the difference is the up-bringing...

gwb was and is a spoiled frat boy...

ford...

was not..

don't let the door hit you on the way out...frist

I don't see it as a matter of leadership 'style'. That demeans the real issue.

It's the difference between being a relatively sane adult (Ford) and otherwise (The Current Occupant).

Consider the source: more Broderite purveyors of the Washington CW.

It's a daily phenomenon now: the desperate residents of the white house bunker frantically spinning every news event to make the Usurper appear admirable, in charge, even sane.

Thus the 180-degree twisting of facts and reality to find a favorable comparison with Ford.

They'll end by insisting that Iran was behind 9-11, that Clinton wrecked Iraq, and Democrats caused the deficit.

Should be any day now ...

Ford and Bush had similar leadership styles? I don't see it.

OF COURSE they had different styles. Bush saw the mistakes of the Ford presidency and corrected them. Ford tried to be bi-partisan with the liberals and Democrats and look how they repaid him. He had to veto 66 laws because Democrats kept on trying to force partisan legislation on him. Bush saw all of the problems Democrats caused Ford and decided that bi-partisanship couldn't work. That's why Bush's presidency has been much more effective than Ford's.
Al

Here's one obvious parallel: If George W. Bush had left office after two years, he too would've been more fondly remembered 30 years later.

Ford was more from the era of the head of General Motors, who once asked if anyone sitting at the board room table could find a flaw in a proposal - No one could, so he determined that the proposal be shelved, as nothing works perfectly.

In contrast, Shrub reminds me of once seeing a Jerry Lewis movie filmed at 20th Century. He would conclude a shot, and about 20 syncophants would start crooning about how it was the funniest shot ever filmed and that he was the greatest comic of all time. The film, about a space shot, was dismal. The war, Bush's War, is dismal.

For good or ill, Ford was also much more of a party loyalist. Bush obviously does not care how much damage he does to the GOP by the decisions he makes or the policies he supports. Bush is a man on a mission and the Republican Party is just a means to an end. The loss of congressional majorities is undoubtedly regretted by Bush because the GOP leadership rolled over for him time and again, but the president ignored the opportunity given to him by the Iraq Study Group and is going to stamp the GOP in the public mind as the party of the Iraq war. Good job, George.

By the way, in addition to keeping mum on Bush's Iraq disaster and giving Nixon a presidential pardon, Ford was a dutiful party operative earlier in his career. When he was minority leader in the House, he tried to impeach a Supreme Court justice, probably just to please Nixon. Ford waved a girlie magazine in front of the TV cameras complaining that Justice Douglas had published an article in the publication. Ah, that was fun.

It's simple, really. Ford, for all his flaws, tried to do a responsible and competent job. Bush doesn't.

Like this:
Ford led a nearly ruined country during a difficult time.
Bush has nearly ruined the country during a difficult time.

During his 25 years in the House, and perhaps before, Ford learned that he had to get along with people who disagreed with him.

Bush as a spectacularly unsuccessful CEO has never learned how to get along with peers (maybe he felt that he had no peers {snark}) or subordinates.

Bush saw the mistakes of the Ford presidency and corrected them.

No, Bush, like Ford, was given the opportunity to lead a nation that came together in support of him during a crises, and, like Ford, lost that massive support and unity through actions widely perceived as excessively partisan, with approval going from stratospheric to dismal. Now, Ford had the disadvantage that the crises that brought support to him was also a partisan political one which inclined the public to see partisanship quickly, and so his fall was rapid, whereas Bush's crises was a foreign attack that inclined the public, or at least the media, to initially subdue criticism (and he managed to manufacture another external crisis to reinforce that effect when it was beginning to fade from the first), which gave Bush a longer ride at the top.

So I wouldn't say Bush avoided the mistakes of the Ford Presidency, so much as was favored with conditions, reinforced with an utter lack of sense of duty to the nation, that enabled him to play the same central mistake out much more slowly.

I don't see any similarities between Bush and Ford at all, except for staff duplications. I tend to think that whoever is elected in 2008 will be in a position analogous to Ford's--charged with the job of cleaning up the mess Bush has made of governing and policy, and hopefully toning down the level of vitriol--just as Ford needed to pull the country back on course after Watergate.

We need such a healer right now, and will need him or her even more by election time.

Said L. William Seidman, a top Ford economic advisor, "I worked for three or four presidents..."

So, whas it 3 or 4? I knew some Republicans had trouble counting but I expected more from the economists!

"That's why Bush's presidency has been much more effective than Ford's. Al"

I guess it depends on what you want the president to be effective with. Squandering a chance for peace through diplomacy. Unnecessarily killing brave young soldiers. Doubling the national debt in his short six years. Destroying any good will and credibility the U.S. had elsewhere in the world. Stomping on our Constitutional rights. Bush has been very effective at those and so many more sorry issues.

Ford may have been, personally, a good man, but he was a man out of sorts with his time. He failed to comprehend the depth of the genuine moral revulsion -- and need for expiation -- the public felt at the revealed corruptions of the Nixon administration (a revulsion that would send us improbably into the sanctimonious arms of Jimmy Carter, the only Democrat every one of my born-again, conservative, Republican relatives ever voted for). And, he failed to comprehend the depth of the public's growing, frightened sense that the economy was careening off its tracks. His response to, or rather ignoring of, the first, with the Nixon pardon, may have been, from Washington's point of view, a good course for the long run -- but it failed to meet the nation's need in the moment. His response to the second, WIN (Whip Inflation Now) was laughable. It's weakness and absurdity only contributed to our sense of an economy spiraling out of control, with a government incapable of either comprehending the depth of the problem, or doing anything about it.

We hear so much praise nowadays for leaders who are "authentic" and "themselves." But at crucial moments, we need, although we don't always get, leaders who are "us." Ford, amiable, decent, and low key was simply not the man for that disillusioned, intense and transitional moment.

Well, both Bush and Ford have 4 letters in their names.

The quality of the commentariat is outstanding!

Leadership? Who needs stinkin leadership?

To be sure, Bush has surrounded himself with a throng of Ford-era staffers. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scowcroft, Baker, O'Neill, Greenspan, Hadley ... the names all sound rather familiar.

That's an inexcusably charitable mischaracterization.

They are "Nixon-era" staffers.

Nixon=pardoned criminal. Nixon-era staffers=criminal accomplices. Call a space a spade. Ford pardoned the bastard, and his minions remained free to continue their crimes through Iran-Contra, where they dodged another legal bullet through the same Republican sliminess, and continued on with their treason, and are still killing millions today.

Had Ford done the right thing, and put a stop to this, the world would be a much better place.

In fact - he might have been re-elected instead of Carter. You righties shouldn't begrudge that. But I suppose as long as your criminal Nixon-minions are roaming free committing mass-murder on our tax dime, you're all happy, right?

By what conceivable measure are the Bush and Ford presidencies even remotely similar--beyond the fact that both men served as president?

This bullshit is rapidly becoming like a parody song that came out back in 1969 or so. I can't recall who did it or what the title was, but it compared Nixon and Lincoln:

"Nixon had a dog named Checkers that died.
Lincoln played checkers and had a horse that died.
More than coincidence?"

Leadership?? Style?? Are we talking about George W. Bush here? The man has no leadership abilities and no style. I would not put George W. Bush in charge of the pony ride at the circus, because I am certain that he would fuck it up royally. His entire adult life is one of failure and bungling.

So, whas it 3 or 4? I knew some Republicans had trouble counting but I expected more from the economists!

He's not sure whether he should count Cheney or not.

Even though I never particularly liked Gerald Ford as President, I always thought the man to be honest. As far as George W. Bush, I can't name a single issue where he has shown an ounce of integrity. To compare Ford to Bush is an enormous insult to the former President.

I don't think that Ford, at any point in his presidency, concerned himself with his "legacy." I don't think he cared how history would judge him. He just tried to do the best he could, under the circumstances.

He wasn't my favorite president, but he was at least honest and caring. Plus, he could ski. I used to ski Vail at that time, and it's a wonder that I didn't run into him. Literally.

Other than that neither was elected, and GWB really *is* clumsy? Uh....

He's not sure whether he should count Cheney or not.
Posted by: Nemo

Snort.

"I worked for 3 or 4 Presidents"

Still checking Wiki to determine whether Al Haig actually was considered "President for the day", is he?

It's the holidays, and a president passes away. Your job is to write about it. But hey, you've got lots of social obligations this week.

So you haul together an article about "striking parallels" that are neither striking nor parallel, and a surprising influence that isn't. Pepper it with a few hard-hitting bits of trivia (Cheney has a picture of John Adams in his office) and presto, you've got what looks like a decent effort but is no more substantial than the store-bought egg nog you absentmindedly swill while phoning it in.

Apologies if these folks think this is their best work ever, but it's pretty gee-whiz.

Not sure I'd count Scowcroft and Baker among people he's chosen to surround himself with. Baker helped him steal the election and has put in an appearance from time to time trying to save his bacon, but he's more in the role of Daddy's watchdog--"See if you can't hammer some sense inta that boy!"--and the latest ISG thing sure didn't find a warm welcome. And Scowcroft actually came out strongly against invading Iraq, didn't he? That was the last I heard of him.

Nothing could be further than the truth that these two had similar leadership styles. W has no leadership skills whatsoever (personal charm without complimentary talents doesn't qualify).

The premise of the article was absurd and it shows what can happen, I suppose, when you have to produce something -- anything -- on a short deadline.

I shall paraphrase a quote that the great LBJ said about Ford:

GWB has done to America what panty hose did to finger fucking.

Dr. BB beat me to it.

Bush hardly "surrounded himself" with Baker and Scowcroft, although you might use the term "surrounded" re Baker as in bookends: Baker won the office the the Little Idiot and has now tried to corral him close to the end of his inglorious administration.

But Bush has shunned Baker's lastest advice and has avoided Scowcroft like the plague.

Both became president without being elected(Ford by resignation, Bush by appointment).