You are young. I recall very well his Presidency. First, I thought the pardon was a mistake. But then Ford did a remarkable job of restoring integrity to the office. On the economics front - his tenure was lackluster, so it was turn it over to another decent man whose tenure has been described by those more partisan than Ford as lackluster. Maybe the 1970's was a good time to be too young to remember.

One thing that can get lost in eulogizing Ford: IIRC, he used a lot of vetoes on legislation originated by Democrats, in efffect forcing a 2/3 requirement for passage. Doesn't mean he was a bad guy, but his expansiveness had limits.

Steve - I think your description of Gerald Ford is a fitting one. I was early in my college years when he served. We were all angry at Nixon and felt the pardon was wrong but time has given perspective and I think he understood that what we needed most was healing, not retribution. I don't really remember too much about his policies. I remember, as the son of a wheat farmer, hearing my father complain that he used wheat exports as a foreign policy weapon, usually at the expense of the wheat farmers.

I think we could benefit from someone as pragmatic and thoughtful as Gerald Ford in today's political climate.

Ford will be well remembered by history for getting most things right including the pardon controverisal only for the same reason the Kennedy assassination remains controversial, the conspiracy whackjobs.

The greater contribution was incidental and Kevin only hints at it. The last moderate repubican followed by the most feckless President in History set up for the 1st authenticaly conservative in History and thus the greatest economic boom, the defeat of socialism and other lefty religions, and the replacement of Kenysian economics with Supply side economics.

Who could have thought in 1981 The USSR would be gone in a decade and the majority of it's independent republics boastings flat tax rates with decade long growth rates double and triple Western Europe growth rates?

Ford was the right man at the right time.

In one of the obits, I read that not once was Ford invited to an event at the White House during the eight years of Reagan's presidency. That sort of sums up the chasm between moderate and conservative Republicanism.

(Can't forget those ludicrous "Whip Inflation Now" buttons, though. Or the New York Daily News' famous headline in the fall of '75: "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.")

One more thing to consider: Had Ford not survived those two assassination attempts, Nelson Rockefeller would have become president. Think about those "Trilateral Commission conspiracy" allegations...

I do not agree that Ford's memory will be tarnished in the eyes of the Republican Party due to opinions that are out of step with the base today. Looking at the behavior of GWB and the Republican party lately, they will either ignore Fords mainstream ideas or, better yet, simply change them to suit their own needs. I can hear Bush talking about Ford in terms of the former presidents staunch support for the War on Terror and how Iraq remains the central front.

Truth be told, Ford was conservative, however, he was moderate and did not accomplish much in his short tenure. He will be coopted into the current ideology of the Republican party despite his own personal views.

The greater contribution was incidental and Kevin only hints at it.

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggh! Another wingnut totally misses the fact that Kevin didn't post this; Steve Benen posted it.

What is it with the reality-challenged crowd these days? They can't acknowledge anything, least of all the person who actually writes the post on the frickin' blog.

Anyway!

My question is, who is more appropriate to eulogize Ford? Obviously, Jimmy Carter is far more appropriate than any current Republican politician. And how strange is that? Were Jerry Ford serving in the US House right now, he'd be an outcast and a pariah amongst the current crop of Republicans. If Jerry Ford was a proponent of bipartisanship, the Grover Norquist/bipartisanship-as-date-rape modern GOP wouldn't let him serve in any capacity whatsoever.

How many Jerry Fords has the current GOP run out of their shrinking tent?

...the last moderate Republican president.

Of course, the elder Bush is looking moreso in retrospect (Big George is also the last living Republican ex-prez now).

These things come in threes...first James Brown, then Gerry Ford...who's next?

Place your bets.

One of Ford's sons is gay, which may or may not explain his pro-gay position.

Ford was a typical partisan during his House days. He was a kind of bromide-spouting, boosterish, Rotary Club Republican. What changed is that Republicans got the "fever" during the late 70s - extreme religiosity and/or ideology - and morphed into the grotesquerie of today. Ford was not the last of the GOP pragmatist presidents (George HW Bush has that honor), but he's the last Republican president who presided over a party that was still largely sane.

Steve Benen posted it.

Well, when they're paid per post, they tend to not spend too much time checking who wrote what or grammar.

And just echo what others have been saying, Steve, you've been doing a helluva job guest-blogging.

I'm about the same age as you and I don't have any memories of Ford other than Chevy Chase. I found it interesting that this morning on the radio, Cokie Roberts associated the death of civility in Washington with the end of Ford's presidency. Combine that with the genereal idea that the GOP veered hard right around that time, and the two seem to go hand-in-hand.

Although moderate compared to the neofascists who dominate the GOP today, Ford had one mission - to pardon Nixon. Those that say the pardon was justified are either blind partisans themselves or don't understand history. Nixon was a deeply criminal man who illegally bombed Cambodia, used the IRS to punish his enemies, cheated on his taxes, etc. He should have died in a federal penitentiary. Under the Geneva conventions, Nixon could have been tried as a war criminal.

As someone has already pointed out in this thread, Ford vetoed 66 bills in the three years he was in office and was an obstructuonist goon who dithered on the economy and left Jimmay Carter a godawful mess to clean up, as happens so often when a Democrat follows a Republican in the White House. Inflation was out of control and his WIN buttons were a joke. He basically was an ineffectual, incompetent caretaker president. I don't see that he deserves as many accolades as his wife, who has helped countless people recover from substance abuse probems.

He was an honorable, decent, humble man. There's a lot to be said for that.

He also wasn't the only person to lose an election for doing the right thing....but he might be the most obvious.

Compared to George W. Bush, Gerald Ford was an intellectual giant.

As probably the best athlete to have graced the White House, he took the SNL joke in stride.

However, a trool up thread who did not mention Kyoto, Eurarabia, the slew of 3 to 5 car garages across the land - My day is lost - Check back much later for his 87 posts on those subjects.

Ford is an unusual politician for a Repukeliscum.

Unlike most Repukeliscum after Eisenhower, he was not a criminal, nor did he commit crimes against humanity. This sets him apart from Reagan, Bush II, Bush I and Nixon.

Elect a repukeliscum, get a criminal.

"The GOP would be wise to honor Ford's tolerant, inclusive approach."

Ahem.

This comes from one of the lefty nutjobs who trashed moderate Senator Joe Lieberman for being "Republican Lite"!?

Steve Benen - try looking in the mirror, Bub!

Bits and pieces:

I wasn't too young to remember the Ford presidency, but was definitely too young to be paying attention. Have made something of a study of the Nixon-Ford years since, though.

Do have a problem with the idea that the pardon helped "heal" the country. It may or may not have been the right thing to do, but the idea that it improved divisions--or the comportment of would-be administrative thugs--isn't borne out by evidence. Indeed, all the Nixon-Ford staffers now working for Bush (I'm enjoying seeing the photo of Ford, Rumsfeld and Cheney flashed over and over today) seem to have learned only this from Watergate: There aren't many real repercussions, but next time, try not to get caught.

mr. shortstop this morning: "Wouldn't you love to see Carter show up at the funeral with his Habitat toolbelt on, and mistake W's head for a nail?" Well, yeah, that's what we all want.

Vincent's post made me laugh happily. I was just talking about those "WIN" buttons the other night. Uh, my holiday party conversation is nothing if not sparkling.

And P.S.: Enjoying your posts muchly, Steve.

Cokie Roberts associated the death of civility in Washington with the end of Ford's presidency.

Is there anyone more wrong than Cokie Roberts on a regular basis? You put her with her idiot husband and you have the ultimate Washington clueless power couple.

Civility did not end with Ford's Presidency; civility in this modern political era ended the day Tom Delay rose to the Republican leadership in the House. There was quite a bit of civility in the eras of Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and even during Clinton's first few years; it wasn't all hate speeches, calls for killing liberals and gridlock. Things actually got done in this country, at one point, and I'm sorry but there is no great legacy that the Republicans can point to when it comes to Ford. He restored the dignity of the office and managed to hold down the fort until January 1977.

You can trace the transformation of the rabid right-wingers from marginalized purveyors of hate--like Rush Limbaugh--to Delay's ascendancy and ultimate overthrow of Newt Gingrich and the gradual acceptance of personal political destruction, which was honed to perfection in the hands of Karl Rove.

Wonder what Jerry Ford thought of Karl Rove.

"The GOP would be wise to honor Ford's tolerant, inclusive approach."

That is the truth. The current GOP has learned more from Adolf Hitler than from Gerald Ford.

Today's Repukeliscum party is revealing the truth in the old saying "Scratch a conservative, find a fascist."

I take exception to this:

Mr. Ford, who was the only person to lead the country without having been elected as president

Ahem! The Current Occupant wasn't elected either. He was appointed by, for all intents and purposes, Sandra Day O'Connor.

Ford was NOT a moderate Republican. He may look like one now, but that's only because the Republican Party has moved so dramatically to the right. (Heck, a couple more years of Bush/Cheney, and Reagan is going to look moderate, too). The moderate wing of the Republican Party at the time -- which is the only context in which you can judge him -- were people like Rockefeller and Javits, and compared to them, Ford was well to the right.

He also was not that decent a person. He was known in Congress for being a particularly spiteful, bare-knuckled type of political brawler. That's one reason Nixon chose him as vice president.

If Ford seems amiable and moderate and civil now, it's only because a) he's been out of the public eye for so long, b) time makes everyone look better, and c) his bumbling persona hid a lot of his more unsavory attributes.

Now who'll pardon Bush?

Civility did not end with Ford's Presidency; civility in this modern political era ended the day Tom Delay rose to the Republican leadership in the House. There was quite a bit of civility in the eras of Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and even during Clinton's first few years; it wasn't all hate speeches, calls for killing liberals and gridlock.

I don't agree. I trace the rise of rightwingnutwackos to Newt and the fascist class of 1994. The central document is "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control". In this memo, Gingrich explains how to talk about Democrats. He says that words should be used which make Democrats look weird, bizarre and abnormal. It is this focus on divisiveness, all-out war and complete annialation of the enemy which has brought us to today.

He also was not that decent a person. He was known in Congress for being a particularly spiteful, bare-knuckled type of political brawler. That's one reason Nixon chose him as vice president.

I wouldn't dispute that; he rose to power in the era of Lyndon Johnson and that's how they did business between the parties in those days.

I would submit that Ford sitting in the front row for the funeral of Tip O'Neill indicates that he did not carry that spite into old age and that he represented a time when people of opposing viewpoints could actually get things done.

Here's a pretty good assessment of Ford:

Throughout his political career, Ford was fond of saying that he had "many adversaries, but not one enemy" on Capitol Hill. Despite having well-defined, strong views, Ford avoided offending opponents by force of personality, living by House Speaker Sam Rayburn's adage of "disagreeing without being disagreeable."

Ford's ability to get along facilitated his political rise. In 1965, House Republicans, alarmed by the shellacking the GOP took during the previous year's elections, figured that they needed new leadership. Aiming to oust the crusty Charles Halleck from his position as minority leader, they targeted Ford as his replacement largely because he was popular and well-liked. The coup succeeded, and Ford began a slow rise to national prominence. In 1973, after Vice President Agnew resigned, Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Carl Albert and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield told Nixon--whose presidency was already embattled--that Minority Leader Ford was the only person who could win easy confirmation as vice president. Although the Michigan congressman was not Nixon's first choice, he knew that Ford could add respectability to his administration and repair badly damaged relations with Capitol Hill. Within a year after becoming vice president, Ford was in the White House, and during his first week in office, he addressed Congress and pledged "communication, conciliation, compromise, and cooperation." Although Ford had many legislative scraps with the heavily Democratic 94th Congress, he conducted himself congenially, which helped restore civility to post-Watergate Washington.

Ford purged partisan acrimony partly through an open leadership style. When he was still a congressman, one reporter approached him about speaking to him sometime. Ford scribbled a phone number on a piece of paper and handed it to the reporter. Thinking it was an office number, the newsman asked Ford whom he should ask for when he called. "Just ask for me," Ford replied, adding that it was his home number.

If Ford's is somebody's idea of an "obstructionist" or a "goon", then that somebody is going to have a helluva time living with American politics. Ford represented a type of moderate, technocratic Republican that I remember well from growing up in Michigan. Governors George Romney and William Milliken were two other members of the breed -- though Republicans, they were broadly popular in a heavily Democratic state.

Ford and Jimmy Carter both had the thankless task of cleaning up the fiscal and moral wreckage left by previous administrations. They had to govern at a time when a broad political concensus ran aground and splintered, after working pretty well for 40 years. We might want to pay special attention to their tenures, since it's a certainty that whoever follows the Idiot Prince will have to make many awful and unpopular decisions.

I trace the rise of rightwingnutwackos to Newt and the fascist class of 1994.

Which is when Delay was elected Majority Whip and started to strongarm legislation through the House and began to viciously attack President Clinton. You can say what you like about Gingrich, but he was no where near as nasty or as brutal as Delay. Gingrich was thrown under the bus by Delay, so I think it's more accurate to cite Delay as the focal point of the shift.

If Ford's is somebody's idea of an "obstructionist" or a "goon", then that somebody is going to have a helluva time living with American politics. Ford represented a type of moderate, technocratic Republican that I remember well from growing up in Michigan. Governors George Romney and William Milliken were two other members of the breed -- though Republicans, they were broadly popular in a heavily Democratic state.

Unlike recent Repukeliscum, he did not try to ram his religious beliefs down the throats of the American people. I don't remember his, even a single time, using religion as a club to damage his opponents. That is the operative feature of current Repukeliscum fascism - using divisive religious language to elevate your side and damage the other.

Ford was a reasonable guy. I did not agree with him, but he was not a deranged insane wacko like the Repukeliscum of today. While you didn't agree with him, you could at least understand and possibly appreciate the motivating ideas. Balanced budgets, small government, reason instead of fanatical ideology. Oddly enough, these are now Democratic Party principles.

You can say what you like about Gingrich, but he was no where near as nasty or as brutal as Delay. Gingrich was thrown under the bus by Delay, so I think it's more accurate to cite Delay as the focal point of the shift.

I really don't distinguish between them. The operative notion in the Repukeliscum of the current day is "bully". They are all bullies. Gingrich was a well-read, thoughtful bully who used language as his primary club. Delay was a much more brutal and direct thug. They are both thugs. In point of fact, there are no REpukeliscum in power today who are not bullies and thugs.

It is Kremlinology indeed to attribute to ONE PERSON what the effect of a whole COHORT is. I thus believe that the Class of 1994, with Gingrich, Delay, Armey, and 4-5 others who have brought us to our current damaged state. I agree that Delay is a prime mover. He was not the intellectual leader. He is Stalin to Gingrich's Lenin, IMHO, the truly brutal character who takes the power away from the original mover once the power is in the hands of the Bolsheviks. Without Gingrich, I don't see the Repukeliscum as having gained that power.

Gerald Ford was the last Republican I voted for happily (I voted for Reagan, but not happily.) His remarks at the outset of his presidency were pitch perfect, and utterly inspiring. Ford was emblematic of a time when the Republican Party was largely made up of sensible people. Today it's a hothouse of radicals and others who seem not to have the country's best interests at heart.

It's sad to see him go. Rest well, Mr. President.

People are being too kind to Ford. I was an adult and paying attention during his presidency (and before) and he was at best a wheelhorse of Republican orthodoxy, a party man who was ready and willing to do whatever the party desired.

As for him being so civil and non-partisan, when he was in the Congress he spearheaded a completely trummped-up attempt to impeach Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas for writing an essay called "Points of Rebellion" during the Vietnam protest era. He was carrying water for the far right in that effort against the SC, which the right had hated and fought since Brown v. the Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, and a host of other decisions.

His pardoning of Nixon was more a way of clearing the decks for the Republican party and himself to go forward than any attempt to heal the nation.

He looks good only in retrospect, after Reagan and the two Bushes. Next to the current resident, he looks like Lincoln. But so would Soupy Sales (for those of you old enough to remember).

Gerald Ford's reputation benefits greatly from the disgraceful state of today's GOP and the fact that he succeeded a criminal in the White House. But before he became Nixon's hand-picked vice president (and future pardoner), Ford devoted a lot of effort to being a Republican hit man. Some of us remember his ludicrous effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, mainly in revenge because Nixon had been frustrated in his efforts to place a southern conservative on the high court (Haynesworth and Carswell). Anyone recall how Ford flapped around a nudie magazine in front of the TV cameras because Douglas had published an article in it? Oh, the horror!

Steve Benen: The GOP would be wise to honor Ford's tolerant, inclusive approach.

I don't know what alternative universe you live in, but in the reality-based world (the sky is blue here), we Republicans do honor Gerry Ford as a decent, tolerant, inclusive, humble man who did a good job under trying circumstances. Please review the conservative websites and news outlets today; you won't find any snarking or complaints.

No former president, elected or not, sucked on the gov't. teat longer or harder than Ford. He maxed out every potential benefit(and they were substantial) to which former presidents are eligible. I recall reading in the late 70s that he was getting $200 worth of fresh flowers in his office every day at taxpayer expense. He had no shame.

"He was an honorable, decent, humble man...".

As has been said in another case "he had a lot to be humble about", even if he did graduate from Yale.

Mr. Ford, who was the only person to lead the country without having been elected as president...

The media just can't get this right. He was the only president who was elected neither prez nor VP, of course.

/cmdicely

And Pale Rider and POedLib, I can't believe you're not accepting Cokie's premise that uncivil political discourse began with...Jimmy Carter.

How I'd love to backhand that annoying chick. Pale Rider's assessment of her and her dumbass spouse is dead on.

Gerald Ford was the only Republican I ever voted for and would still today. He was my first vote. The man put the country's healing ahead of his own political future. As bad as Nixon was, he felt the country would be best served if the Nixon impeachment/criminality was put behind

The Cambodian Holocaust occurred during President Ford's watch and he did nothing to save millions of people the US put in harm's way. That is what I will always remember about President Ford. I have seen no mention of this on the news programs, who all seem to make Ford out to be some kind of decent man.

His pardoning of Nixon was more a way of clearing the decks for the Republican party and himself to go forward than any attempt to heal the nation.

Bingo.

And we should mention the Myth Of Reagan, which we a conscious effort to dispel the Reality Of Nixon (who continues to be the true face of the Republican party).

Obviously, Jimmy Carter is far more appropriate than any current Republican politician.

Carter is a lying fool. There are many well qualified people to euogize Ford and they'll be led by his family and GWB.

Though I'm willing to give Ford the benefit of the doubt that it was made for best of reasons, The Pardon is unpardonable.

The great lesson of Watergate was that the Rule of Law is greater than the political power of men or parties. Ford's decision to short circuit this lesson resulted in the fact that ultimately, politics went on as usual. Money rules, dirty tricks are allowed, winning is everything and there is little consequence for misdeeds. If you liked Iran-Contra, Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, McCain/Bush in SC, Karl Rove, Mellon-Scaife, the Arkansas Project, Florida in 2000 and Swiftboating, well then you probably liked The Pardon. It was our best opportunity squandered to reform the political process. I cannot forgive Gerald Ford for this.

Doc Steve said to review the conservative websites today.

I would, but Uncle Paul put a trash V-Chip on the computer.

A lot of the comments seem to say that Ford was a decent guy because he's nowhere near as deranged as the Republicans we have today.

Man, talk about defining deviancy down.

Besides, given his history as party bag-man, I have no doubt that if Ford were active in politics today, he'd be as much an obsequious toady to the wingnut elements of the party as our current versions of "moderate" and "civil" GOP politiicans like Romney and McCain.

The man put the country's healing ahead of his own political future.

How'd that work out? Do you feel "healed"? Because the rest of us feel like the GOP regrouped and came back with bigger sledgehammers of corruption and cravenness, more brazen than ever for their understanding that if they get busted, all can be forgiven. And, oh, yeah, it's probably a good idea to do whatever it takes, legal or not, to get a permanent Republican majority so we don't have to go through these unpleasant investigations next time.

Doc's got it right.

not the senator: exactly.

Steve Benen wrote: "I think it's fair to say that Ford will be remembered as a modest, decent man"

Ford will, of course, be "remembered" by most Americans in whatever way the corporate-feudalist mass media brainwashes them into remembering him. Which will probably be as a "nice guy".

What Ford should be remembered for, among other things, is giving US approval -- along with Henry Kissinger -- to Indonesian military dictator Suharto to invade East Timor in December 1975. This invasion slaughtered tens of thousands of people in Timor -- with US supplied weapons, which was illegal according to US law. It was one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.

It should also be remembered that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz served in the Ford administration, during which time they lied to the American people about nonexistent "advanced weapons of mass destruction" that they falsely claimed the Soviet Union was developing, in order to sabotage the policy of dentente initiated by Nixon, and justify a huge US arms buildup, thereby enriching the military-industrial complex that they would subsequently work for -- a performance that they repeated in the Bush administration where they lied to Americans about nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" in order to justify their long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq.

Ford was just another Republican president whose foreign policy consisted of supporting murderous right-wing dictators, crushing popular movements for self-determination that challenged US corporate imperialism, and manufacturing fake, phony "threats" in order to justify transferring trillions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the corporate elites of the military industrial complex.

CITY TO FORD: WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, HUH?

rdw wrote: "Carter is a lying fool. There are many well qualified people to euogize Ford and they'll be led by his family and GWB."

No, you are a lying fool. You are by far the stupidest, toxically ignorant asshole ever to post a comment on this site, and you are unworthy to lick Jimmy Carter's boots. So go on licking Bush's boots. A scumbag licking another scumbag's boots: that's your station in life.

Since someone else brought it up - One comment about the pop-eyed know-it-all, Cokie Roberts: Her father, Hale Boggs, would be so ashamed of her if he were still alive. She has become a creepy, self-important pedant whose opinion is worth less than nothing.

There are many well qualified people to euogize Ford and they'll be led by his family and GWB.

Well, do you think the fact that they've been close friends for 25 years means anything?

Ford was a close friend of his successor, Jimmy Carter, despite the fact that Carter defeated him in the 1976 presidential election. Their friendship began in 1981, after both had left office, when they attended the funeral of Egypt's slain leader Anwar Al Sadat. Up until Ford's death, Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, visited President and Mrs. Ford's home frequently.

The cultural differences between Ford and Bush couldn't be greater. Remember,

After Nixon's resignation in 1974, Vice President Gerald R. Ford became President, and Bush was one of the two leading contenders to be appointed vice president by Ford, but he lost to the other leading contender, Nelson Rockefeller.

Do you really think Bush 43 is going to eulogize the man who chose Nelson Rockefeller over his daddy?

Saddam Hussein went after Bush's daddy and look what happened to him.

Thanks for mentioning the long-lasting friendship between Ford and Carter, PR. (They also collaborated on a number of Carter Center projects, BTW.) I was going to, but thought: why bother? It's only rdw.

SecAn: You are by far the stupidest, toxically ignorant asshole ever to post a comment on this site, and you are unworthy to lick Jimmy Carter's boots.

I was going to suggest some alternatives for this title, but you're right. He really is the stupidest and most toxically ignorant poster here. He really is.

People are being too kind to Ford. …he was at best a wheelhorse of Republican orthodoxy, a party man who was ready and willing to do whatever the party desired.

I would submit that Ford sitting in the front row for the funeral of Tip O'Neill indicates that he did not carry that spite into old age

Ford was NOT a moderate Republican

Ford vetoed 66 bills in the three years he was in office and was an obstructuonist goon who dithered on the economy

What type of Never-Never Tinkerbelle land do y’all come from?

The politics of this fair nation has been dominated by highly competitive and often spiteful bare knuckle partisan politics since…oh…about 1796.

Jerry and Tip were friends who were known to sort out the business of the House over cocktails, and then just like Wile E. Coyote and the Sheep Dog, they would take to the floor of the House and rip into each other.

The pardon was a smart if not satisfying decision. A Nixon criminal trial would have been a show trial of the first order. The deposition and discovery process alone would have tied up the Whitehouse for at least a year. A high school student in 1974, I hated Nixon and I feel my interests were best served by his exit to San Clemente.

ChrisS has got it exactly right - the end of Ford's presidency and the hegemony of the right-wing in the Republican party go hand in hand.

Do not forget - and it is curious no one has mentioned it up till now - that in 1976 Ford beat back a furious, and radical challenge by Ronald Reagan. In that field Ford was certainly a "moderate republican" - this is not simply a product of today's blurred optics. At the time Ford was the inheritor of the Eisenhower-Dircksen-Nixon (pre-Watergate) Republican Party, whose policies he'd been more or less following throughout his career. His slogan - "Governor Reagan couldn't start a war; President Reagan could" sums up only a small part of their differences. So, too, Reagan's comment that he'd consider sending troops to prop up Ian Smith's soon-to-collapse racist state in Rhodesia.

This is why wingnuts like RDW have such a hard time handling Ford's death. Ford stands for much of what the modern Republican party has spent the last thirty years railing against. In his inane teleology, the best comment he can offer is that Ford paved the way for Reagan's victory in 1980. Quite a eulogy that.

It is amazing, given what we now know about Reagan and Republicans (party discipline above all else) that Ronnie ever would have challenged a sitting president of his own party -- or that bumbling, tongue-tied Ford could possibly have beaten him.

Nonetheless, Ford's close-run victory over Reagan and his subsequent defeat by Carter cleared the way for the takeover of the party, and we've been living with the consequences ever since. Though even this wasn't inevitable.

Sorry, Keith--

I was talking about the modern era, exclusively. I did not include the illegitimate children of Grover Cleveland, the Teapot Dome scandal, the graft and corruption of the Grant Presidency, the attacks on Alexander Hamilton and his mistress, et al, because I didn't think the turmoil around those scandals and events was relevant.

Yeah, the Witless Woot really knows how to write obits.

Shorter woot: Ford died - was Ok -BUT, CARTER TERRIBLE, and REAGAN, a Giant of a man - Will spend the next half hour extolling St Ronald's virtues, then procede into Kyoto, Eurabia, why Mark Steyn is the most brilliant writer in the history of mankind; now, who were we talking about again?

And why waste time debating who will read a eulogy? That is a family decision; you know, the Ford family, the folks who just lost a husband, father, etc.

Recent protocol indicate that the current President play a part, so he will be invited to speak as a representative of the American government and its citizens, big deal.

Although moderate compared to the neofascists who dominate the GOP today, Ford had one mission - to pardon Nixon. Those that say the pardon was justified are either blind partisans themselves or don't understand history.

The pardon may have been a necessary part of the process of healing divisions, just as amnesties often are in civil wars, but even if it was necessary it was premature: some type of process of establishing the reality of accountability was needed before any consideration of pardon should have been made. If nothing else, the truth was needed before the pardon, the capacity and will to investigate and hold the President accountable was necessary; once the truth was out, the verdicts and sentence were in, then the merits of a pardon for national healing would have been ripe for consideration.

The pardon, coming when it did, by underlining the practical immunity of the President to subsequent accountability, was a reason for the subsequent excesses by later executives: including Iran-Contra and the abuses of this administration. Law that is not enforced is no law at all, and the demonstrated lack of national will to enforce the law against the President has created a condition in which the President is, in practice if not in theory, above the law, which can only be cured by a demonstration of the will to enforce the law against the President, and where the abuses will continue to reach worse and worse extremes until that will is demonstrated.

Great post, Secular Animist. Ford was no saint and his support of Suharto was supporting genocide. He also did nothing about Pol Pot, and conservatives have roundly (and rightly) criticized Bill Clinton for doing nothing about Rwanda. More selective collective memory ....

On the pardon: for what its worth. An under-appreciated commentary on its wisdom came from none other than Judge "Maximum John" Sirica, in his autobiography.

His argument was that the pardon eliminated the only possibility of establishing Nixon's guilt or innocence, impeachment having been taken off the table by the resignation. Ford's pardon preempted the legal process, an in essence enabled Nixon to remain above the law. The time for pardoning - if there was to be one - for "healing," "political reconciliation" and all that stuff would have come after a conviction.

Apologies to cmdicely - I was typing while you were posting.

Bumbling and tongue-tied?
So much for image. Ford graduated from the University of Michigan, where he played football; he was probably the most capable athlete to sit in the oval office, and he had a better education than Reagan of Eureka. But Reagan had years of Hollywood coaching behind him, and his handlers were careful to have him photographed doing things he could do. As for football, he played George Gipp, didn't he? That was the photo that got shown.
As for Chevy Chase, they're probably trying to track him down at whichever dinner theatre he's playing at--if his agent isn't speeddialing the cable news shows.

We've all got to go some time, but I think the world would be a better place if Gerald Ford had died at age 73 and James Brown was still living on until age 93.

Alas, Steve Pardis stayed away from the content of my post, which was, shall we say, rather favorably inclined towards Ford.

Perhaps more favorably inclined than his own! Calling someone "the most capable athlete to sit in the oval office" comes close to damning with faint praise - or a joke right out of The Onion or The Daily Show!

But he's exactly right: Ford would be anyone's choice for the first-string Presidential Rotisserie League football squad, and there's no equating Ford's Michigan/Yale education with Reagan's small-college experience.

None of this matters. Image trumps - which is why it is hard to believe that Ford was considered the more "electable" in 1976. Or as someone once said of RR, a B-list actor makes a better politician than an A-list politician (or words to that effect).

" (Big George is also the last living Republican ex-prez now)."

The only "ex" prez we've had was Richard Nixon. He resigned. All the others are "former".

Hmmm, Abe as QB - William Taft could play the entire defensive line - Cleveland and McKinley as guards - Ford at center - Harding as the Lustful End, a version of West Point's Lonesome End - Reagan reprising his portrayal of George Gipp, Grant at fullback - Teddy at running back - Old Hickory at safety - Nixon as the offensive coordinator calling "mis-direction and sneaky plays", Truman as a wideout on the left, GWHB as a wideout on the right - Shrub as water boy, although on academic suspension.

OK, I was a grown-up during those years and I remember Ford very well. I remember:

1.him refusing to meet with Solzhenitsyn, who had just been freed after years of prison and house arrest, because he didn't want to offend Brezhnev.

2. him refusing to meet with Walter Sipple, the Secret Service agent who saved his life, because he didn't want a photo of him shaking hands with a homosexual;

3. breaking the record deficits set by Nixon;

4. the Mayaguez disaster, when he pissed away 41 American lives that were lost AFTER the vietnamese had already agreed to return that ship because he insisted on fighting on.

Amazing how 30 years of listening to the conservative media's drumbeat of lionization of Republican presidents can turn your mind to mush. Well, I, for one, REMEMBER.

And that includes you too, Steve! If you think Ford was a "moderate Republican President", you are just plain ignorant.

The examples you cite are well AFTER he was president. WHILE he was president, James Reston, the moderate senior columnist at the New York Times, called Ford "the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge". And no one was about to argue with that.

"Speculation as to whether there was some kind of 'deal' that may have elevated Ford in exchange for a promise to issue that pardon."

Ford was asked about it and did not deny it. This appeared in Woodword's book, for God's sake!

Steve, you are not a competent person to write this post.

The only "ex" prez we've had was Richard Nixon.

Well, if Santa brings my most-desired Christmas gift late, we'll have another.

I can't believe no one has quoted LBJ's great line about Jerry Ford: "He played too much football without a helmet." Michigan and Yale education notwithstanding, fair assessment or not, he had a lingering reputation in the House for being a bit of a dullard.

Re the pardon:

Many of these comments have the sound of the certainty of absolute right and wrong options that we normally associate with Republicans. As I recall living through that time, Ford had no "right" choice available to him: rather he had to choose the "least bad" option. It's important to remember that many Republicans felt Nixon had been given unfair treatment (as in a later case, when Iran-Contra was "just a crminalization of political differences"). Pursuing Nixon would likely have been more destructive than it was worth.

As I recall living through that time, Ford had no "right" choice available to him: rather he had to choose the "least bad" option.

Mostly agree with this statement, which is why I commented that there were arguably good reasons for a pardon. Nevertheless, the practical--and, in my opinion, intended--effect of Ford issuing a preemptive pardon a bare month after taking office was to pave the way for subsequent unchecked presidential abuses of power and flouting of the law. It's a horrible legacy, and Ford seems to have known exactly what he was doing when he chose it.

Do you really think Bush 43 is going to eulogize the man who chose Nelson Rockefeller over his daddy?

He'll do it and he will do it well. GWB has already proven his class by giving Slick Willie over the top praise for his service at the unvieling of the Clinton Presidential portrait.

The fact is that's what Presidents are required to do. Had Reagan died during the Clinton Presidency Bill would have given him the best Eulogy he and his writers were capable of giving. There is a time for partisanship. This isn't it.

First, Cokie Roberts is saying Jimmy Carter and his admin were uncivil? Because they stepped on entrenched Dem as well as GOP toes, or why?

Second, Steve gives Jerrry Ford too much credit.

A. Jerry WAS a conservative, or considered so at the time. The goalposts have been moved a fair amount in 30 years, between neocons and the rise of the religious right.

B. Pardon was wrong. Ford started his admin with one foot ethically in the hole. Made it look like a "deal" had been cooked up even if it hadn't. Made it even look like a deal had been cooked to get Ford the No. 2 job the year before.

C. Helsinki Accords? Half wrong. Perhaps it was the best we could halfway expect out of the half-senile Brezhnev, but we didn't have to publically tout them. Combine that with Ford's "no domination of Eastern Europe" statement and that probably cost him the election right there.

RDW have such a hard time handling Ford's death.

I don't have a hard time at all. Ford was a great man who served his country with class and distinction. He lived a long and very full life with a great family and obviously full of friends. As far as being moderate I suspect everyone here is forgetting his choices as Chief of Staff and Defense Secretary. That would be Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Now that's a moderate legacy!

As far as his Presidency it's clear that aside from the pardon his was but a transitional period leading to the Carter debacle and then the magnificant period that started in 1981. National Malaise indeed.

The most interesting thing about the pardon is the comparison between the hysterics of the day from the twits on the left versus the overwhelming consensus today that Gerald Ford showed great courage and wisdom in doing the right thing at the right time at great political expense to himself.

rdw: "There is a time for partisanship. This isn't it."

Like for instance your stupid, ignorant, sneering attack on Jimmy Carter, you despicable, hypocritical scumbag.

rdw wrote: "GWB has already proven his class ..."

Bush proved his "class" by lying to the American people about a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" in order to deceive them into supporting a long-planned war of unprovoked aggression that has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and more Americans than died in the 9/11 attacks, all for the benefit of his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the oil corporations.

Gerald Ford was an enabler of the mass murderer Suharto, who killed tens of thousands of Timorese civilians with US-supplied weapons.

Ronald Reagan was a mass murderer whose terrorist wars, funded with money that he begged from Middle Eastern oil dictatorships, or got by selling weapons to Iran, killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Central America.

George W. Bush is a mass murderer who has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

And you are a disgusting cheerleader for mass murderers.

At least you can look forward to death -- when you arrive in Hell you can lick Ronnie's boots.

pardon........ was a reason for the subsequent excesses by later executives:

That's Silly. Bill Clinton did not decide it was OK to lie under oath because he'd get pardoned anyway. In fact Slick Willie knew better than anyone that pardon by Ford cost him the election and thus pardons in the future were LESS LIKELY rather than more likely.

Dragging NIxon thru the mud would have served no positive purpose. The truth of his character came out and History has marked him appropriately. Fords decision wasn't just brave but it was wise as well. The circus at that point was more than a year old. It was time to end.

I was in first grade in the fall of 1976 at a private school in Westchester County, and one of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's sons was a classmate of mine. I recall that we had some heated political debates on the schoolyard that season. These consisted of his shouting "Ford!"; my shouting "Carter!"; repeat ad infinitum.

rdw wrote: "... the overwhelming consensus today that Gerald Ford showed great courage and wisdom in doing the right thing at the right time at great political expense to himself."

That is no doubt the "overwhelming consensus" of delusional right-wing nutcases who wallow in toxic ignorance, like you. It is not the consensus of the American people.

Ford made a deal with Nixon, through Alexander Haig, that Nixon would resign if Ford agreed beforehand that once he became President he would pardon Nixon. The pardon was corrupt from the beginning. As others have noted, it prevented Nixon from being held accountable for his numerous crimes and it laid the groundwork for the "imperial president above the law" approach that led to the Iran-Contra crimes of Ronald Reagan, and which Rumsfeld and Cheney brought to the present Bush regime.

You are nothing but a sycophantic worshipper of criminals and murderers.

he had a lingering reputation in the House for being a bit of a dullard.

Standard treatment for a conservative in the MSM. Jerry was only an All American athelete and a success in everything he did having reached the pinnacle of political power. But he's the dullard. It takes a high level of stupid to believe that. You must be an intellectual.

why Mark Steyn is the most brilliant writer in the history of mankind

I never said that. But he is funny. Read 'America Alone' and you will understand why GWB had so distinctly moved the USA away from Western Europe. In fact read todays WSJ editorial page and you'll just get a slice of the longstanding treachery practiced by France against the USA in the Middle East for a period of over two decades.

You people have no idea of the thoroughness of the case made by the WSJ against France. It isn't that we're no longer allies. They are our enemy.

rdw: Dragging NIxon thru the mud would have served no positive purpose.

Perhaps we should say the same about other criminals. Why bother with the expense of trials and imprisonment? Let history decide about that guy who stole your car.

Perhaps we should say the same about other criminals.

The President isn't some other criminal.

rdw: France [is] our enemy.

And they've got WMD's! When do we invade?

rdw wrote: "Dragging NIxon thru the mud would have served no positive purpose."

Wrong, you disgusting bootlicker. Holding Nixon accountable for his numerous, grave crimes against the American people would have established that presidents are not above the law and that criminal actions by a president are intolerable and will be punished under law. This would likely have prevented the bloody crimes of Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra conspiracy from ever taking place.

rdw: "Fords decision wasn't just brave but it was wise as well."

It was neither "wise" nor "brave". It was a cynical and corrupt decision to hide the full extent of Nixon's criminality from the American people. It ensured that although Nixon was removed from public office, the totalitarian gangsterism that he engaged in would rise again -- as it did, in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

rdw: "The circus at that point was more than a year old. It was time to end."

It was not a "circus". It was the investigation of -- which should properly have led to the indictment, prosecution and conviction for -- the numerous grave crimes that Richard M. Nixon committed against the American people.

Of course, that's the sort of investigation that right-wing brownshirt scum like you always think "should end" with the Republican criminals being let off the hook.

As opposed to the SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR so-called "investigation" of the nonexistent "Whitewater scandal" by a corrupt, partisan Republican prosecutor who was the bought-and-paid-for agent of neo-fascist right-wing extremist billionaires like Richard Scaife, for the purpose of destroying Bill Clinton's highly successful and popular presidency.

You people have no idea of the thoroughness of the case made by the WSJ against France. It isn't that we're no longer allies. They are our enemy.

Not that this is anything new. Reminds me of a great line by greatest WWII General. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me"

rdw: The President isn't some other criminal.

I see. Some ne'er-do-well who steals your car is a real criminal. But if you're elected to the highest office in the country, we have lower standards.

When do we invade

Too late. They are already under attack.

You people have no idea of the thoroughness of the case made by the WSJ against France. It isn't that we're no longer allies. They are our enemy.

Whoa, one war is enough, there, stud. Think we should finish the war we're in before we send five divisions racing towards the Left bank of the Seine?

Why are they helping us in Afghanistan?

Why are they helping us to enact punishing sanctions against Iran?

Typical rdw--the opinion page of the WSJ is notoriously fact free and meant to serve as chum thrown in the water for sharks like yourself.

for the purpose of destroying Bill Clinton's highly successful and popular presidency

Don't take it out on me. He lied under oath. He admitted it. He lost his license to practice law, paid a fine and paid Paula $800K. History will record he was impeached on merit.

On the pardon - someone at the time asked if you would really want to trust someone who had no opinion about Watergate in 1974 or 75 with the responsibility of sitting on that jury. The trial would have been a circus, and the country was better off not going through it. As a politician, I suspect Ford knew Nixon had already gotten the worst punishment a politician can draw - infamy as long as American history is remembered.

I'm not sure what anyone here expected Ford to do about the Cambodian holocaust - invasion wasn't on the table and the Khmer Rouge was pretty impervious to diplomatic pressure. He was similarly powerless to do much about inflation - the fiscal policies and the first of the oil shocks had already hit the system and there wasn't much left but to let them work through.

The greenlight on East Timor was shameful, but come on - one of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century? I'm not sure it makes the top 10 of a very bloody era.

I often wonder how different the last 30 years would have been if he'd squeaked past Carter. The late '70's were going to be pretty unpleasant no matter who was President. In 1980 the Democrats could have won with almost anyone, as the GOP did with Reagan, who was considered a real stretch at the time. Would have made for very different subsequent history.

Bill Clinton did not decide it was OK to lie under oath because he'd get pardoned anyway.

Nor do I consider that an "excess", an abuse of executive power, which is why it wasn't on the list of abuses that were enabled by that pardon.

In fact Slick Willie knew better than anyone that pardon by Ford cost him the election

I suspect that Bill "Its the economy, stupid" Clinton may have a rather different idea than you do about what caused Ford to lose the election, and might attribute that more to inflation and Ford's perceived (and actual) lack of a program to deal with it rather than the pardon of Nixon.

thus pardons in the future were LESS LIKELY rather than more likely.

The issue isn't whether pardons where more or less likely in the future, but whether the will to hold the President accountable for abuses of office existed, which could have been demonstrated had the pardon not been issued prematurely (whether or not it was later issued).

Were I to point to effects on the Clinton administration, though, I wouldn't point to the Lewinsky affair or anything connected to it, I would point to the complete absence of any consequences for what was much more defensibly labelled as an abuse of office, the war against Yugoslavia waged not only without authorization by Congress but in the face of clear opposition from Congress.

Dragging NIxon thru the mud would have served no positive purpose.

Prosecuting Nixon for his abuse of the power of his office and his attempts to subvert the democratic process and Constitutional government would have demonstrated that such abuses would not be tolerated.

Fords decision wasn't just brave but it was wise as well.

Ford's decision was neither was nor brave.

The circus at that point was more than a year old. It was time to end.

It wasn't a circus. It was righteous indignation at an attempt to subvert the government of the United States. The time for it to end was when the conspiracy was revealed and torn out root and branch and the guilty identified and convicted in courts of law. Then they could be sentenced and/or pardoned as the interests of justice and national concerns directed.

rdw wrote: "In fact read todays WSJ editorial page ..."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is corporate-sponsored, right-wing extremist propaganda for weak-minded, ignorant, gullible idiots like you to read and regurgitate. It's pablum for the brownshirt moron brigade. It's a load of crap. It's no wonder that you are so stupid and ignorant when you wallow in that cesspool every day.

Can't fault RDW, our house Hegelian, for his consistency: Ford is notable (aside from his personal attributes - great family, friends, class, etc.) as the prelude to Reagan.

Makes you wonder what RDW would have said in '76 when Ford had the temerity to pointedly criticize the R-god's shortcomings. Given how he responds here to anyone rude enough to question Bush, I suspect he wouldn't have been nearly as charitable as he is towards the now-deceased Ford.

One other point - as for pardons being less rather than more likely, this would come as something of a surprise to Bush One, who felt not the least bit encumbered from handing out midnight pardons to Cap the Knife and others implicated in the Iran-Contra fiasco. That's the beauty of teleologies: the grand scheme doesn't require the dreamer to deal with messy evidence. Faith-based history...

Reminds me of a great line by greatest WWII General. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me"

That was Patton, and his remarks were tempered by the fact that, in World War I, the exhausted French divisions were unable to fully support the newly-arrived US divisions.

Oh, and Patton was not only fluent in French, the French served in his honor guard at his funeral:

On December 24, 1945, General George S. Patton Jr. was buried in the cemetery with full military honors. The cortege arrived at the cemetery at 10 a.m. Serving as Honor Guard was an American Battalion consisting of troops of the 1st Infantry Division, the 4th Armored Division, the 9th Infantry Division, and the 2nd U.S. Cavalry Division. Also serving as Honor Guard were troops from the 146th and 151st French Infantry Regiments, and troops from the Luxembourg and Belgian Armies.

A little history wouldn't hurt you, Wooten. You're not gonna find any facts on the editorial page of the WSJ and you're certainly not going to find any credible citation of history there, either.

Why are they helping us in Afghanistan?

They're not. IN typical French fashion their tiny 200 man contingent is prohibited from any dangerous zones.

It's Classic.

This is one reason why I keep telling you they would be useless in a war zone. They have no experience. They have neither the will nor the means to do battle.

Henry Hyde slipped up and said out loud that the impeachment of Clinton was just payback for Nixon being forced out of office in disgrace. Clinton was the first two-term Democrat to be elected since Nixon, so he was the one.

That's what I look for in a politician, lemme tell ya. Not a sense of advocacy, not a sense of fiscal responsibility, and cetainly no sense of accountability or fair play. No. I look for bloodthirsty thugs who are never sorry for their sins; only that they got caught committing them. I want a politician who lives to extract payback on those with the audacity to expect accountability, even if it means punishing the next generation.

Friend of Labor: "That's the beauty of teleologies: the grand scheme doesn't require the dreamer to deal with messy evidence. Faith-based history"

rdw is a delusional right-wing extremist crank, whose main stock in trade here is singing the praises of mass murderers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and regurgitating the comically phony propaganda that he soaks up from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, et al.

rdw: GWB has already proven his class

Marian Fontana met G.W.Bush on the first anniversary of 9/11. He was told that her fireman husband had been killed in NYC that day and that 9/11 was also her wedding anniversary.

Bush responded. "I guess that's like the double whammy."

the opinion page of the WSJ is notoriously fact free

They have 2M readers who know better plus they are constantly cited by Fox, Talk Radio and all over the web. They have produced catalogues of UN and French treachery in great detail over a long period of time. This is very influencial stuff and more than any other reason, why public support for both the UN and France is so deep in the toilet.

You are of course unaware of many of the convictions on the food for palace scandal as well as several scandals within the Annan family.

if it means punishing the next generation.

The next generation wasn't puunished. Slick Willie was punished. He lied. He got caught and HE was punished. He lost his law license and paid a fine. He was impeached. All well that ends well.

Pale Rider: Typical rdw--the opinion page of the WSJ is notoriously fact free and meant to serve as chum thrown in the water for sharks like yourself.

rdw, a "shark"? Come on, he's cute. Kind of like a rabid guppy.

..i have to laugh at the many stories today (a-p, fox both print and radio) that reference ford being a common man....

because he made his own english muffins....

too funny..

Alex: I can see him, snarling and bumping his head against the side of his three-treasure-chest fishbowl.

They're not. IN typical French fashion their tiny 200 man contingent is prohibited from any dangerous zones.

Oh, brother...

36,000 French troops are deployed overseas, including 13,000 participating in crisis management