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

To: kabar
Excellent summary of the historic situation. I would disagree with your characterization of Ford's tenure in the House, however. Newt Gingrich proved that the party in the minority needn't roll over for the majority, particularly when it is acting irresponsibly, as the Dhimmicrats were in the late 60s and early 70s. Ford was from the accomodationist wing of the Republican party, more concerned with maintaining their own perks and the "institution" than with actually doing things for the country. Bob Michel was the same type of "go along to get along" Republican.

You know, what the DBM calls a "good Republican." 

Clearly that's an oversimplification and doesn't account for lots of things he did do, such as taking on Johnson's "great society" programs in the 60s, but it's how I picture him. 

I also agree with those that characterize Ford as an "anti-conservative Republican," if you take Reagan to represent the conservatives in the party. Lots of people have pointed out the slap in the face selecting Nelson Rockefeller as his VP was to conservatives.  At the time it was intended to broaden his standing across the party as Ford was nominally a midwestern conservative (of the old school) and Rockefeller represented a different wing of the party, but events later made me associate Ford (and the old school midwest Republicans) with the country club Rockefeller Republicans as oppposed to the Reagan conservatives.

It's also interesting to me the account in the New York Times indicating that Ford and Carter became close friends based largely on their mutual dislike of Ronald Reagan. I take the report with a big grain of salt based on the source, but it is consistent with my impression of the late President Ford.

I do agree that Reagan probably couldn't have been elected in 1976 and that it took 4 years of Carter to slap people "up side the head" and make them realize that, yes, the Dhimmicrats really are that stupid, dishonest and incompetent.  I think that's going to be the consensus in two years, as well, after we have watched the wheels fall off of Nazi Pelosi's little red wagon.

None of this is that strongly held or backed by any research.  It's just my impression, having lived through the times in question (though I wasn't paying that much attention to politics at the time).

190 posted on 12/31/2006 8:37:02 AM PST by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Phsstpok; All
Ford and Carter became close friends based largely on their mutual dislike of Ronald Reagan.

Some one here must have saved that delightful exchange with Ford in which he says, referring to Carter who had just behaved badly and made a subordinate feel very crushed, that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken s#%t. I don't think the stories about them being friends are all they are cracked up to be.

199 posted on 12/31/2006 8:40:30 AM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok

#190, that is very telling info about Ford. I am not surprised, and I was a dem at the time, but was really not a big fan of Ford even though I voted for him.


328 posted on 12/31/2006 11:01:53 AM PST by samantha (The New Media fighting the DBM for our Sanity, Survival ,Soldiers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok
Excellent summary of the historic situation. I would disagree with your characterization of Ford's tenure in the House, however. Newt Gingrich proved that the party in the minority needn't roll over for the majority, particularly when it is acting irresponsibly, as the Dhimmicrats were in the late 60s and early 70s. Ford was from the accomodationist wing of the Republican party, more concerned with maintaining their own perks and the "institution" than with actually doing things for the country. Bob Michel was the same type of "go along to get along" Republican.

Facts are facts. You really can't compare the two because they served in much different circumstances as far as the composition of the Rep party was concerned, i.e., the percentage identifying themselves as conservatives. The GOP during Ford's tenure had many Northeasterners and Midwesterners. It was more liberal overall as a party. This changed as the GOP gained in the conservative South, which has now become the GOP's principal power base. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford were not conservatives nor did they pretend to be so. Neither was Bush 41. You can't fault Ford for being accommodating to the Dems because he had little choice given the large Dem majorities. Most of the politically meaningful dialogue took place within the Dem party with the Southern Dems pitted against the rest of the Party. The Reps could use some leverage in forming coalitions with Dems to determine the outcome of some issues.

Also, the Dems controlled the House to a much greater degree when Ford took over as the minority leader [1965-73] than under Gingrich's minority whip tenure [1989-95] when he took over for Cheney. The Dems controlled the 89th Congress [1965-67] in the House 295-140 and 68-32 in the Senate. The Reps high water mark in the House never got above 192 during Ford's tenure and many of those Reps were not conservatives.

The GOP under Gingrich was a much different party thanks to the success of Reagan and the shift of the South to the Rep column. It was much different than the GOP that had been practically destroyed when Goldwater was the standard bearer in the 1964 election.

I also agree with those that characterize Ford as an "anti-conservative Republican," if you take Reagan to represent the conservatives in the party. Lots of people have pointed out the slap in the face selecting Nelson Rockefeller as his VP was to conservatives. At the time it was intended to broaden his standing across the party as Ford was nominally a midwestern conservative (of the old school) and Rockefeller represented a different wing of the party, but events later made me associate Ford (and the old school midwest Republicans) with the country club Rockefeller Republicans as oppposed to the Reagan conservatives.

Ford was being a political realist. In 1964 Goldwater, an avowed and proud conservative, got the nomination of the GOP. He lost the popular vote 61% to 38.5% and the electoral vote 486-52. I can understand why Ford would be reluctant 12 years later to place another conservative on the national ticket.

None of this is that strongly held or backed by any research. It's just my impression, having lived through the times in question (though I wasn't paying that much attention to politics at the time).

It sounds like you a bit older than me. I am only 63, but I can remember much of it, especially the 60s having served in Vietnam. As a 17 year old in 1960, I was distributing campaign literature door to door in a small town in very Rep upstate NY on behalf of JFK. Of course, by today's standards, JFK might be considered a conservative.

449 posted on 12/31/2006 1:44:01 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | 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