Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mo1; Texasforever; cva66snipe
To: Mo1 No, I didn't forget anything. Gerald Ford was president for approximately 2years after Nixon resigned. Ford maintained that he would not run for president. He lied but won the nomination over a conservative therefore giving us one of the worst Democrat presidents ever.

677 posted on 05/06/2006 8:17:40 PM PDT by texastoo ("trash the treaties")

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Cva--fyi

Texasforever-- you response "balony"

Mo1-- your response, "I think you need to reread history".

Here is your history lesson that you evidently didn't read.

The Ford Memoirs Behind the Nixon Pardon

471 U.S. 577> On the Decision to Run Again. Ford was, he tells us, so sincere in his intention not to run again that he thought he would announce it and enhance his credibility in the country and the Congress, as well as keep the promise he had made to his wife, Betty.

Kissinger talked him out of it. “You can’t do that. It would be disastrous from a foreign policy point of view. For the next two and a half years foreign governments would know that they were dealing with a lame-duck President. All our initiatives would be dead in the water, and I wouldn’t be able to implement your foreign policy. It would probably have the same consequences in dealing with <225 USPQ 1088> the Congress on domestic issues. You can’t reassert the authority of the Presidency if you leave yourself hanging out on a dead limb. You’ve got to be an affirmative President.”

Someone, evidently, leaked this as it was common knowledge during the election.

http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/ipcourse/nationarticle.htm

781 posted on 05/07/2006 1:31:16 PM PDT by texastoo ("trash the treaties")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies ]


To: texastoo

Key sentence "Kissinger talked him out of it"

Meaning he never announced it


782 posted on 05/07/2006 1:56:38 PM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]

To: texastoo
Considering the turmoil in his personal life at that time I say you are probably right. As for Ford VS Carter? They were very much alike actually. Had Ford won it the outcome would have been the same minus possibly the Panama Canal giveaway. The military under Ford was on a downturn as well & one reason I'm not a Rummy fan. If Reagan had won the military turnaround would have started in 77 rather than in mid 1980 under Carter. MR Peanuts didn't address the military woes until he was forced to do so with the Iranian Crisis. It never got as bad as it obviously did under Clinton.

I was on active duty Navy during the last of Ford and most of Carters terms. The ships stayed mission ready. Morale was a huge issue as was discipline in general especially in 1976-77. The military became a go as you please operation. Meaning if you so pleased and wanted out all you did was go AWOL for 31 days and turn yourself in and wait for processing out under a General Discharge.

A note on this if a vet during that time says he was in the service for less than three years and got out they likely did this. There are exceptions such as Medical reasons etc though. But desertion was rather high especially for peace time. Carter stopped the walk away discharges and tacked on the AWOL plus Brig time as bad time, awarded the General Discharge, and made the person actually do their 4 years plus bad time.

Carter wasn't by any stretch a good POTUS but neither was FORD either. I see Reagan as being elected just at the right time especially on foreign policy matters. Four years earlier he may not have been as successfully due to economic concerns not at a peak in Russia yet.

783 posted on 05/07/2006 2:10:25 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]

To: texastoo

I forgot something :>} The biggest blunder Reagan made? GHW Bush :>} enough said.


785 posted on 05/07/2006 2:19:54 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson