ranted with equal righteous fury during the farcical last days of the Clinton administration. In short, Ford exercised the power EXACTLY as laid out in the Constitution. Does the writer not think that Ford's liberal contemporaries would have challenged the pardon in court if they believed he had overstepped his Constitutional authority? I'm forced to speculate that Mr. Kichi would have been upset with even a POSTHUMOUS pardon of Nixon. That's the kind of mindset we are forced to confront.
3) The writer wanted Nixon to face the "people's justice," presumably the same kind recently experienced by Saddam Hussein. In all likelihood, Nixon would have received a pardon even after a prosecution, trial, or conviction. Why waste time, money and ill feeling on a moot court? Because liberals aren't interested in productivity - they simply want to prolong the screaming and shouting.
The writer, hitting his stride now, introduces the concept of "chastened presidents." Any bets on where the rest of the letter is going? I think we can all agree that "chastened president" will not refer to William Jefferson Clinton.
4) Now he's decrying the reestablishment of the Oval Office "shield of deference." Have any of these liberals, for whom history began either during the Great Depression or upon the release of Bob Dylan's first LP, ever bothered to read some of the criticism and actions taken (or at least threatened) against presidents beginning with Washington himself? Has the writer read anything regarding Lincoln and the War Between The States (or choose your label as appropriate)?
Assuming there is a shield of deference, why is this a bad thing? Isn't it simply respect for the office by another name? Oh, wait one moment, here it comes. The writer is upset that Ford's return of the presidency to the "ether of invulnerability" (snort) has somehow emboldened President Bush. There's that vast right-wing conspiracy again. Of course, Ford was no right-winger (as Reagan amply demonstrated) and it's hard to conspire over a 30-year period especially when the conspirators don't even know each other.
Still, that's not the issue for the writer. He's upset that - wait for it - criticism of the "current occupant" (a favored phrase of liberals who think that not uttering Bush's name somehow weakens or invalidates his presidency) has been discouraged.
Has the writer been living in Ted Kaczynski's old lean-to? Does he fail to see the Himalayan piles of criticism leveled at George W. Bush on a daily, even hourly, basis, including the stories and editorials published in the very newspaper in which his letter appears?
No matter. It's taken four paragraphs but we finally arrive at the payoff. The Iraq War is a fiasco! Haven't you heard? Apparently not - someone better phone the networks, cable nets, web sites and major newspapers, because John Kichi is here to set the record straight! A fiasco! Heaven forfend! Perhaps we'd better invoke the "no fiasco" clause in the Constitution!
5) "Gerry Ford wasn't as smart as he was nice." Oooh, pithy! And a bit nasty! And untrue! Only in the minds of liberals are smart and nice mutually exclusive. To them, being humane, caring and even loving to your fellow man means you are a religious Pollyanna simp unfit to hold high office. Ford was very smart, thank you. The University of Michigan and Yale University don't hand out degrees on street corners. Why do liberals insist on ignoring or denigrating the educational achievements of a Jerry Ford (or George W. Bush for that matter) while continually praising the the Clintons or Noam Chomsky for their academic pursuits?
It will probably surprise no-one, but our friend Mr. Kichi has left a trail of acidic liberal goo. I won't repeat or respond to his additional posts, except to spoil one item for you: he thinks David Gregory (!) and the White House press corps are the "firewall between democracy and fascism" and "America's hope!" You tell him the reporters receive untold perks and trips that include their families - I can't bear to shatter his fantasy.
Another PG Letter (News flash! Conservatives are causing the school shootings!)
Lots of things could be said, but I assume you mean good things ?
I thought the same thing while watching Ford's funeral. They will always find something respectful, funny or touching to say at anyone's funeral, but especially a president's - there are plenty of cotton-candy policy items to choose from with respect to Clinton and I doubt they will mention his difficulties unless it's some elliptical "legal challenges" remark.
Carter's gonna bite it before Clinton...and THAT will be an interesting funeral.
Ford had several problemmatic conflicts to deal with. First, he thought - and rightly so - that the pardon was necessary in order to put an end to things and move forward. Second, it seems that he had little choice but to run as the Republican nominee in '76 in order to try to bolster party unity. Yet, because of the pardon, his candidacy was doomed.
We could say he was a philanderer, a womanizer, and had the morals of a Billy goat. He was pro abortion, pro gay rights, and pro gun control (gun confiscation). No…wait a minute… I’m talking about Giuiliani. Can’t do that, now can we?
I thought this was gonna be about Edsels.
Before he died, the only thing the MSM had to say about Gerald Ford was to repeat the joke about him playing too much football without a helmet, but if he snipes at GWB, he's suddenly got credibility. I couldn't watch his funeral as the hypocrisy was too much to bear.
Good post!
It's funny isn't it that the liberals have the microphone and are still crying that no one is listening?
Perhaps the 'poll numbers' that 1/3 polled believe that the government was involved in 9/11 would cheer him up.
I don't mind all the attention regarding what a nice guy Ford was. But a great President? No...he was awful. He gave us FISA, de-balled the CIA, barred assassinations, and appointed John Paul Stevens.
"it seems that he [Ford] had little choice but to run as the Republican nominee in '76 in order to try to bolster party unity"
I liked President Ford, but I have always held it against him that (if I recall correctly)when he was testifying under oath before the Senate in his confirmation hearings to be appointed as VP he said that he saw himself as a caretaker, someone who would bind up the wounds and move on, and then he stated (under oath) that to demonstrate his lack of personal political ambition for the Presidency, that he would not run in 1976. He later broke that sworn testimony, and everyone treated it as "politicians always say they aren't going to run, and then do". But this wasn't an ordinary campaign press conference or a talk show interview, this was testimony under oath. Does anybody who watched the hearings like I did remember it differently?
Pittsburg Boomers.com
"It's about Attitude, not Age"
www.pittsburghboomers.com
John Kichi
Account Executive
Yes I saw that too when I Googled. Not sure I want any of that "attitude."
I don't disagree - my post really wasn't to defend or praise Ford but to expose those wingnuts who think that Nixon's pardon somehow subverted the Constitution and/or have made Bush untouchable.
Yes, absolutely. I'm amused by the "I'm gonna go get my big brother!" bluster of Reid/Pelosi. Even the libs are saying they've got to come out of the gate quickly, but apart from anti-war rhetoric the cupboard is bare and they know it.
Not that I'm wishing it anytime soon, but you can bet, that WJC's funeral will be used for political purposes...by someone, some political party, or some left-wing organization.
It'll have to run for a month if all the old girl friends want to walk by the casket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.