Former President Ford

[Rudy]

Its just coming over the wire, but President Ford has died.

[gksmith]

I was at work when CNN started broadcasting the story (and 4 hours of repeats) at 11PM.

[UNTflyer]

I like how Bob Woodward now insists how he is certain there was a deal struck between Ford and Nixon (Ford becomes President and Nixon gets a pardon). How convenient that the only two men who can confirm this are now dead.

Hey Bob, how long do you plan on milking your Watergate fame?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----- I liked the fact that during the funeral (and related) broadcasts they pictured Ford as being often non-partisian while in office. I have been around a while (born in 43) and politics once was not near as hateful as it is today... It got a lot worse when Gingrich and the Christian extremists came onto the scene about 15 years ago. The non-stop radio talk shows have contributed as well to the polarization..

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coach]

I like how you yearn for the old days of non-partisan politics (at least compared to now) and then immediately politicize it.

[GBarksdale]

politics once was not near as hateful as it is today

A little perspective -- It was pretty bad in the late 60s - early 70s. The 80s were pretty bad -- I remember how some extremists were saying that Reagan killed people with AIDS, etc. And if you look at politics in the 19th century up to the Civil War and immediately after, it was pretty hateful. The only times in the 20th century when the political atmosphere was relatively calm was when the economy and society were stable and one party had complete legislative dominance.

[Coach]

It must have been pretty bad in the 1700's as well. Check out Washington's farewell address.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

And later...

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

see below --it double posted when I tried to edit.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- A lot of the problems in later half of the 1800's were in reaction to the Civil War (lots of people had died) and Reconstruction (Most native Southerners could not hold office or even vote) ...These people were alive for several decades after the war. The South tended to Democrat and the North often Republican and Wall-street supporters.

--- Viet Nam and civil rights did divide politics in the late 60's but the politicians were not so hateful to each other as now and even then not divided strictly along party lines. There was a lot of chaos and protests in the streets but the political leaders were usually civil to each other.

---The Nixon situation was a problem but it again ceased to divide on political party lines once the facts came out. This is why Ford had the bipartisain support he did... both parties liked him and thought him to be an honest man, he had been the GOP leader in the House. . Even Carter who defeated him liked him... Not just Democrats opposed the Nixon pardon.... which was the correct thing to do to stop the mess. Lots of Republicans would not vote for him and he was voted out for the almost unknown Carter. Some just wanted the current Washington group replaced-- in disgust of Watergate.

---During the Johnson administration, he had leaders of both parties in Congress in for breakfast in regularly (twice a month I think, Ford was one of them) and they got along even though they may have disagreed. Can't imagine that happening now with these guys (either party).

----Finally there were not a lot of people on radio and TV (making a fortune) trashing one party or the other.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

A little perspective -- It was pretty bad in the late 60s - early 70s. The 80s were pretty bad -- I remember how some extremists were saying that Reagan killed people with AIDS, etc. And if you look at politics in the 19th century up to the Civil War and immediately after, it was pretty hateful. The only times in the 20th century when the political atmosphere was relatively calm was when the economy and society were stable and one party had complete legislative dominance.

--During Reagan you mentioned extremists... That is correct.... they were considered extremist by everyone and political parties aren't even an issue.

---I believe I stated about 15 years ago... that does not include Reagan era. ...ie. about 1990 or late 1980's ( when Gingrich, Falwell and Pat Robertson, etc. and non-stop talk shows became a political issue) to present.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GBarksdale]

It must have been pretty bad in the 1700's as well. Check out Washington's farewell address.

And later...

Coach

Excellent post. Thanks.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

QUOTE(Coach @ Jan 4 2007, 11:13 AM)

It must have been pretty bad in the 1700's as well. Check out Washington's farewell address.

And later...

Coach

Excellent post. Thanks.

______________________

----There were no real political parties then and each state pretty much considered itself an independent body plus the entire governmental system was new and struggling to obtain stability. Washington also opposed politcal parties and there is no mention of them in the Constituion either. This can not be compared to today

He feared parties mostly based on regions.. South vs North for example which was likely because of different types of economies ..... and he proved to be right as the coutry divided on slavery later..... by the way slavery was legal in north when he was president ... just not later largely because the north did not need cheap labor for large farms (plantations) and the industrial age had not yet appeared in the north.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coach]

I think a lot of the things he says are accurate even for today's political parties.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---- Which is back to where I started.... Ford was a GOP member but was not as partisan as the guys in power today. The first responsibility of elected officials is to the people in general, not to a party or some crazy group.... I guess you heard that McGovern (Democrat) who had ran against Nixon in 1972 admitted a couple of days ago that he voted for Ford in 1976 because he knew and trusted Ford and did not know much about Carter or his abilities. He admitted it in a interview during the Ford burial activities. ( on Larry King)

----Things are much worse now that the tele-evangelists (includes Falwell's "Moral Majority" etc. ) are trying to influence government policy and others such as Gingrich and Delay who were interested only in increasing their personal and their parties' power plus satisfying special interests.

----There has always been differences but not so much so along party lines as is the case now ( at least this past century or so).

---Personally I blame the divisiveness on the mass medias types similar to Rush Limbough (who makes millions talking garbage every day ) and the Pat Robinson/Falwell types and the influence they seem to have over the un-informed and those who can't think for themselves.. These guys have only existed in the public forum for the past 15-20 years because of cable and satellite communication now available.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[untgirl04]

---- Which is back to where I started.... Ford was a GOP member but was not as partisan as the guys in power today. The first responsibility of elected officials is to the people in general, not to a party or some crazy group.... I guess you heard that McGovern (Democrat) who had ran against Nixon in 1972 admitted a couple of days ago that he voted for Ford in 1976 because he knew and trusted Ford and did not know much about Carter or his abilities. He admitted it in a interview during the Ford burial activities. ( on Larry King)

----Things are much worse now that the tele-evangelists (includes Falwell's "Moral Majority" etc. ) are trying to influence government policy and others such as Gingrich and Delay who were interested only in increasing their personal and their parties' power plus satisfying special interests.

----There has always been differences but not so much so along party lines as is the case now ( at least this past century or so).

---Personally I blame the divisiveness on the mass medias types similar to Rush Limbough (who makes millions talking garbage every day ) and the Pat Robinson/Falwell types and the influence they seem to have over the un-informed and those who can't think for themselves..

Please make it stop!!!!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---No one makes you read.... and some some people read absolutely nothing and know almost as much.

[UNTLifer]

---Personally I blame the divisiveness on the mass medias types similar to Rush Limbough (who makes millions talking garbage every day ) and the Pat Robinson/Falwell types and the influence they seem to have over the un-informed and those who can't think for themselves.. These guys have only existed in the public forum for the past 15-20 years because of cable and satellite communication now available.

Noticed you only listed the "right" in your example. The "liberal" media is just as guilty.

[UNTflyer]

Divisiveness is good. Who wants a Congress that gets along???

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Congress is in session." – Mark Twain (1866)

[Black Scholes]

----- I liked the fact that during the funeral (and related) broadcasts they pictured Ford as being often non-partisian while in office. I have been around a while (born in 43) and politics once was not near as hateful as it is today... It got a lot worse when Gingrich and the Christian extremists came onto the scene about 15 years ago. The non-stop radio talk shows have contributed as well to the polarization..

Musings from someone born in the 70's to balance out the one sided comments from our esteemed alumni above.

I like how talk radio provides an alternative medium for the public to listen and respond to what is happening in our society. For many years we were held hostage by the main stream media networks, having to suffer through the joke of the biased product they produced. (See Dan Rather's fake Bush Air national guard story which he refused to apologize for 3 days). Now we can get the facts and a little bias if we so choose. BTW, I'm not the only one who likes talk raidio, it happens to be one of the faster growing mediums and millions of people choose to tune in. If they didn't like it or think that it had value, then talk radio stations would go bankrupt.

Oh, wait that's what the liberal talk radio station network "Air America" is doing, going bankrupt because not enough people believe or care to listen to their ridiculous rantings or hate musings.

I don't think we can lay the politics of hate totally at the feet of people like Gingrich and Christians (BTW, Christians didn't hate Clinton; he was just so stupid he was an easy target to attack). Perhaps we can give Clinton a little blame for that as well since everytime he got caught in a particular "Gate" (i.e. rapegate, real estate gate, lying to a grand jurgate, pardon gate, etc) he turned his hate and demonization machine (James Carville) on to discredit his detractors no matter the evidence.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---True Clinton was an easy target..... just as Nixon was.... It was disgusting but he did was not as matter of national security or impeachable offense. (no one died either unlike soame other events I won't mention.) A good - size chunk of Congress would be gone if that was crime against the Nation. That includes Hyde was led the prosecution against Clinton... he had affairs when he was in his mid 40's....He did admit to it but claimed he did it when he was young and foolish (about Clintons age) and Gingrich has ran around on every wife he has had (three) . None of that however justifies what Clinton did. ...but he was no worse than a lot of them ...

--I like some talk shows too .[Larry King is a talk show] .. if what they say is the truth (and the whole truth which is usually the problem).... and I agree Air America is likely as bad..(don't listen ..not on local radio, but it is on Sirius which I have..... I never said either side was innocent. Rush is just the worst of all. ---Both groups are guilty of the partisainship... but I think one group is worse because of their relationships with the extreme TV religious nuts ( just to get votes, they aren't any more moral ) ...... This does not include most local religious ministers who don't care for many of these TV guys either.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

I like how talk radio provides an alternative medium for the public to listen and respond to what is happening in our society.For many years we were held hostage by the main stream media networks, having to suffer through the joke of the biased product they produced.

While the news media was slanted to the left in the 1970's, it was the FCC's move to allow political & news programs to exist without a proper counterpoint that is responsible for talk radio "news". The problem is that people nowadays don't know that they're not listening or watching proper news programs, but only opinionated crap.

Oh, wait that's what the liberal talk radio station network "Air America" is doing, going bankrupt because not enough people believe or care to listen to their ridiculous rantings or hate musings.

Which supports my belief that there aren't nearly as many pundits on the left.

(BTW, Christians didn't hate Clinton; he was just so stupid he was an easy target to attack).

Clinton was a rhodes scholar. I'd hardly call that stupid. While I'm mixed on his policies, he was a brilliant politician & an incredibly smart person.

he turned his hate and demonization machine (James Carville) on to discredit his detractors no matter the evidence.

hate machine? While he is a fire-breathing spinmeister idiot, he's hardly spiteful compared to the Ann Coulters or Michael Savages of today.

[UNTflyer]

It was disgusting but he did was not as matter of national security or impeachable offense.

Not to beat a long dead horse... but an impeachable offense is anything Congress says is impeachable. After all... he was impeached.

A good - size chunk of Congress would be gone if that was crime against the Nation.

I don't recall a good chunk of Congress committing perjury.

Edited January 5, 2007 by UNTflyer

[untgirl04]

Clinton was a rhodes scholar. I'd hardly call that stupid. While I'm mixed on his policies, he was a brilliant politician & an incredibly smart person.

There's a big difference between being academically intelligent and being socially/morally intelligent. Since there are actually 8 different kinds of intelligence, I think it's safe to say that while Clinton is certainly academically intelligent (otherwise known as IQ), he definitely scores a little lower on the whole "making appropriate decisions" meter. Granted we've all made mistakes and done things in our "youth" that we're not necessarily proud of. However, a president should be held to a higher standard. And if perjury is a punishable offense for any of us who commits it, then it should be just as punishable for the leader of our country.

\rant

Political views aside, I think it's safe to say that we've truly passed the age in which we can get actual news. Our news services go through periods of opinionated drivel aimed to direct the tide of our country's thoughts. Just look at the mess the muckrakers made of things... Can't we just all agree that in general news services provide a slanted view of actual events and end this thread?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Not to beat a long dead horse... but an impeachable offense is anything Congress says is impeachable. After all... he was impeached.

I don't recall a good chunk of Congress committing perjury.

---Most men aren't honest if asked about an affair....... I just don't think that personal infidelities had any business being investigated by Congress unless national security or some some national problem was at stake. Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde, and several others could not have withstood the scrutiny either. I absolutely don't approve of his actions but many other Presidents have had rumors of them occurring as well. None went through the inquisition that Clinton had. It likely happened because of the inappropriate "influence of people such as Falwell* and Roberson and other similar people. Keep those guys out of government!! Mixing religion and government is a bad idea..... look at the Middle East... only difference there it is Islam and government.

---"an impeachable offense is anything Congress says is impeachable" ... You have got to be kidding.!!!... By this reasoning they could impeach a President every time they override a veto of his because he disagrees with 2/3 of them...

---* Falwell even thinks Teletubbies is about homosexuality... what a intelligent man.!!!! I won't discuss all of his other crazy remarks which make maybe even less sense. Pat Robertson even tried to get elected president and that went no-where... they do not represent mainstream America but they have way too much influence now over some. Anyone who dares "cross" them risks being called un-Christian and un-American and will be pummeled on the air. Unfortunately there are those who actually believe everything they say.

---Maybe the media did slant to the left during the 70's some... they seemed to support a lot of the civil right acts that were getting passed, because a lot of things that had happened in the past was wrong... racial and gender rights.. Those that realized change was needed were considered leaning to the left.... Usually anyone that supports change is considered "left-wingers" and those who resist change are "right-wingers". Financial conservative is totally different.... spending more than is taken in is not conservative.... This Administration has almost doubled the national debt.. They are religious conservatives, but not financial ones, in fact the only administratation to balance the yearly budgets since 1980 were during the Clinton era ...six years of his eight in office (the first two weren't).

Edited January 5, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

Not to beat a long dead horse... but an impeachable offense is anything Congress says is impeachable. After all... he was impeached.

And the Congress that impeached him certainly lowered the standard for impeachable offenses in his case.