The Accidental President

On August 9, 1974, amid the turbulence of the Watergate moment, Gerald R. Ford found himself in the extraordinary circumstance of assuming the presidency of the United States without first having faced the American electorate as a candidate for president or vice president.

Ford handled the unsettling transition as gently as he could.

"I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances never before experienced by Americans," the new President told the American people in a televised address on the hot August day when he took over the office that had been abandoned by the disgraced Richard Nixon. "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers."

Ford, who died Tuesday at age 93, tried to put the best spin on his assumption of the presidency. "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over," he declared. "Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule."

As genuine and decent a fellow as may have been--and, having enjoyed the opportunity to interview Ford several times, I do believe he was that--the new President got that last line wrong.

The people did not rule.

The presidency fell to a man who had never been elected by the voters of more than the single US House district in Michigan that Ford had represented for several decades. That's not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Ford had been a popular and well-positioned member of the Republican minority in the House when in the fall of 1973, following the abrupt resignation of corrupt former Vice President Spiro Agnew, the congressman was plucked from relative obscurity by Nixon to fill the No. 2 position in the land. According to the then relatively new 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which set up procedures for filling a vacant vice presidential office, Ford had to be confirmed by the House and Senate.

Yet, only three senators -- Maine's William Hathaway, Wisconsin's Gaylord Nelson and Missouri's Thomas Eagleton--voted against Ford's confirmation to serve as vice president, as did a handful of House members. The concerns expressed by the dissenters varied. But underpinning them was a recognition that a man who had not faced the national electorate could assume the presidency.

Less than one year later, after Nixon was forced to resign, Ford did, indeed, become the nation's chief executive.

As President, Ford served more ably and honestly than many of his successors. But he was, and will always be, remembered as an accidental President. Perhaps that is not fair to him, but nor is it fair to the American people to have a President assume office in such a dysfunctional manner.

There will be a bit of discussion about how best to honor Ford. But, in truth, the best way to honor this former President is to close the Constitutional loophole that allowed him to become President. The presidency is already too regal to permit chief executives to annoint their successors--and, perhaps, to extract the promise of a full presidential pardon or some other favor, as critics suggested Nixon did with Ford.

It would be better to return to the old, pre-25th Amendment, practice of allowing an abandoned vice presidential office to remain vacant and allowing the Speaker of the House to assume the presidency in an emergency situation. It would be better still to set up a healthier procedure--perhaps even a special national election, along the lines regularly employed in other countries--to choose a new vice president.

Whatever the solution, the fact remains that something should be done.

There is a great deal of talk these days about how best to cure what ails American democracy. There are plenty of issues to address. But if Americans ever get serious about restoring the battered infrastructure of democracy, they will want to close the loopholes that allow someone who has never faced the great mass of American voters--and, theoretically, who has not faced any voters--to become President.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (64)

1. bless his soul...

   a quietly decent man...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/27/2006 @ 03:01am

2. One can always expect Nation Staffers to find a negative slant to almost any aspect of American politics. John, you are no exception. Yes, the process was unusual: So were the times, and we survived. We'll always survive, and come back stronger than ever. Sometimes I get the feeling you guys can't stand that.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2006 @ 07:37am

3. (Stretching) I just woke up and haven't had a chance to read through the posts. Has anyone posted anything like "...and Bush was the 2nd President NOT elected!!!!" or something like "Sure, he was an extreme right winger but he was nothin' compared to Bush!!!!!"? Thanks!

   Posted by woodyee at 12/27/2006 @ 09:01am

4. "One can always expect Nation Staffers to find a negative slant to almost any aspect of American politics. John, you are no exception. Yes, the process was unusual: So were the times, and we survived. We'll always survive, and come back stronger than ever. Sometimes I get the feeling you guys can't stand that."

   Don't blame the messenger.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 12/27/2006 @ 09:14am

5. Since Rese is off topic...

   Here's a link about John Kerry's Excellent Adventure in Iraq. Bill O'Reilly was there also. Compare and contrast:

   http://www.areavoices.com/hottalk/?blog=5053

   "Never mind! I'll get the ketchup myself!"

   Posted by woodyee at 12/27/2006 @ 09:29am

6. Gosh, Wood, thanks for the little view into your world. Powerful stuff that. Funny that there was no shot of the throng clammering to kiss O'Reilly's ass. But I'll certainly trust anyone who is the friend of the "Rush Limbaugh of the Prairie".

   Back on topic...what is the solution to repealing the 25th Amendment? Are we to have a special election? Ford was approved by two groups of representatives of everyone outside of the District of Columbia; what else can we hope for? Are we to bump Speaker of the House out of her/his position in line for the same reason?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 09:41am

7. Rese, not only are you off your rocker, but you must have, like, no life at all to be able to post all this crap on a minor blog site in so short a space of time :)

   Chip

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2006 @ 09:54am

8. I started out as a Republican because of Jerry Ford. He was the last Republican President who even attempted to practice genuine conservatism: sound fiscal policy, a strong but cost-effective defense, the rule of law and the Constitution etc. I stopped being a Republican because 'conservatives' like Reagan and the Bushes betrayed conservative principles in favor of voodoo economics, a bonanza for war profiteers, and the 'unitary presidency'.

   Jerry Ford was thrown over by his own party precisely because he advocated common sense while Reagan offered something for nothing. The great irony here is that the only successor to Ford who embraced his common-sense conservatism was Billy Clinton, who balanced the budget, promoted non-inflationary economic growth, and opposed war-profiteering scams like Star Wars. We could use another Jerry Ford today, but don't look for anyone like him in the Republican Party.

   Posted by samcrossett at 12/27/2006 @ 10:19am

9. Because the neo-conservatives have assumed control of the repube party, and missed what Watergate and Vietnam taught us, we enter a new national nightmare. Rampant war profiteering, imperial presidency and a quagmire in Asia. 1972 all over again. If the neo's had their way the cops would be in the streets again with their fire hoses.

   Plus Ford pardoned Nixon, for gods sake. For that he should get a paupers funeral.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/27/2006 @ 10:33am

10. Rese - I stand corrected.

    Posted by woodyee at 12/27/2006 @ 10:40am

11. I disagree with the main article--

    First, it should likely remain sufficiently unusual for both a President and a Vice-President to step down before the terms are over that the emergency provision of the 25th Amendment should come into play only in exceptional situations.

    Second, the problem with having the Speaker of the House next in line is that, ever since the ratification of the 12th Amendment, the Vice-President is someone who is from the same party as the President. This makes perfect sense as the Presidential election determines party control of the Executive Branch. To have a Speaker come to the White House in any situation short of the emergency of the President and Vice-President buying it in a short period of time is to run the risk of ignoring the vote that gave a given party control of the White House.

    The fact that both houses of Congress must approve a nomination to fill the office of the VP should satisfy the need for a democractic mandate. Indeed such a person would have a greater claim the the Speaker of the House, who was only selected by the majority of the House of Representatives. I think Mr. Nichols has also ignored the fact that, like the late Mr. Ford, a Speaker was only directly elected by one Congressional district.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/27/2006 @ 10:57am

12. How many wmd's did Bubba Oh' Really find over there? Did he have the guts to walk around unescorted? after all, it's no more unsafe than LA.

    Bubba the cut and runner. (of course this is AFTER he claimed Iraq had wmd's, because BUsh told him so, and then claimed all the anti-war folk should shut up and go home, because the mission had been accomplished). :

    "Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place."

    And his method to win over the Iraqi people? O'REILLY: All right, in no-spin news, bad news right off the top. Ten U.S. Marines conducting a foot patrol outside of the Iraqi city of Fallujah were killed in an explosion of an insurgent bomb. OK, now, Fallujah should not exist. It should have been leveled a long time ago. Just leveled. That town should have been made an example of years ago. That's the town were they hung the four U.S. contractors from the bridge. Remember that? They had burned their bodies and then hung them. That town should have been destroyed as a message, and it hadn't been. And it was a huge mistake, ladies and gentlemen. You can't win this war on terror with half-measures. That town -- everybody should have been evacuated and flattened. And now we got 10 more Marines killed in Fallujah. Awful."

    Thats right L@G's, if we lose 14, we should kill hundreds of thousands or at least force them out of their homes. Yea, this is the guy we should be listening to.

    WOOYEE, go back to playing with your dolls, leave politics to the grown-ups.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/27/2006 @ 10:58am

13. Posted by CRABWALK 12/27/2006 @ 10:33am

    Can you imagine ANY of the failures of the Jimmy Carter Presidency and the DISASTERS they caused for the general public (unlike dragging them through a painful and divisive Nixon trial that Ford SAVED us from)..the unemployment, the gas lines, the outrageous mortgage rates, "malaise" and "stagflation"....the CRAB would wish a "pauper's funeral" on Carter?

    For the rest, if you absolve Jimmy for all those problems...imagine this-

    If Gerald Ford had just won re-election, HE would have been blamed for them and Reagan would have never been elected in 1980!

    Posted by Mask at 12/27/2006 @ 11:01am

14. And lets not forget that Ford also brought us such luminaries as Dick "shoot em in the fae" Cheney and Don "what insurgency?" Rumsfeld.

    Vice President Dick Cheney, who was 34 when he served as Mr. Ford's top adviser, said in a statement early today that the late president "embodied the best values of a great generation: decency, integrity and devotion to duty."

    Too bad Dicky didn't absorb any of those traits.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/27/2006 @ 11:03am

15. "Face" shoot em in the face. Lawyers that look like wing clipped little birds, just released from a cage.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/27/2006 @ 11:04am

16. Looking backwrds at our history,, I prefer Nixon to Carter any day under any measurement.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/27/2006 @ 11:08am

17. CRABWALK, clearly you are not looking at the big picture concerning Fords' pardon of Nixon. Ford's action was as important as Carter's later when he pardoned war protestors, and was done for the same reason, to begin the healing process. He knew he'd take heat for it from Leftnuts, just as Carter knew he would from David Horowitz types. They did it anyway, which means they both deserve our respect, no matter which side of the fence you're on

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2006 @ 11:10am

18. You prefer Nixon to Carter? I don't care what party a person is from: A crook is a crook. Any politician that willingly breaks the law belongs in one of the many Federal Bureau of Prison facilities that stretch across the country.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:12am

19. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/27/2006 @ 11:08am | ignore this person

    That's because you're fucking nuts.

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/27/2006 @ 11:13am

20. War protesters broke the law while protesting an immoral, illegal war; Nixon broke the law while pursuing his own interests. There is no comparison.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:14am

21. I prefer Nixon to Carter any day under any measurement.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/27/2006 @ 11:08am

    Do you know something about what they were/are packing that the rest of us don't? If so, can you tell us why you prefer Nixon's to Carter's?

    Or, how about if we measured the number of houses built in the post-presidency years? Or the number of times each had to leave office in disgrace? Or the amount of paranoia each possessed? Or the number of thickness of their beards? Or the number of soldiers who died during each presidency? I mean, Carter was no dream, but if you say "under any measurement" [whatever it means to be "under" a "measurement"], then you need to supply a table, chart or graph.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:16am

22. "It would be better to return to the old, pre-25th Amendment, practice of allowing an abandoned vice presidential office to remain vacant and allowing the Speaker of the House to assume the presidency in an emergency situation."

    Ok Johnboy how do you work out the paradox by saying that Ford never faced the national electorate, while assuming that the voice of the people is not heard in such a case. But then again the Speaker of the House is neither facing the national electorate him/herself either...only the voters of his/her district.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 11:20am

23. BTW, I realize 99% of us here, Left, Right, and Middle, realize that RESE is insane....but...

    Don't you find it ODD that he says "America is being taken over by NAZIS!"...and discusses a "vast 'Zionist' (love to see the FINE distinction he makes between a Zionist and ...any Jew) 'Communist' conspiracy".

    Now...who here remembers which group worried about a "Zionist"/Communist conspiracy taking over their country in the 1930s and what the short-hand name of their political party was?

    Posted by Mask at 12/27/2006 @ 11:24am

24. But then again the Speaker of the House is neither facing the national electorate him/herself either...only the voters of his/her district.

    Posted by CPT 12/27/2006 @ 11:20am

    Good point...already made by me and then seconded by Brunowe. Does anyone else read what others have posted before jumping in, or do we all assume that our ideas are unique and ignore potential redundancies?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:25am

25. All i can say is that Nixon, for all his faults was much better at foreign policy than the pacifist Carter.

    Carter was a horrible President...nice post President.

    Carter by his handling of the Iran crisis proved inept and impotent....his truimph is the peace between Israel and Eygpt...but there again he was more fortunate to have a moderate in Sadat to deal with than someone in the Nasser mode.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 11:25am

26. Posted by CPT 12/27/2006 @ 11:20am

    Come CPT, you know what this is about.

    Mr Nichols still dreaming of "President Pelosi" after the "dual impeachment of Bush and Cheney" and hopefully preventing Cheney from becoming Prez and nominating ...oh...say...Condi as Veep (a nominee not even a Dem House could vote against).

    Posted by Mask at 12/27/2006 @ 11:25am

27. MTSPENCE05,

    I thought someone might try to say there was a difference between the pardons. In the context of what I spoke, regarding integrity and a larger outlook on things, there is no difference. And as far as the details go, old boy "immoral and illegal" are in the eye of the beholder. And like it or not, the protestors broke the then existing law just as surely as Nixon did: The justification for it is immaterial.

    Regarding Nixon and Carter: Nixon was sneakier and could not see where his craving for power would lead him, but he was a better statesman. Carter was more honest, and necessary for us in the late 70's He kept us out of Nicaraqua at political cost to himself, another sign of integrity, but he was naive. Both had thier good and bad qualities.

    ct

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2006 @ 11:34am

28. Nice rationalization, Chip.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:41am

29. It would be better to return to the old, pre-25th Amendment, practice of allowing an abandoned vice presidential office to remain vacant and allowing the Speaker of the House to assume the presidency in an emergency situation.

    This really makes no sense at all. It is not self-evident that this is better and Nichols does not explain. While we have had innumerable duds as Veep, at least we are talking about someone purportedly in the loop, someone who will do the best to reduce the jolt of losing the Prez. Stability is the most important concern, it seems to me, and putting into the Number Two position someone whose primary duty is to serve as understudy, rather than someone who already has one of the most demanding political jobs in the country, makes the most sense to me as long as the potential Veep receives approval from both houses.

    Who the hell votes for a Veep anyway? It's the Prez's choice. I know in '76 Dole looked like a more attractive Veep candidate than Mondale, but didn't much matter. And Bentsen versus Quayle?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 11:49am

30. Posted by MASK 12/27/2006 @ 11:24am | ignore this person

    Central Bank = Soviet practice Police State = Nazi practice

    These are just a few examples.

    Federal Reserve, national identity card of 2008, idea to create one world government while the borders aren't protected one bit (because they want to do away with them, duh), RFIP technology, ect. Orwell and Huxley were both right to a degree.

    As Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/27/2006 @ 11:50am

31. Rationalization, huh? Hmm So what your saying is, that only your narrow minded, one dimensional view represents truth, while any attempt outside of that circle to gain understanding is rationalization or kidding oneself? Well, I can't damn you for your devotion to your beliefs, but you will never have a really clear understanding of history unless you open your mind to other facts and points of view

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/27/2006 @ 11:56am

32. Does anyone else see how blatanly CPT displays his undiluted ignorance and boorishness here day after day without reticence via his incessant calls for war and constant praise for the cowards who start them? What else but a beastly troglodyte would have no idea in his primitive mind other than fighting? CPT has NEVER penned anything close to an intelligent remark here - nothing about diplomacy, trade, culture, linguistics, music, art, science - only war and aggression. This is tragic, not just because it symbolizes the decline of the Americanus, but also because this sort of grunt is reportedly a representation of "America's finest". That is about the most revolting slogan your once great nation could procreate in a time when she needs great minds and speakers, not brainless asses who can march to the mouth of the cannon and kill on command with advanced weaponry. That this form of leadership doesn't faze most people there only highlights the acculturated ignorance with which you also march into fascism at home...

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/27/2006 @ 12:01pm

33. "Nixon broke the law while pursuing his own interests. There is no comparison."

    "Any politician that willingly breaks the law belongs in one of the many Federal Bureau of Prison facilities that stretch across the country."

    And Clinton?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/27/2006 @ 12:17pm

34. I am just checking on the consistancy of the site and the experssions of the authors..

    Posted by john maasch at 12/27/2006 @ 12:36pm

35. "CRABWALK, clearly you are not looking at the big picture concerning Fords' pardon of Nixon. Ford's action was as important as Carter's later when he pardoned war protestors, and was done for the same reason, to begin the healing process. He knew he'd take heat for it from Leftnuts, just as Carter knew he would from David Horowitz types." The difference was Carter's was done out of respect for what was right; Ford's was to clinch the deal. Nixon should have stood trial for what he did. The people of the United States were cheated out of justice, as RMN's pension money. He belonged where felons should go, jail.

    Posted by brantl at 12/27/2006 @ 1:01pm

36. CHIMI

    Speaking of boorishness?

    Still smiting over the "They all speak m4" comment.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 1:06pm

37. JMaasch

    Nixon's crimes involved an abuse of Executive Power, Clinton's didn't. Put another way, Nixon couldn't have done what he did without access to the powers of the Presidency while Clinton could've. That makes the former's actions a greater threat to Constitutional balance and closer to what impeachment is supposed to serve as a counter to than the latter's.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/27/2006 @ 1:11pm

38. Crabwalk - You're so retarded.

    Posted by woodyee at 12/27/2006 @ 1:19pm

39. BRUNOWE

    I dont know about that, Perjury is a pretty serious crime.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 1:20pm

40. Does anyone else get the idea the CHIMI doesnt like me?

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 1:23pm

41. CPT

    Clinton could've done what he did as a private citizen. There was no abuse of executive power. Because of that, Iran-Contra was also a graver matter then anything Clinton did as far as the Constitution is concerned.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/27/2006 @ 1:26pm

42. BRUNOWE

    But, Clinton did not do what he did as a private citizen he did it while he was the President of the United States. And that does make a difference.

    As the POTUS, he is obligated to uphold and enforce the law....he did not on that part...thus his impeachment was justified.

    Look i am not trying to compare the two, but the law means what it says.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 1:37pm

43. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2006 @ 1:35pm

    And for the rightists here, it is not surprising that the terrorist groups currently feared by your average American are conservatives, not leftists.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 1:40pm

44. BRUNOWE,

    Your brief exchange with CPT and Maasch is painful to watch, kind of like Jackass without the entertainment value. Please, save us and you the horror of witnessing a debate with Clintonphobes.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 1:46pm

45. That said, condolences to President Ford's family. He was a good and decent man who enjoyed serving his country.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2006 @ 1:45pm

    You know, this is probably all that needs to be said on this topic.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 1:47pm

46. TJB

    What Clintonphobes????

    If one is to define impeachable offenses for one POTUS, then they apply to all POTUS.

    Right? Nothing wrong there.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 2:06pm

47. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2006 @ 1:54pm

    What aspects of Al Qaeda et. al. do you find either moderate or liberal? Should I have written "rightwing" rather than conservative?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 2:08pm

48. CPT,

    BRUNOWE was not denying that Clinton did anything wrong. He was just saying that Nixon's was wronger. And while perjury is illegal, there is the matter of context. In Clinton's case, the perjury occurred in a matter that was connected to the power of his dick, as opposed to a Dick attempting to achieve power beyond that of any president. As a citizen, I am dismayed (and feel more than a little queasy) by the former and am horrified by the latter.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 2:14pm

49. Probably someone else has already pointed this out, but to quote the article:

    The presidency fell to a man who had never been elected by the voters of more than the single US House district in Michigan that Ford had represented for several decades. That's not the way a democracy is supposed to work. ... According to the then relatively new 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which set up procedures for filling a vacant vice presidential office, Ford had to be confirmed by the House and Senate. ... It would be better to return to the old, pre-25th Amendment, practice of allowing an abandoned vice presidential office to remain vacant and allowing the Speaker of the House to assume the presidency in an emergency situation.

    Forgive me if I'm missing something, but how is it worse to have a member of the House become VP after being confirmed by both the House and the Senate than it is to have the Speaker of the House unconfirmed by the Senate become VP?

    Posted by Snarfangel at 12/27/2006 @ 2:25pm

50. By the by, LL,

    Terrorism has its roots in first-century Palestine where Jewish Zealots publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators. In seventh-century India, the Thuggee cult would ritually strangle passers-by as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali, and in the eleventh-century Middle East, a Shiite sect known as the Assassins were known to murder civilian foes while high on hashish. Scholars traced recognizably modern forms of terrorism back to such late-nineteenth-century organizations as Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), a Russian nihilist organisation, and it's successor organisation, the Socialist Revolutionary Party.

    http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2478/newsletter_info.htm

    Safe to say, any point of view outside of "extreme moderation" has at one time supported acts of terrorism.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 2:45pm

51. TJB covered it well

    I'll just say that violating a law using the power of the Presidency and violating the same law doing what any private citizen can do are different offenses for impeachment purposes. The fact that Clinton broke the law as President doesn't make his act an abuse of Presidential power and that is the focus of impeachment.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/27/2006 @ 2:59pm

52. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2006 @ 3:01pm

    Haven't seen a RESE post in at least a year and I always look forward to FRB's posts, so, as the saying goes, "Bring 'em on!".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 3:04pm

53. BRUNOWE

    Agree to disagree...

    I was merely going to let this die...but...

    Clinton was the POTUS, as such is the Chief law enforcment official.

    If the head of the FBI committed perjury in a case similiar to that of Clinton....he/she would be removed from office. Why??? Perjury is a felony. The same with anyone.

    When the Chief Executive of the land committs perjury that is a high crime.

    You cannot apply the law to one POTUS because of his felonies or misdmeanors and NOT apply it to another for his crime.

    That is like saying that the law should be the law, but only sometimes.

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 3:57pm

54. LVLIBERTY

    I cannot take RESE off ignore for the sheer volume....are his/her posts still unbearably long???

    Posted by CPT at 12/27/2006 @ 3:58pm

55. Posted by CPT 12/27/2006 @ 3:57pm

    Should we then prohibit anyone guilty of a misdemeanor from even running for office? If one may not commit such an infraction while in office, then it would seem that it should nullify one's candidacy. Otherwise we would send a terrible message to the kids that violating a law is no problem for someone who seeks to enact or approve a law.

    In that case, most of us are better suited for the job of President than the man who holds it. Well, hell, actually let's just simplify it and say most of us are better suited for any job...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/27/2006 @ 4:29pm

56. CPT

    Except that impeachment is about dealing with excessive use of Presidential powers. It is a method of checking the Executive and not a judicial function, hence its being left to the Legislature. The fact that Nixon abused Presidential powers and Clinton didn't is a substantial difference that both the House and the Senate are at liberty to take into account and that makes Nixon's acts more severe. Although the law is the law, one is allowed to take the degree of offense into account when determining the application of sanctions.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/27/2006 @ 5:16pm

57. Ah, guys, Clinton did abuse his presidential powers. He hindered Ken Star in the investigation of the Paula Jones case and he used his influcence to get Vernon Jordan to find employment for Monica L. And he also had Linda Tripp fired after she turned over taped conversations with Monica to Ken Starr and the US Attorney, Janet Reno. She was later convicted of unlawful wiretap charges. (We all know slick Willie was gunnin' for her when she exposed him.)

    I guess for some of you, Clinton can do no wrong.

    Brunowe, you forgot to mention the WH "coffees" and the "pay to sleep" in the Lincoln bedroom.

    What say you??

    Posted by ACook at 12/27/2006 @ 8:02pm

58. Nichols laments that Gerald Ford never faced a national election, and that somehow this means that his was a less than legitimate presidency, and that the situation should not repeat, ever; He then proceeds to offer half-baked alternatives to the present system. And yet, Gerald Ford was approved to be VP by the full House and Senate; which proves that representative democracy works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but then, liberals wouldn't be liberals if they didn't try to fix what wasn't broken, now would they?

    Guess Nichols thinks that somehow Jimmy Carter might have gotten into office a couple years sooner if they had held an election for VP after Agnew resigned...Not likely, but Nichols can dream...I have a better idea, John: Buy the complete dvd collection of the West Wing, it should fill that need for a fantasy liberal president, if only for a few hours.......

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/27/2006 @ 11:50pm

59. First, Vernon Jordan was an old friend of his and it didn't require Presidential powers for him to make a phone call to try to get her a job. Second, you haven't shown how he misused the powers of the Presidency to hinder Ken Starr. Third, you're wrong regarding Linda Tripp. She was transferred from the White House to the Pentagon in 1994 (well before the scandal) and fired on the last day of the Clinton Administration, well after the impeachment issue had subsided and after she refused to resign like other political appointees on the last day of Clinton's term.. Finally, the charges against her were pursued by a Maryland state prosecutor, not Janet Reno, and she wasn't even tried because most of the evidence was covered by Ken Starr's grant of immunity.

    As to the coffees and the Lincoln Bedroom, please indicate how that's worse than any other way of raising campaign money--and which laws did it violate?

    Posted by brunowe at 12/28/2006 @ 01:03am

60. Dear Sirs While it is not in good taste to speak ill of the deceased . It is even worst taste to lie . I remember living through his administration as a child . The economy was in the tank and you had gas lines and odd numbers into to get served. To be fair and honest the federal reserve chairman has greater talent for fouling up the economy no matter who is in office. He did nothing to come up with alternative fuels or anything else for a viable energy policy

    Later when I read up on his administration the situation it looked even worse . With runaway inflation ,extremely high unemployment and jobs leaving the country and the beginning of The decline of the country's industrial /manufacturing base and the energy crisis .,sky rocketing debt ,just what did he actually accomplish? Next time you going on about how much a blessing he was for the country just ask the average person who is not financially blessed . Also the decline in overall voter turn since the pardoning of Nixon out is the real indicator on how much the average American favored the pardon. The only thing the pardon really accomplished was giving politicians the green light to evade any real accountability . Most people do not vote out of shear disgust with the political system .

    Posted by hd70642 at 12/28/2006 @ 06:56am

61. BRUNOWE

    True, but Perjury is a felony...although a third degree; it is still a felony.

    Posted by CPT at 12/28/2006 @ 12:18pm

62. TJB/BRUNOWE

    U.S. Constitution Article II Section 4.

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Posted by CPT at 12/28/2006 @ 12:23pm

63. Yes CPT, but only says that if Congress convicts for "other high crimes and misdemeanors", the President shall be removed. There is nothing there mandating such a conviction.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/28/2006 @ 4:50pm

64. Jack Cashill's 2004 "Ron Brown's Body: How one man's death saved the Clinton presidency and Hillary's future" is right in line with the VERY ON TOPICALITY of Rese's postings at this site which lends it a seminarian air. I like it and would advise those of faint heart to return to the feckless fantasies of impartial fairness in this Dr. Strangelovian new world order of ours.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2007 @ 1:06pm