September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Scobleizing the Edwards campaign | Main | Home »

Dec 28, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Like everyone else who has a political axe to grind, including virtually all the media outlets, you chose THAT particular piece of information to put in your blog.

With all the things that could be said about Gerald Ford, you and others plucked a insignificant passage (and irrelevant to the news of Ford's death) like that to talk about.

No, there's no such thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome, is there?

You never miss a chance to take a shot, do you?

Don't bother to reply. There's nothing more you need to say.


Gosh. Now even dead guys can't have an opinion.

Kirk D.

Just like you Bubba, who in your post about Ford took a cheap, totally false shot at the incomming democrats. So you and Ed must be cut from the same cloth. Or you are just both using your blogs to make your own individual points. I wonder which it is.

Dr. Mary Johnson

"The dead guy" was President of the United States . . . a man who put the good of the country before both his party and his own interests when he pardoned Richard Nixon. What he did saved the nation a lot of grief, and paved a clearer path for everything that came after . . . including the "glory days" of both Reagan and Clinton. I'd say this makes his place in history far from "irrelevant" . . . even if he was of the "old school" and chose not to speak publicly . . . BECAUSE he was no longer in public office (and understood more than most, the pressures of sitting in the chair during troubled times . . . i.e. the end/"retreat" from Vietnam).

There are people in office now . . . people who will be running for President . . . people who stood in line behind Bush like rahrah girls when the decisions to go to war were made (John Edwards was on the Intelligence committee - and for eight years Hillary Clinton lived in a White House whose REAL "legacy" is 9/11). They can all make every excuse in the world now - but it's a load of hooey.

Ford knew his time was short and he wanted his opinions known - or he would not have sat down for these interviews. I personally think their publication probably could've waited until the (well-deserved) pomp and circumstance was over (and Ford's body was a little colder), but hey, Woodward has to sell those newspapers/books.


Mr. Ed,

Why don't you go back to LBJ and tell us the relevance that you found in each president including and since.

Alan Cone Bulluck

"his extreme irrelevance as an ex-president"

Ford was irrelevant because he didn't join Carter and Clinton in bashing future presidents?

By the time Ford left office, he had lived a pretty full life. Sometimes people just want to chill out and hang with the family. Not everyone is out to boost their ego like the anti-Semite from Georgia and the adulterer from Arkansas-Georgia-D.C..

You need to brush up on your Presidential History, too. The vast majority of US presidents left office with grace and dignity, unlike Diarrheamouth Carter. They knew the stress and difficulty of serving in the Oval Office, and they chose not to criticize those who followed them, knowing the difficulties of the job and the changing of the times in which they lived. There were exceptions, but most of those came during campaign season.

Guilford Native

I think you have to take a look at Ford's background.

He had a history of being at the right place, at the right time.

The GOP had a hard time trying to find anyone who would pardon Nixon, and said that he would go with the party playbook.

I can see it now, in the year 2020, history books will write: "GOP leadership was actually against the war all along. It was only Bush W who pushed the war, which led to the decline in America's economy, debt, healthcare, and education system".

Greensboro transplant

i think you're confusing ford's decision to keep a relatively low profile with relevance. he was ceratinly not reluctant to share his views, but he was reluctant to try to steal the limelight.

if you were to take the time to read through his writings and speeches after leaving office, i think you'd find much that you'd like.


"Just like you Bubba, who in your post about Ford took a cheap, totally false shot at the incoming democrats."

The point I made about the appropriateness of such a remark in the only mention of President Ford's death on this blog obviously went right over your head, didn't it?

There's no shame in admitting you missed it, Kirk.

At this point, we're used to that sort of thing from you.


By the way, Kirk.....the record of Democrat obstructionism in the last three sessions of Congress is indubitably true, not open to debate and obvious to those who can see, and to those who would take off their partisan blinders to see.


He was very involved in activities to reach out to the Gay/Lesbian community and in stemcell research, so he wasn't scared to oppose the President. But I think he thought it inappropriate to comment on foreign affairs. THose who have dies since 2004 would probably have appreciated him saying this in public then, though.


"the record of Democrat obstructionism"

The Republicans were in charge of all three branches of government for 6 years. They got nothing accomplished except debt and an unpopular, probably illegal war.

But you still find a way to blame Democrats. You need an intervention.

Ed's Mom

There used to be--and should be still--a code of honor which kept past presidents from talking about the performance of those who succeeded them. Like Jerry Ford, I am a Midwesterner (and clumsy) and think I understand his reticence. It would be nice if decorum and dignity were returned to the office. This doesn't mean that the exes shouldn't let W know exactly what they think of his policies, in private. I am not an ex-president and can say what I wish, but Ed says it better.

The CA

The man dies and Ed says NOTHING about it until he can find some way to use his death against Bush. Cheap Ed. You should have said nothing at all.


Another way of looking at it, CA: The man dies and CA says NOTHING about it until he can find a way to use it against Ed Cone. Cheaper, Sam.


I've been thinking for the past day of encomia that Cone's stature as a blogger might be measured most accurately by his extreme irrelevance ......

Kirk D.

"the record of Democrat obstructionism"

Yes, you are absolutely correct Bubba. You SHOULD obstruct people when they are DEAD wrong about the laws and policies they are trying to enact. That is the opposition's JOB when they know that what is being rammed down their and the American people's throats was bad for the nation. I totally agree the Dems were obstructionist. GOOD FOR THEM!

As for my initial point, you are the one that missed it. Both you AND Ed took jabs at the other in your Ford posts, or can you not admit that one, simple plain fact? Are you that subborn and pig headed?

And Sam, why don't you get off your fricken high horse and let Ed do what he wants on his blog and you can do what you want on yours? What is so hard to understand about that?

The CA

Nice try, Roch. It's not the same analogy, if it were I could easily say "another way to look at is Roch says nothing until he can find something to say about Sam" but thinking people can clearly see the difference. Suppose I didn't even have a blog, would I then be more justified in commenting on Ed's poor taste on this issue?

Why don't you stand up for decency on this one instead of carrying water for Ed? You guys complain about the LGBBC label and yet you even tow the line on something as cheap as what Ed has done here instead of calling him on it.

This one isn't even close. Ed basically doesn't give a damn about the fact that Ford died except as far as he can use it to advance his persistant anti-Bush drumbeat.

Meb- Don't tell him that. It would crush him.


Ed's mom is in the room, buttwipes.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Regards to Ed's Mom.

I'm curious, Roch. Did I answer your question about President Ford satisfactorily at my blog?


No, Dr. Johnson, as I implied in the comment you have yet to approve for publication.



What does "approve for publication" mean?


Dr. Mary Johnson

Roch, I've published everything you've posted - as far as I know. "Blogger" is well-known for its quirks. If something did not take, by all means try again.

MeB. As you know, I moderate comments on my blog . . . and I do not allow anonymous posters. Nothing goes up unless I approve it.


"As for my initial point, you are the one that missed it."

As if.....

Dream on, little buddy.

The record of Democrat obstructionism, particularly in judicial appointments from the administration is clear cut, no matter how much you or any other Dembot protest to the contrary.

chip atkinson

Ford kept his opinions to himself about current Presidents- as have every ex-President before him- save Clinton and Carter.

Kirk D.

Bubba, did you even attempt to read my reply up above? I guess not. Next time try to at least fake some interest in other people's comments before you go off half cocked.

I agreed with you that the Democrats were obstructionists. God bless them for being so. Our losses of privacy, environmental protection, habeas corpus, to be secure in our homes, the right to choose, all were lessened because of the right's control of the government for the last 10 years. The left did their civic duty by trying to obstruct them. But I guess you missed that part of my post...

Your blog post about Ford put forth the notion that it was the left that made bipartisanship a memory, but I submit to you that it was the rights control of the goverment that doomed it, not the left. Why play nice with the dems when you controlled every branch of the federal government for the last six years? By be civil when you can tell one of the highest ranking senators to go "f*ck himself" on the floor of our capital building? It wasn't the dems that caused the breakdown of civility in government, it was the rights unending and unfettered quest for power and control. From Delay and Frist right up to W and Cheney.

And by the way, I'm not your "little buddy". Got it skipper?

John D. Young

It seems only natural that many people while reflecting on the life and death of folks like Gerald Ford or Jean Kirkpatrick would have interest on where they stood on current pressing issues like the War in Iraq. To many people their current thoughts are just as valuable as their actions long ago. To some extent we assume that opinions of political leaders near the end of their lives may be more informed and less encumbered than when they were in the constant limelight. It is obvious that one does not have to be in the "liberal camp" to be opposed to this War today or in 2003. It is now somewhat difficult to find a unapologetic supporter of this War.

I remember that when Pope John Paul II died some commentators pointed out his strong opposition to the War in Iraq. John Allen, the Vatican correspondent of the National Catholic Reporter said that "the Holy See opposed the US-led war in Iraq with a ferocity that few issues in the recent past have aroused." Simply put all just war theory within the framework of the Church forbade the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Pope John Paul II even sent Cardinal Pio Laghi to make a final plea to President Bush on March 3, 2003 to halt the preemptive invasion. Most Christian denominations and many other religious leaders from around the world also spoke out strongly in opposition to the War in Iraq. All these cries fell of death ears across the US and especially in Washington among Republicans and Democrats alike.

I imagine for some time to come as political leaders age, fade and then die -- where they stood on the War in Iraq will have some relevance for many of us.

Connie Mack Jr

And by the way, I'm not your "little buddy". Got it skipper? *Kirk D.

Capt'n Bubba! It appears that Capt'n Kirk has just sunk or blew your Bushstarship out of cyberspace after his comments.

You would be much better off defending Hilter and blaming it all on the communists with the results that you are getting in trying to pin the evil failures of the Republican leadership on a bunch of Democrats who luck up on your party sucide pact with the devil.


"But I guess you missed that part of my post..."

No, I got it loud and clear. You were actually proud of Dembot/Libthink obstructionism,as if it was a good thing.

You have no idea just how destructive it was. Perhaps you just don't care.

THAT'S the point, little buddy, whether you like it or not.


How about Repsupplicants/neoconartists?

Ah, feels good in the mud bath.

Guilford Native

When will the madness stop. It is time that America realizes that GOP leadership has changed quite a bit over the years.
New Age GOP Leadership

The comments to this entry are closed.