February 20, 2007
Will Embarrassing the President Make Us Safer?
By Ed Koch
Over the last few years I have written of my fears that we Americans, as a people, have lost our will to fight for our freedom.
We have come to expect that wars can be fought without casualties, even the relatively modest casualties we have suffered in Iraq. During World War Two, more Americans were killed or wounded on Iwo Jima in one month than have fallen in Iraq in almost four years. Of course, every military death and severe injury is a tragedy. Nevertheless, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that our army in Iraq is "about broken," which appalled and frightened me.
Added to those two disturbing dangers to our national security is a new and third factor: denial of a military threat to our armed forces. Such a denial allows us to avoid addressing the threat with an appropriate military response.
We are not at war with Iran, but Iran seems to be at war with us. In the last year we have suffered at least 170 American military deaths in Iraq and 640 American soldiers have been injured as a result of Iranian manufactured and supplied explosives supplied to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists. These explosives are planted at the side of the road and are activated when U.S. military vehicles pass by. They are especially dangerous because their high technology design allows them to penetrate armored vehicles and kill and maim the occupants.
All American leaders, including the President, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, agree that these weapons are manufactured in Iran. They are provided to Iraqi insurgents and terrorists by an Iranian military unit known as the Quds Force. What we are not able to state with certainty is whether, according to The New York Times, "senior leaders of Iran's government are directly involved in the attacks."
The Times states, "Based on evidence gathered inside Iraq, American intelligence analysts have concluded that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force is supplying Shiite groups with Iranian-designed weapons, called explosively formed penetrators."
The Times reported, "Because the Quds Force, which operates outside Iran, has historically fallen under the command of Iran's senior religious leaders, intelligence agencies have concluded that top leaders in Tehran are directing the attacks."
General Peter Pace is quoted in The Times as saying "that American forces had confirmed that some bomb materials found inside Iraq were made in Iran, but 'that does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.'"
The Times points out the [Iranian revolutionary] "Guard has also been accused of supporting terrorist attacks outside Iran, notably the 1996 truck bomb attack on the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American service members. In December, a federal judge ruled that the government of Iran bore responsibility for the Khobar Towers attack and ordered Tehran to pay survivors of those killed more than $253 million."
So what do we know with certainty? There are those in Iran, on a significant scale, supplying Iraqi insurgents and terrorists with deadly bombs responsible for killing and injuring 820 American soldiers in the last year. Is it reasonable to believe that is possible without the approval of sectors of the Iranian government? I refer to the civil government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the theocratic and supreme government of the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the dominant government official.
In dictatorships where dissidents seek to engage in activities prohibited by the state, those so engaged usually end up on the gallows. They are enemies of the state. It is beyond the realm of common sense to believe the Iranian government is aware of the supply activity as it is, the U.S. having made it public on several occasions, and is neither actively or passively, and knowledgably engaged in that activity. In fascist, Nazi, communist, theocratic and totalitarian states that extensively control the lives and political conduct of their citizens, there is very little crime, and practically zero crime against the state.
The Times reports why the Iranian government is engaging in this kind of behavior, writing, "Still American intelligence agencies have concluded that over the past year the Iranian government had adopted a new policy of directly confronting the United States inside Iraq. The policy officials assess is aimed partly at raising the cost of American involvement in the Middle East, teaching the Bush administration a lesson about the cost of regime change and putting pressure on American forces to leave.
"But another reason, they say, is to dissuade the Bush administration from taking a more confrontational policy toward Tehran by sending a message that Iran can ratchet up the attacks on American forces in Iraq."
It appears that Iran has succeeded in staring us down and preventing us from taking appropriate military action to protect our troops and punish those seeking to harm them. Iran will not be required to pay a price because our army is "about broken" and is not capable of responding. How awful and unnerving for the U.S., the sole remaining superpower in the world.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress are seeking to humble, embarrass and, if they can, destroy the President and the prestige of his position as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for the safety of our military forces and the nation's defenses. By doing so, they are adding to the dangers that face our nation.
And so I ask again them again: do you think that leaving a power vacuum in Iraq will make us safer? If, as a result of the power vacuum, the terrorists are emboldened and God forbid we sustain here in the U.S. civilian casualties comparable to those caused in Iraq by car bombs, will you publicly accept responsibility?
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/will_embarrassing_the_presiden.html at February 20, 2007 - 12:14:17 PM CST
_uacct = "UA-31527-1";
urchinTracker();
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Showing posts with label presidency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidency. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
"As time goes by, Reagan looks like a giant"
As time goes by, Reagan looks like a giant
James P. Pinkerton
February 6, 2007
As with any historical figure, Ronald Reagan's reputation has been riding both the up escalator and the down escalator. But it's interesting today, on what would have been the 40th president's 96th birthday, to note that Reagan is being increasingly praised by onetime enemies and increasingly criticized by ostensible friends - who at least call themselves conservatives.
For most of Reagan's life and career, the liberal/media establishment contented itself with phrases such as "right-wing cowboy" and "amiable dunce" to describe the Gipper. But now, the judgment is changing. For example, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, quoted Leslie Stahl as admiring Reagan's "gallantry." Stahl, who covered Reagan for CBS News, certainly rarely had anything nice to say about him when he was in office. But in the nearly two decades since, even many liberals have admitted that Reagan's leadership succeeded in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and in the economic war against inflation and economic "malaise."
And now comes an approving book from John Patrick Diggins, well-known historian of the left, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History," which argues that Reagan "deserves to be regarded as one of our three or four greatest presidents."Diggins lauds Reagan for ending the nuclear arms race and moving America away from welfare-state dependency, but then he takes his praise in a direction many traditional Reaganites might not agree with: "Far from being a conservative, Reagan was the great liberating spirit of modern American history, a political romantic impatient with the status quo."The author is on to something. Reagan, after all, declared many times on the stump that Americans "have the power to begin the world over again" - not exactly a conservative thought. In fact, Reagan was a New Dealer back in the '30s and '40s; as he often said, he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him.
So Diggins' book will make some conservatives uncomfortable - precisely because the author has articulated an additional facet of Reagan's persona.But that's the way it goes with the great actors of history. On the occasion of Abraham Lincoln's death in 1865, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton declared, "Now he belongs to the ages." Stanton might have said, "Now he belongs to the historians" - who have been writing about Lincoln ever since. And so it goes, as well, for Reagan, who died in 2004.
Interestingly, many "friends" of Reagan have turned into ex-friends. One such is the prominent neoconservative Norman Podhoretz. As early as 1983, he accused Reagan of "appeasement by any other name" - this being the same year that Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative. But the neocons have their specific reason for disliking Reagan: They accuse him of being weak in the Middle East. The clearest statement of this view has come from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said back in 2003, "The terrorists declared war on America ... many years before Sept. 11, 2001." She cited, among other incidents, "the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988" - all of which occurred during the Reagan presidency.
Yet, Rice continued, until the George W. Bush administration, "the terrorists faced no sustained, systematic and global response."These days, of course, the wisdom of the Bush administration's "response" to terrorism - specifically, the Iraq war - is under, shall we say, close scrutiny. And so maybe Reagan's response doesn't look so bad in comparison. Nobody thinks of his Marine mission to Lebanon as a success, but at least the Gipper knew when to cut his losses.
So happy birthday, Mr. President. You've gone up to that Great Ranch in the Sky, leaving liberals to like you more and some conservatives to like you less. But this onetime staffer of yours - and forever an admirer - sees you as the gold standard for presidents.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail ad- dress is pinkerto@ix.netcom .com.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
James P. Pinkerton
February 6, 2007
As with any historical figure, Ronald Reagan's reputation has been riding both the up escalator and the down escalator. But it's interesting today, on what would have been the 40th president's 96th birthday, to note that Reagan is being increasingly praised by onetime enemies and increasingly criticized by ostensible friends - who at least call themselves conservatives.
For most of Reagan's life and career, the liberal/media establishment contented itself with phrases such as "right-wing cowboy" and "amiable dunce" to describe the Gipper. But now, the judgment is changing. For example, Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, quoted Leslie Stahl as admiring Reagan's "gallantry." Stahl, who covered Reagan for CBS News, certainly rarely had anything nice to say about him when he was in office. But in the nearly two decades since, even many liberals have admitted that Reagan's leadership succeeded in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and in the economic war against inflation and economic "malaise."
And now comes an approving book from John Patrick Diggins, well-known historian of the left, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History," which argues that Reagan "deserves to be regarded as one of our three or four greatest presidents."Diggins lauds Reagan for ending the nuclear arms race and moving America away from welfare-state dependency, but then he takes his praise in a direction many traditional Reaganites might not agree with: "Far from being a conservative, Reagan was the great liberating spirit of modern American history, a political romantic impatient with the status quo."The author is on to something. Reagan, after all, declared many times on the stump that Americans "have the power to begin the world over again" - not exactly a conservative thought. In fact, Reagan was a New Dealer back in the '30s and '40s; as he often said, he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him.
So Diggins' book will make some conservatives uncomfortable - precisely because the author has articulated an additional facet of Reagan's persona.But that's the way it goes with the great actors of history. On the occasion of Abraham Lincoln's death in 1865, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton declared, "Now he belongs to the ages." Stanton might have said, "Now he belongs to the historians" - who have been writing about Lincoln ever since. And so it goes, as well, for Reagan, who died in 2004.
Interestingly, many "friends" of Reagan have turned into ex-friends. One such is the prominent neoconservative Norman Podhoretz. As early as 1983, he accused Reagan of "appeasement by any other name" - this being the same year that Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative. But the neocons have their specific reason for disliking Reagan: They accuse him of being weak in the Middle East. The clearest statement of this view has come from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said back in 2003, "The terrorists declared war on America ... many years before Sept. 11, 2001." She cited, among other incidents, "the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988" - all of which occurred during the Reagan presidency.
Yet, Rice continued, until the George W. Bush administration, "the terrorists faced no sustained, systematic and global response."These days, of course, the wisdom of the Bush administration's "response" to terrorism - specifically, the Iraq war - is under, shall we say, close scrutiny. And so maybe Reagan's response doesn't look so bad in comparison. Nobody thinks of his Marine mission to Lebanon as a success, but at least the Gipper knew when to cut his losses.
So happy birthday, Mr. President. You've gone up to that Great Ranch in the Sky, leaving liberals to like you more and some conservatives to like you less. But this onetime staffer of yours - and forever an admirer - sees you as the gold standard for presidents.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail ad- dress is pinkerto@ix.netcom .com.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Noonan: "Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan"
PEGGY NOONAN
Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan
He was a man of determination and good cheer--one of America's greats.
Friday, February 2, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Next Tuesday would have been Ronald Reagan's 96th birthday, which is amazing when you consider he is, in a way, more with us than ever: his memory and meaning summoned in political conversation, his name evoked by candidates. I remember 10 years ago when there was controversy over the movement to name things for him--buildings and airports. I was away from home at the time, and I realized that to talk to people in Washington about it, I'd have to land at JFK, take the FDR Drive and go through the Lincoln tunnel.
This is America; we remember our greats. You tell yourself who you are by what you raise a statue to.
The other day a friend asked: What do you think made him so likable to many who disagreed with him and who look back with nostalgia on his White House?
It's funny that people like to talk about this even though they know the answers.
There was the courage to swim against the tide, to show not a burst of bravery but guts in the long haul. The good cheer and good nature that amounted to a kind of faith. The air of pleasure Reagan emanated on meeting others, and his egalitarianism. He thought everyone, from Nobel Prize winners to doormen, equal. Not that he wasn't aware of status. When he stood behind Errol Flynn for a still photo to promote "Santa Fe Trail," he knew of Flynn's towering reputation. Between shots, Reagan kept quietly pushing little piles of dirt together. When he had a mound, he stood on it so that he was, literally, of equal stature. He told the story on himself for years because it was funny, and he believed in laughter. He was a little like Art Buchwald in this; he thought laughter was a value of its own. I think he thought that people who shared a laugh had in fact just voted for something together: something funny and human just got said or done.
Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" was CBS's White House correspondent during the Reagan administration, and I asked her what she remembered most. She said, "We reporters would stake out 'the driveway' to see who was going in to see the president. In the first few years there was a stream of people who came to argue against his budget-cutting proposals. They would march up that driveway in a huff, smoke coming out of their nostrils as they rehearsed their angry arguments about why he was destroying the lives of poor people, or schoolkids.
"I remember specifically a group of mayors from big cities, livid about cuts to their welfare programs, school-lunch programs, etc. They were there to give the president a scolding; they were going to tell him. And in they'd march. Two hours later, out they came. We were all ready with the cameras and the mikes to get their version of the telling off. But they were all little lambs, subdued. . . . He had charmed them. . . . The mayors told us Reagan agreed with them. That they had persuaded him. . . .
"Thirty minutes later Larry Speakes was in the press room telling us the numbers would not in fact change. The mayors had 'misunderstood' the president. Still, I'll bet anything if you talked to those mayors today, they would tell you Reagan was a great guy."
She mentioned "his personal touch, his gallantry." You knew he was a good man and you knew he meant it. So you understood how he could be the biggest supporter of FDR and the New Deal in 1944, and the most persuasive voice for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He'd thought it through and changed, not overnight but in time and with effort. He could change his mind on abortion in the same way, and not because he feared the base. Reagan was the base.
Last week I was at a gathering of old Reagan hands and I asked aloud if something that I'd heard might be true. It was that Mikhail Gorbachev now lives in California and has a pool. The minute I said it, a longtime Reagan friend laughed. He knew where I was going. Reagan always said what he really wanted to do with a Russian premier was get him in a helicopter, ride over Southern California, point down at the million little houses and million little pools, and say "Mr. Gorbachev, that's how the proletariat lives in America."
But it wasn't true. Mr. Gorbachev lives in Moscow, where he has a think tank, a former cabinet secretary told me. Mr. Gorbachev had given the secretary a tour, and proudly noted that he paid for the building by renting out two floors.
"Gorbachev has discovered the free market," the secretary said.
It was almost as good.
This led the Reagan intimate to remember being on a private plane with him one day. They had a steak and fine wine. "Reagan said to me, 'You know, I believe everyone in America can have these things.' I said, 'You really believe that?' Reagan said, 'Yes, I do.' " The intimate said to me, "See, I don't believe that, that anyone here can do it." Then he paused. "But it's good to have a president who does."
Lately we are hearing of President Reagan's famous 11th commandment: "Speak no ill of a fellow Republican." It's a good rule for both parties, but it's good also to remember how he approached it in practice. Ronald Reagan turned his own party upside down, enraged its establishment, and threatened its immediate future when, in 1976, he mounted a fierce challenge to an incumbent Republican president. He ran full and hard against Jerry Ford and it was bitter--the stakes were high, the issue freedom at home and abroad.
Reagan lost, his challenge doomed Ford in the general election, and four years later Reagan roared back. And when he won the nomination he turned around and seriously considered as his running mate . . . Jerry Ford.
When he ran against Ford, it wasn't personal. And when he almost picked Ford as his vice president, that wasn't personal either. It was more like this: This is America. We have been arguing about everything for 200 years. It's what we do. It's our glory.
Our politics then were grimmer yet had a lighter touch. The Soviets could nuke us tomorrow; let's have a hellacious brawl. It was a serious time, but I don't think we were in general so somber, so locked in. The 11th commandment meant the fight should never be mean, low or unnecessarily injurious to the person, or the party. But a fight could be waged--should be waged--over big, big things.
That he knew that is part of why we remember him as great. It's part of why when you next fly to Washington, you'll land at Reagan National Airport.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan
He was a man of determination and good cheer--one of America's greats.
Friday, February 2, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Next Tuesday would have been Ronald Reagan's 96th birthday, which is amazing when you consider he is, in a way, more with us than ever: his memory and meaning summoned in political conversation, his name evoked by candidates. I remember 10 years ago when there was controversy over the movement to name things for him--buildings and airports. I was away from home at the time, and I realized that to talk to people in Washington about it, I'd have to land at JFK, take the FDR Drive and go through the Lincoln tunnel.
This is America; we remember our greats. You tell yourself who you are by what you raise a statue to.
The other day a friend asked: What do you think made him so likable to many who disagreed with him and who look back with nostalgia on his White House?
It's funny that people like to talk about this even though they know the answers.
There was the courage to swim against the tide, to show not a burst of bravery but guts in the long haul. The good cheer and good nature that amounted to a kind of faith. The air of pleasure Reagan emanated on meeting others, and his egalitarianism. He thought everyone, from Nobel Prize winners to doormen, equal. Not that he wasn't aware of status. When he stood behind Errol Flynn for a still photo to promote "Santa Fe Trail," he knew of Flynn's towering reputation. Between shots, Reagan kept quietly pushing little piles of dirt together. When he had a mound, he stood on it so that he was, literally, of equal stature. He told the story on himself for years because it was funny, and he believed in laughter. He was a little like Art Buchwald in this; he thought laughter was a value of its own. I think he thought that people who shared a laugh had in fact just voted for something together: something funny and human just got said or done.
Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" was CBS's White House correspondent during the Reagan administration, and I asked her what she remembered most. She said, "We reporters would stake out 'the driveway' to see who was going in to see the president. In the first few years there was a stream of people who came to argue against his budget-cutting proposals. They would march up that driveway in a huff, smoke coming out of their nostrils as they rehearsed their angry arguments about why he was destroying the lives of poor people, or schoolkids.
"I remember specifically a group of mayors from big cities, livid about cuts to their welfare programs, school-lunch programs, etc. They were there to give the president a scolding; they were going to tell him. And in they'd march. Two hours later, out they came. We were all ready with the cameras and the mikes to get their version of the telling off. But they were all little lambs, subdued. . . . He had charmed them. . . . The mayors told us Reagan agreed with them. That they had persuaded him. . . .
"Thirty minutes later Larry Speakes was in the press room telling us the numbers would not in fact change. The mayors had 'misunderstood' the president. Still, I'll bet anything if you talked to those mayors today, they would tell you Reagan was a great guy."
She mentioned "his personal touch, his gallantry." You knew he was a good man and you knew he meant it. So you understood how he could be the biggest supporter of FDR and the New Deal in 1944, and the most persuasive voice for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He'd thought it through and changed, not overnight but in time and with effort. He could change his mind on abortion in the same way, and not because he feared the base. Reagan was the base.
Last week I was at a gathering of old Reagan hands and I asked aloud if something that I'd heard might be true. It was that Mikhail Gorbachev now lives in California and has a pool. The minute I said it, a longtime Reagan friend laughed. He knew where I was going. Reagan always said what he really wanted to do with a Russian premier was get him in a helicopter, ride over Southern California, point down at the million little houses and million little pools, and say "Mr. Gorbachev, that's how the proletariat lives in America."
But it wasn't true. Mr. Gorbachev lives in Moscow, where he has a think tank, a former cabinet secretary told me. Mr. Gorbachev had given the secretary a tour, and proudly noted that he paid for the building by renting out two floors.
"Gorbachev has discovered the free market," the secretary said.
It was almost as good.
This led the Reagan intimate to remember being on a private plane with him one day. They had a steak and fine wine. "Reagan said to me, 'You know, I believe everyone in America can have these things.' I said, 'You really believe that?' Reagan said, 'Yes, I do.' " The intimate said to me, "See, I don't believe that, that anyone here can do it." Then he paused. "But it's good to have a president who does."
Lately we are hearing of President Reagan's famous 11th commandment: "Speak no ill of a fellow Republican." It's a good rule for both parties, but it's good also to remember how he approached it in practice. Ronald Reagan turned his own party upside down, enraged its establishment, and threatened its immediate future when, in 1976, he mounted a fierce challenge to an incumbent Republican president. He ran full and hard against Jerry Ford and it was bitter--the stakes were high, the issue freedom at home and abroad.
Reagan lost, his challenge doomed Ford in the general election, and four years later Reagan roared back. And when he won the nomination he turned around and seriously considered as his running mate . . . Jerry Ford.
When he ran against Ford, it wasn't personal. And when he almost picked Ford as his vice president, that wasn't personal either. It was more like this: This is America. We have been arguing about everything for 200 years. It's what we do. It's our glory.
Our politics then were grimmer yet had a lighter touch. The Soviets could nuke us tomorrow; let's have a hellacious brawl. It was a serious time, but I don't think we were in general so somber, so locked in. The 11th commandment meant the fight should never be mean, low or unnecessarily injurious to the person, or the party. But a fight could be waged--should be waged--over big, big things.
That he knew that is part of why we remember him as great. It's part of why when you next fly to Washington, you'll land at Reagan National Airport.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Rothenberg: West turning blue? Not so fast...
January 29, 2007
Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No
By Stuart Rothenberg
More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.
After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed "West Is Going Democrats' Direction" and "Political Shift in Mountain States" in headlines, I figured I'd look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.
After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it's very clear that not much is going on. I'm certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I'm not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.
First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that's nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.
Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.
Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.
New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.
Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.
But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.
In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, "In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats." But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!
Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008.
Obviously, it isn't.
How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.
In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That's right, a majority. They've won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.
Forget about that history. If you think Democrats' ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state's or region's political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.
But what about Congress? Didn't Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West?
Sure, but what kind of gains?
Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the "Perlmutter district," after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run -- and win -- in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.
One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party's primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.
How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you'll have to look under the rug to find it.
There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.
The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.
Are Democrats Surging Out West? Numbers Say No
By Stuart Rothenberg
More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.
After one of the best newspapers on the planet screamed "West Is Going Democrats' Direction" and "Political Shift in Mountain States" in headlines, I figured I'd look at the numbers myself to see how much of an opportunity Democrats have to turn the Mountain West blue, or at least purple.
After dissecting the historical data over the past 25 years and comparing it to election results from the past few cycles, it's very clear that not much is going on. I'm certainly not ruling out changes in 2008 or 2010, and I'm not saying that there have been no changes. But so far, the hype about a shift has overwhelmed the reality.
First, a bit of history. Democratic candidates have done pretty well in the Mountain West in the past couple of election cycles, but that's nothing new. Democrats have had significant successes in the region for many years, so portraying recent results as some sort of breakthrough is flat-out wrong.
Election returns since 1980 show that the Mountain West is really two or even three regions, not one. Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are reliably Republican in most cases, while New Mexico and Nevada are politically competitive. Arizona and Colorado definitely lean Republican in presidential politics but are much more competitive in other respects.
Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.
New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.
Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.
But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.
In attempting to drive home the point of a realignment, one journalist noted, "In 2000, all eight mountain states had Republican governors; now five governors are Democrats." But why use 2000 as the baseline? In 1984, seven of the eight states had Democratic governors. Using 1984 as the baseline, you could even say the region is moving toward the GOP!
Anyway, if gubernatorial results reflected fundamental partisan strength and the potential of carrying the state in 2008, then Wyoming would seem to be a reliably Democratic state in 2008.
Obviously, it isn't.
How about Senate races? Democrats won a Senate race in Montana, as well as holding onto a seat in New Mexico. But again, winning Senate races in the region is nothing new for Democrats.
In three of the eight Mountain West states, Democrats have won a majority of all Senate elections since 1980. That's right, a majority. They've won six of nine in Montana, six of 10 in Nevada and five of nine in New Mexico. In Colorado, they have won a considerable four of the past nine. Even Arizona has elected Democrats to the Senate in two of the past nine elections.
Forget about that history. If you think Democrats' ability to knock off a politically damaged Republican in the worst Republican environment in 30 years tells you something about a state's or region's political trend, you are free to. Of course, you would be terribly wrong.
But what about Congress? Didn't Democrats make gains in the House in the Mountain West?
Sure, but what kind of gains?
Democrats netted three House seats in November, one in Colorado and two in Arizona. The Colorado district was drawn to be politically competitive, but it was also referred to as the "Perlmutter district," after the Democratic legislator who was expected to run -- and win -- in 2002. Ed Perlmutter passed then, but he won the open seat last year.
One of the Arizona districts already was competitive, but became hard for the GOP when an anti-immigration bomb-thrower won the party's primary. In other words, if you focus only on the numbers, you will miss the story.
How about state legislatures in the region? Democrats made small gains in the Idaho, Colorado and Arizona state Houses. No chambers in the region switched control, however, except the Montana House, which went from a 50-50 tie to a one-seat GOP majority. Again, if there was a Democratic surge in 2006, you'll have to look under the rug to find it.
There were, of course, some Democratic gains in 2006. Much of the hype, I suspect, came from stronger than usual (though unsuccessful) Democratic efforts in House races in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, as well as a lot of buzz about the Idaho gubernatorial race. But those showings occurred in a landslide year for Democrats, making the results more likely to be an aberration rather than a trend.
The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Jim Webb's Response: Pro
January 25, 2007
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb: Reagan Democrat
By E. J. Dionne
WASHINGTON -- Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall'') Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the
Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, you can't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
There was no mush from Webb. On the contrary, he tried only to make his two points, on Iraq and inequality, and showed what he was upset about.
Many Democrats tremble that they will be accused by some right-wing Web site or presidential spokesman of waging class warfare. Webb made clear that there is a class war going on, and that the wrong side is winning it.
"When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did,'' Webb said. "Today, it's nearly 400 times.''
OK, that's a standard sort of line from your standard progressive speech. But then came this arresting sentence: "In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.''
Examine that closely. How many politicians out there raising campaign contributions from rich people are willing to use "boss,'' instead of a more respectful locution?
And by talking about the time it takes someone to earn a buck, Webb makes it impossible for anyone to forget how vast the inequalities in our society have become.
Webb knows who he is fighting for. "We're working,'' he said, "to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.''
On Iraq, Webb did not mince his words about Bush's responsibility. "The president took us into this war recklessly,'' he declared.
Instead of qualifying this strong statement, Webb backed it up: "He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the Army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command. ...'' The list more than supported Webb's next thought, that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.''
OK, even Webb held back on a couple of politically sensitive points. He offered workers an all-purpose promise on the trade issue that so divides his party. "Government," he said, "has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.''
And, yes, he simultaneously came out against "a precipitous withdrawal'' from Iraq and in favor of "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.'' Philosophers and lexicographers might debate the difference between the words "precipitous'' and "short order.''
But Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their mind. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.
postchat@aol.com
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Jim Webb's Response: Con
OnPoint:
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Sen. James Webb is the toast of Democrats and their allies this week for his impressive response to the State of the Union speech - impressive in terms of rhetoric and delivery, if not always content.
Webb was eloquent in denouncing Bush's policy in Iraq, although his perspective is now the distilled consensus of most Democrats and many other Americans. More curious was his take on the economy, which amounted to another version of presidential candidate John Edwards' "two Americas" theme.
Webb's America is a portrait from Upton Sinclair - a place with a fantastically wealthy overclass lording it over the struggling masses, who are steadily ground down to despair. The middle class, "our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table," Webb maintained, while promising to address the "economic imbalance in our country."
Factually, the idea of a vanishing middle class is rubbish - populist folklore and little more. By any reasonable standard, most Americans are easily better off than they were 30 years ago - and the economy continues to hum. Yes, there is a fantastically wealthy elite - not just in corporate board rooms but in entertainment, sports, the media, and several other nooks of the economy - but they are not cashing their checks at the expense of the rest of us.
For the sake of argument, though, let's say Webb is right. Let's say the middle class is endangered, as he claims, by globalization - by upstart Chinese, Indians and greedy capitalists. What is to be done about it?
At this point even huge Webb fans such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter detect a flaw in the angry posturing. "The problem with the populist theme," Alter admits, "is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."
But this is not just a "problem" for liberal populism. It's the Achilles' heel.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
President Bush's State of the Union address
The text of President Bush's State of the Union Address can be found here.
Jim Webb's Democratic Response
Senator Jim Webb's response to President Bush's State of the Union address can be found here.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Barone: "Bitter Clash Coming Over Iraq"
Barone is right on all points here.
A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq
By Michael Barone
Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.
The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.
Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned.
In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.
George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.
Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.
Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.
Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.
I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely.
There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.
I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq
By Michael Barone
Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.
The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.
Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned.
In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.
George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.
Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.
Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.
Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.
I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely.
There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.
I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
"The Quality of His Mercy"
"Newsweek" editor Jon Meacham writes about the private faith that shaped Ford's public decisions.
The Quality of His Mercy
The Public Faith That Shaped Ford's Pardon Decision
By Jon Meacham
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A17
In history's light, the defining hour of Gerald Ford's presidency came at 11 o'clock on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 8, 1974, when he announced his pardon of Richard Nixon. The country has already heard much about Ford's role in healing the nation after Watergate and will undoubtedly hear more such reflections this morning when his life is commemorated at the Washington National Cathedral. It is fitting that these words will echo through the great nave, for Ford was, in a quiet, unnoticed way, an important figure in America's public religion.
During his most critical moments in the White House -- his assumption of power and the pardoning of Nixon -- Ford drew deeply on theological imagery.
Everyone knows that Ford said "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over" on Aug. 9, 1974. Much less quoted, but perhaps more revealing given the pardon, is a sentence he spoke a moment later: "[T]here is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy."
There were many reasons for the pardon that came a month later, but Ford also framed the decision in religious terms, terms that go far beyond routine political rhetoric. "I have promised to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very best that I can for America," Ford said that September Sunday. As God gives me to see the right:
The phrase echoes Lincoln's Second Inaugural, itself a piece of American scripture.
Then Ford explicitly spoke of the "higher power" he had mentioned when he was sworn in. "The Constitution is the supreme law of our land, and it governs our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which govern our consciences, are superior to it." In a New Testament allusion ("Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him"), Ford said: "I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality."
The reality, Ford thought, was that a trial of the former president would most likely be unfair, drawn out and destructive.
And finally: "I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as president but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy."
This is an extraordinary thing to say: Ford was linking his own fate beyond time to his actions within time. The idea that God punishes or rewards us, individually or collectively, for what we do on Earth, either in our own lives or in the life of the nation, is rooted in the American story. Abigail Adams believed a dysentery epidemic in Boston might be divine punishment for slavery; even Thomas Jefferson, whose religious ideas were, to say the least, unorthodox (he once took a razor to the Gospels, excising miraculous details he found implausible), believed there was a connection between the nation's conduct and the supernatural. Reflecting on slavery, he once said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Such an understanding, naturally, has hardly been unanimous, and many Americans are reasonably uncomfortable with the idea that our leaders think they are either communing with the divine or carrying out God's mission.
"Religion and government are certainly very different things, instituted for different ends," said the Founding-era politician John Dickinson, "the design of one being to promote our temporal happiness; the design of the other to procure the favor of God, and thereby the salvation of our souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the peace and welfare of society is preserved, and the ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the world in blood, and disgraced human nature."
Time and again in the American experience, however, the culture has been more in line with Lincoln's -- and Ford's -- views on the question of religious expression and thought in the public sphere than it has been to that of strict separationists. Guarding against excessive religious influence in our public affairs is an unending task, and the virtues of justice and mercy are universal (or should be).
"I am charged with being a preacher," Theodore Roosevelt once said. "Well, I suppose I am. I have such a bully pulpit." In his quiet way, Gerald Ford used that pulpit more than most, and his essential message -- of forgiveness and grace -- is one worth remembering today, and in years to come."
The writer is editor of Newsweek and the author of "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation." He is co-moderator of On Faith, an online conversation on religion at http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.
The Quality of His Mercy
The Public Faith That Shaped Ford's Pardon Decision
By Jon Meacham
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A17
In history's light, the defining hour of Gerald Ford's presidency came at 11 o'clock on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 8, 1974, when he announced his pardon of Richard Nixon. The country has already heard much about Ford's role in healing the nation after Watergate and will undoubtedly hear more such reflections this morning when his life is commemorated at the Washington National Cathedral. It is fitting that these words will echo through the great nave, for Ford was, in a quiet, unnoticed way, an important figure in America's public religion.
During his most critical moments in the White House -- his assumption of power and the pardoning of Nixon -- Ford drew deeply on theological imagery.
Everyone knows that Ford said "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over" on Aug. 9, 1974. Much less quoted, but perhaps more revealing given the pardon, is a sentence he spoke a moment later: "[T]here is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy."
There were many reasons for the pardon that came a month later, but Ford also framed the decision in religious terms, terms that go far beyond routine political rhetoric. "I have promised to uphold the Constitution, to do what is right as God gives me to see the right, and to do the very best that I can for America," Ford said that September Sunday. As God gives me to see the right:
The phrase echoes Lincoln's Second Inaugural, itself a piece of American scripture.
Then Ford explicitly spoke of the "higher power" he had mentioned when he was sworn in. "The Constitution is the supreme law of our land, and it governs our actions as citizens. Only the laws of God, which govern our consciences, are superior to it." In a New Testament allusion ("Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him"), Ford said: "I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality."
The reality, Ford thought, was that a trial of the former president would most likely be unfair, drawn out and destructive.
And finally: "I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as president but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy."
This is an extraordinary thing to say: Ford was linking his own fate beyond time to his actions within time. The idea that God punishes or rewards us, individually or collectively, for what we do on Earth, either in our own lives or in the life of the nation, is rooted in the American story. Abigail Adams believed a dysentery epidemic in Boston might be divine punishment for slavery; even Thomas Jefferson, whose religious ideas were, to say the least, unorthodox (he once took a razor to the Gospels, excising miraculous details he found implausible), believed there was a connection between the nation's conduct and the supernatural. Reflecting on slavery, he once said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Such an understanding, naturally, has hardly been unanimous, and many Americans are reasonably uncomfortable with the idea that our leaders think they are either communing with the divine or carrying out God's mission.
"Religion and government are certainly very different things, instituted for different ends," said the Founding-era politician John Dickinson, "the design of one being to promote our temporal happiness; the design of the other to procure the favor of God, and thereby the salvation of our souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the peace and welfare of society is preserved, and the ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the world in blood, and disgraced human nature."
Time and again in the American experience, however, the culture has been more in line with Lincoln's -- and Ford's -- views on the question of religious expression and thought in the public sphere than it has been to that of strict separationists. Guarding against excessive religious influence in our public affairs is an unending task, and the virtues of justice and mercy are universal (or should be).
"I am charged with being a preacher," Theodore Roosevelt once said. "Well, I suppose I am. I have such a bully pulpit." In his quiet way, Gerald Ford used that pulpit more than most, and his essential message -- of forgiveness and grace -- is one worth remembering today, and in years to come."
The writer is editor of Newsweek and the author of "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation." He is co-moderator of On Faith, an online conversation on religion at http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.
President George W. Bush's Eulogy of President Ford
President Bush, as he did at Ronald Reagan's memorial service in 2004 at the same location, eulogized President Ford today in remarks delivered at the National Cathedral:
"Gerald Ford was born and reared in the American heartland. He belonged to a generation that measured men by their honesty and their courage.
He grew to manhood under the roof of a loving mother and father. And when times were tough, he took part-time jobs to help them out.
In President Ford, the world saw the best of America, and America found a man whose character and leadership would bring calm and healing to one of the most divisive moments in our nation's history.
Long before he was known in Washington, Gerald Ford showed his character and his leadership.
As a star football player for the University of Michigan, he came face to face with racial prejudice. When Georgia Tech came to Ann Arbor for a football game, one of Michigan's best player was an African-American student named Willis Ward. Georgia Tech said they would not take the field if a black man were allowed to play.
Gerald Ford was furious at Georgia Tech for making the demand and for the University of Michigan for caving in. He agreed to play only after Willis Ward personally asked him to.
The stand Gerald Ford took that day was never forgotten by his friend. And Gerald Ford never forgot that day either. And three decades later, he proudly supported the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the United States Congress.
Gerald Ford showed his character in the devotion to his family. On the day he became president, he told the nation, "I am indebted to no man and only to one woman, my dear wife."
By then, Betty Ford had a pretty good idea of what marriage to Gerald Ford involved. After all, their wedding had taken place less than three weeks before his first election to the United States Congress. And his idea of a honeymoon was driving to Ann Arbor with his bride so they could attend a brunch before the Michigan- Northwestern game the next day.
(LAUGHTER)
And that was the beginning of a great marriage.
The Fords would have four fine children. And Steve, Jack, Mike and Susan know that, as proud as their dad was of being president, Gerald Ford was even prouder of the other titles he held: father and grandfather and great-grandfather.
Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School. But when his nation called, he did not hesitate.
In early 1942, he volunteered for the Navy, and after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat.
Eventually, his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
Gerald Ford showed his character in public office. As a young congressman, he earned a reputation for an ability to get along with others without compromising his principles. He was greatly admired by his colleagues, and they trusted him a lot.
And so when President Nixon needed to replace a vice president who had resigned in scandal, he naturally turned to a man whose name was a synonym for integrity: Gerald R. Ford.
And eight months later when he was elevated to the presidency, it was because America needed him, not because he needed the office.
President Ford assumed office at a terrible time in our nation's history. At home, America was divided by political turmoil and wracked by inflation. In Southeast Asia, Saigon fell just nine months into his presidency.
Amid all the turmoil, Gerald Ford was a rock of stability. And when he put his hand on his family Bible to take the presidential oath of office, he brought grace to a moment of great doubt.
In a short time, the gentleman from Grand Rapids proved that behind the affability was firm resolve.
When a U.S. ship called the Mayaguez was seized by Cambodia, President Ford made the tough decision to send in the Marines, and all the crew members were rescued.
He was criticized for signing the Helsinki Accords, yet history has shown that document helped bring down the Soviet Union as courageous men and women behind the Iron Curtain used it to demand their God-given liberties.
Twice assassins attempted to take the life of this good and decent man, yet he refused to curtail his public appearances.
And when he thought that the nation needed to put Watergate behind us, he made the tough and decent decision to pardon President Nixon, even though that decision probably cost him the presidential election.
Gerald Ford assumed the presidency when the nation needed a leader of character and humility, and we found it in the man from Grand Rapids.
President Ford's time in office was brief, but history will long remember the courage and common sense that helped restore trust in the workings of our democracy.
Laura and I had the honor of hosting the Ford family for Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. It's one of the highlights of our time in the White House.
I will always cherish the memory of the last time I saw him, this past year in California. He was still smiling, still counting himself lucky to have Betty at his side, and still displaying the optimism and generosity that made him one of America's most beloved leaders.
And so on behalf of a grateful nation, we bid farewell to our 38th president. We thank the Almighty for Gerald Ford's life, and we ask for God's blessings on Gerald Ford and his family."
"Gerald Ford was born and reared in the American heartland. He belonged to a generation that measured men by their honesty and their courage.
He grew to manhood under the roof of a loving mother and father. And when times were tough, he took part-time jobs to help them out.
In President Ford, the world saw the best of America, and America found a man whose character and leadership would bring calm and healing to one of the most divisive moments in our nation's history.
Long before he was known in Washington, Gerald Ford showed his character and his leadership.
As a star football player for the University of Michigan, he came face to face with racial prejudice. When Georgia Tech came to Ann Arbor for a football game, one of Michigan's best player was an African-American student named Willis Ward. Georgia Tech said they would not take the field if a black man were allowed to play.
Gerald Ford was furious at Georgia Tech for making the demand and for the University of Michigan for caving in. He agreed to play only after Willis Ward personally asked him to.
The stand Gerald Ford took that day was never forgotten by his friend. And Gerald Ford never forgot that day either. And three decades later, he proudly supported the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the United States Congress.
Gerald Ford showed his character in the devotion to his family. On the day he became president, he told the nation, "I am indebted to no man and only to one woman, my dear wife."
By then, Betty Ford had a pretty good idea of what marriage to Gerald Ford involved. After all, their wedding had taken place less than three weeks before his first election to the United States Congress. And his idea of a honeymoon was driving to Ann Arbor with his bride so they could attend a brunch before the Michigan- Northwestern game the next day.
(LAUGHTER)
And that was the beginning of a great marriage.
The Fords would have four fine children. And Steve, Jack, Mike and Susan know that, as proud as their dad was of being president, Gerald Ford was even prouder of the other titles he held: father and grandfather and great-grandfather.
Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School. But when his nation called, he did not hesitate.
In early 1942, he volunteered for the Navy, and after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat.
Eventually, his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
Gerald Ford showed his character in public office. As a young congressman, he earned a reputation for an ability to get along with others without compromising his principles. He was greatly admired by his colleagues, and they trusted him a lot.
And so when President Nixon needed to replace a vice president who had resigned in scandal, he naturally turned to a man whose name was a synonym for integrity: Gerald R. Ford.
And eight months later when he was elevated to the presidency, it was because America needed him, not because he needed the office.
President Ford assumed office at a terrible time in our nation's history. At home, America was divided by political turmoil and wracked by inflation. In Southeast Asia, Saigon fell just nine months into his presidency.
Amid all the turmoil, Gerald Ford was a rock of stability. And when he put his hand on his family Bible to take the presidential oath of office, he brought grace to a moment of great doubt.
In a short time, the gentleman from Grand Rapids proved that behind the affability was firm resolve.
When a U.S. ship called the Mayaguez was seized by Cambodia, President Ford made the tough decision to send in the Marines, and all the crew members were rescued.
He was criticized for signing the Helsinki Accords, yet history has shown that document helped bring down the Soviet Union as courageous men and women behind the Iron Curtain used it to demand their God-given liberties.
Twice assassins attempted to take the life of this good and decent man, yet he refused to curtail his public appearances.
And when he thought that the nation needed to put Watergate behind us, he made the tough and decent decision to pardon President Nixon, even though that decision probably cost him the presidential election.
Gerald Ford assumed the presidency when the nation needed a leader of character and humility, and we found it in the man from Grand Rapids.
President Ford's time in office was brief, but history will long remember the courage and common sense that helped restore trust in the workings of our democracy.
Laura and I had the honor of hosting the Ford family for Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. It's one of the highlights of our time in the White House.
I will always cherish the memory of the last time I saw him, this past year in California. He was still smiling, still counting himself lucky to have Betty at his side, and still displaying the optimism and generosity that made him one of America's most beloved leaders.
And so on behalf of a grateful nation, we bid farewell to our 38th president. We thank the Almighty for Gerald Ford's life, and we ask for God's blessings on Gerald Ford and his family."
Henry Kissinger's Eulogy of President Ford
Henry Kissinger, who served as President Ford's Secretary of State, eulogized the president in remarks delivered today:
"According to an ancient tradition, God preserves humanity despite its many transgressions, because at any one period there exist 10 just individuals who, without being aware of their role, redeem mankind.
Gerald Ford was such a man.
Propelled into the presidency by a sequence of unpredictable events, he had an impact so profound as rightly to be consider providential.
Unassuming and without guile, Gerald Ford undertook to restore the confidence of Americans in their political institutions and purposes.
Never having aspired to national office, he was not consumed by driving ambition. In his understated way, he did his duty as a leader, not as a performer playing to the gallery.
Gerald Ford had the virtues of small-town America: sincerity, serenity and integrity.
As it turned out, the absence of glibness and his artless (ph) decency became a political asset, fostering an unusual closeness to leaders around the world, which continued long after he left office.
In recent days, the deserved commentary on Gerald Ford's character has sometimes obscured how sweeping and lasting were his achievements."
Historians will debate for a long time over which president contributed most to victory in the Cold War. Few will dispute that the Cold War could not have been won had not Gerald Ford emerged at a tragic period to restore equilibrium to America and confidence in its international role.
Sustained by his beloved wife, Betty, and to the children to whom he was devoted, Gerald Ford left the presidency with no regrets, no second-guessing, no obsessive pursuit of his place in history.
For his friends, he leaves an aching void. Having known Jerry Ford and worked with him will be our badge of honor for the rest of our lives.
Early in his administration, Gerald Ford said to me, "I get mad as hell, but I don't show it, when I don't do as well as I should. If you don't strive for the best, you will never make it."
We are here to bear witness that Jerry Ford always did his best, and that his best proved essential to renew our society and restore hope to the world."
"According to an ancient tradition, God preserves humanity despite its many transgressions, because at any one period there exist 10 just individuals who, without being aware of their role, redeem mankind.
Gerald Ford was such a man.
Propelled into the presidency by a sequence of unpredictable events, he had an impact so profound as rightly to be consider providential.
Unassuming and without guile, Gerald Ford undertook to restore the confidence of Americans in their political institutions and purposes.
Never having aspired to national office, he was not consumed by driving ambition. In his understated way, he did his duty as a leader, not as a performer playing to the gallery.
Gerald Ford had the virtues of small-town America: sincerity, serenity and integrity.
As it turned out, the absence of glibness and his artless (ph) decency became a political asset, fostering an unusual closeness to leaders around the world, which continued long after he left office.
In recent days, the deserved commentary on Gerald Ford's character has sometimes obscured how sweeping and lasting were his achievements."
Historians will debate for a long time over which president contributed most to victory in the Cold War. Few will dispute that the Cold War could not have been won had not Gerald Ford emerged at a tragic period to restore equilibrium to America and confidence in its international role.
Sustained by his beloved wife, Betty, and to the children to whom he was devoted, Gerald Ford left the presidency with no regrets, no second-guessing, no obsessive pursuit of his place in history.
For his friends, he leaves an aching void. Having known Jerry Ford and worked with him will be our badge of honor for the rest of our lives.
Early in his administration, Gerald Ford said to me, "I get mad as hell, but I don't show it, when I don't do as well as I should. If you don't strive for the best, you will never make it."
We are here to bear witness that Jerry Ford always did his best, and that his best proved essential to renew our society and restore hope to the world."
President George H.W. Bush's Eulogy of President Ford
President George H.W. Bush, who served in the Ford Administration as CIA Director, eulogized the president in remarks given today:
"Long before he arrived in Washington, Gerald Ford's word was good. During the three decades of public service that followed his arrival in our nation's capital, time and again he would step forward and keep his promise, even when the dark clouds of political crisis gathered over America.
After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford's word was always good.
A decade later, when scandal forced a vice president from office, President Nixon turned to the minority leader in the House to stabilize his administration because of Jerry Ford's sterling reputation for integrity within the Congress.
To political ally and adversary alike, Jerry Ford's word was always good.
And, of course, when the lie that was Watergate was finally laid bare, once again we entrusted our future and our hopes to this good man. The very sight of Chief Justice Berger administering the oath of office to our 38th president instantly restored the honor of the Oval Office and helped America begin to turn the page on one of our saddest chapters.
As Americans, we generally eschew notions of the indispensable man, and yet during those traumatic times, few, if any, of our public leaders, could have stepped into the breach and rekindled our national faith as did President Gerald R. Ford.
History has a way of matching man and moment. And just as President Lincoln's stubborn devotion to our Constitution kept the union together during the Civil War, and just as FDR's optimism was the perfect antidote to the despair of a great depression, so, too, can we say that Jerry Ford's decency was the ideal remedy for the deception of Watergate.
For this and for so much more, his presidency will be remembered as a time of healing in our land. In fact, when President Ford was choosing a title for his memoirs, he chose words from the book of Ecclesiastes.
Here was the verse: "To everything there is a season and time, to every purpose under the heaven. A time to be born and a time to die; a time to kill and a time to heal; a time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance."
He acknowledged that he was no saint. To know Jerry was to know a Norman Rockwell painting come to life. An avuncular figure, quick to smile, frequently with his pipe in his mouth.
He could be tough. He could be tough as nails when the situation warranted.
But he also had a heart as big and as open as the Midwest plains on which he was born. And he imbued every life he touched with his understated gentility.
When we served together in the House of Representatives years ago, I watched, from the back bench, I watched this good man. And even from way back there, I could see the sterling leadership qualities of Jerry Ford.
And later, after I followed his footsteps into the Oval Office, he was always supportive.
On the lighter side, Jerry and I shared a common love of golf and also a reputation for suspect play before large crowds.
(LAUGHTER)
"I know I'm playing better golf," President Ford once reported to friends, "because I'm hitting fewer spectators."
(LAUGHTER)
He had a wonderful sense of humor, and even took it in stride when Chevy Chase had to make the entire world think that this terrific, beautifully coordinated athlete was actually a stumbler. Ford says it was funny. He wrote that in his memoir.
I remember that lesson well, since being able to laugh at yourself is essential in public life. I'd tell you more about that, but as Dana Carvey would say, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."
(LAUGHTER)
In the end, we are all God's children. And on this bittersweet day, we can take solace that the Lord has come and taken this good man by the hand and led him home to heaven.
It is plain to see how the hand of providence spared Jerry in World War II and, later, against two assassination attempts. And for that, we give thanks.
It is just as plain to see how the same hand directed this good man to lead a life of noble purpose, a life filled with challenge and accomplishment, a life indelibly marked by honor and integrity. And today we give thanks for that, too.
May Almighty God bless the memory of Gerald R. Ford, keep him firm in the hearts of his countrymen, and may God bless his wonderful family."
"Long before he arrived in Washington, Gerald Ford's word was good. During the three decades of public service that followed his arrival in our nation's capital, time and again he would step forward and keep his promise, even when the dark clouds of political crisis gathered over America.
After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford's word was always good.
A decade later, when scandal forced a vice president from office, President Nixon turned to the minority leader in the House to stabilize his administration because of Jerry Ford's sterling reputation for integrity within the Congress.
To political ally and adversary alike, Jerry Ford's word was always good.
And, of course, when the lie that was Watergate was finally laid bare, once again we entrusted our future and our hopes to this good man. The very sight of Chief Justice Berger administering the oath of office to our 38th president instantly restored the honor of the Oval Office and helped America begin to turn the page on one of our saddest chapters.
As Americans, we generally eschew notions of the indispensable man, and yet during those traumatic times, few, if any, of our public leaders, could have stepped into the breach and rekindled our national faith as did President Gerald R. Ford.
History has a way of matching man and moment. And just as President Lincoln's stubborn devotion to our Constitution kept the union together during the Civil War, and just as FDR's optimism was the perfect antidote to the despair of a great depression, so, too, can we say that Jerry Ford's decency was the ideal remedy for the deception of Watergate.
For this and for so much more, his presidency will be remembered as a time of healing in our land. In fact, when President Ford was choosing a title for his memoirs, he chose words from the book of Ecclesiastes.
Here was the verse: "To everything there is a season and time, to every purpose under the heaven. A time to be born and a time to die; a time to kill and a time to heal; a time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance."
He acknowledged that he was no saint. To know Jerry was to know a Norman Rockwell painting come to life. An avuncular figure, quick to smile, frequently with his pipe in his mouth.
He could be tough. He could be tough as nails when the situation warranted.
But he also had a heart as big and as open as the Midwest plains on which he was born. And he imbued every life he touched with his understated gentility.
When we served together in the House of Representatives years ago, I watched, from the back bench, I watched this good man. And even from way back there, I could see the sterling leadership qualities of Jerry Ford.
And later, after I followed his footsteps into the Oval Office, he was always supportive.
On the lighter side, Jerry and I shared a common love of golf and also a reputation for suspect play before large crowds.
(LAUGHTER)
"I know I'm playing better golf," President Ford once reported to friends, "because I'm hitting fewer spectators."
(LAUGHTER)
He had a wonderful sense of humor, and even took it in stride when Chevy Chase had to make the entire world think that this terrific, beautifully coordinated athlete was actually a stumbler. Ford says it was funny. He wrote that in his memoir.
I remember that lesson well, since being able to laugh at yourself is essential in public life. I'd tell you more about that, but as Dana Carvey would say, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."
(LAUGHTER)
In the end, we are all God's children. And on this bittersweet day, we can take solace that the Lord has come and taken this good man by the hand and led him home to heaven.
It is plain to see how the hand of providence spared Jerry in World War II and, later, against two assassination attempts. And for that, we give thanks.
It is just as plain to see how the same hand directed this good man to lead a life of noble purpose, a life filled with challenge and accomplishment, a life indelibly marked by honor and integrity. And today we give thanks for that, too.
May Almighty God bless the memory of Gerald R. Ford, keep him firm in the hearts of his countrymen, and may God bless his wonderful family."
Tom Brokaw's Eulogy of President Ford
Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw, who covered the White House for NBC during the Ford years, eulogized President Ford today at the National Cathedral. Here's some excerpts:
"For the past week we have been hearing the familiar lyrics of the hymns to the passing of a famous man, the hosannas to his decency, to his honesty, to his modesty and his "steady as she goes" qualities. It's what we've come to expect on these occasions.
But this time there was extra value, for, in the case of Gerald Ford, these lyrics have the added virtue of being true.
Sometimes there are two versions to these hymns, one public and one private, separate and discordant. But in Gerald Ford, the man he was in public, he was also that man in private.
Gerald Ford brought to the political arena no demons, no hidden agenda, no hit-list or acts of vengeance. He knew who he was, and he didn't require consultants or gurus to change him.
Moreover, the country knew who he was, and despite occasional differences, large and small, it never lost its affection for this man from Michigan, the football player, the lawyer and the veteran, the congressman and suburban husband, the champion of Main Street values, who brought all of those qualities to the White House.
Once there, he stayed true to form, never believing that he was suddenly wiser and infallible because he drank his morning coffee from a cup with the presidential seal.
He didn't seek the office. And yet, as he told his friend, the late, great journalist, Hugh Sidey, he was not frightened of the task before him."
"As a journalist, I was especially grateful for his appreciation of our role, even when we challenged his policies and taxed his patience with our constant presence and persistence. We could be adversaries, but we were never his enemy, and that was a welcome change in status from his predecessor's time."
"One of our colleagues, Jim Naughton of the New York Times, personified the spirit that existed in the relationship. He bought from a San Diego radio station promoter a large, mock chicken head that had attracted the president's attention at the GOP rally.
And then, giddy from 20-hour days and an endless repetition of the same campaign speech, Naughton decided to wear that chicken head to a Ford news conference in Oregon, with the enthusiastic encouragement of the president and his chief of staff, Dick Cheney.
In the next news cycle, the chicken head was a bigger story than the president, and no one was more pleased than the man that we honor here today in this august ceremony.
When the president called me last year and asked me if I would participate in these services, I think he wanted to be sure that the White House press corps was represented: the writers, correspondents and producers, the cameramen, photographers, the technicians -- and the chicken.
He also brought something else to the White House, of course. He brought the humanity that comes with a family that seemed to be living right next door.
He was every parent when he said, "My children have spoken for themselves since they were old enough to speak, and not always with my approval. I expect that to continue in the future."
And was there a more supportive husband in America than when his beloved Betty began to speak out on issues that were not politically correct at the time?"
"My colleague, Bob Schieffer, called him the nicest man he ever met in politics.
To that, I would only add the most underestimated.
In many ways, I believe football is a metaphor for his life in politics and after.
He played in the middle of the line. He was a center, a position that seldom receives much praise, but he had his hands on the ball for every play, and no play could start without him.
And when the game was over and others received the credit, he didn't whine or whimper.
But then he came from a generation accustomed to difficult missions, shaped by the sacrifices and the deprivations of the Great Depression, a generation that gave up its innocence and youth to then win a great war and save the world.
And when Gerald Ford and that generation came home from war, they were mature beyond their years and eager to make the world they had saved a better place.
They re-enlisted as citizens and set out to serve their country in new ways, with political differences, but always with a common goal of doing what's best for the nation and all the people.
When he entered the Oval Office, by faith, not by design, Citizen Ford knew that he was not perfect, just as he knew he was not perfect when he left. But what president ever was? But he was prepared, because he had served his country every day of his adult life and he left the Oval Office a much better place.
The personal rewards of his citizenship and his presidency were far richer than he had anticipated in every sense of the phrase. But the greatest rewards of Jerry Ford's time were reserved for his fellow Americans and the nation he loved.
Farewell, Mr. President. Thank you, Citizen Ford."
"For the past week we have been hearing the familiar lyrics of the hymns to the passing of a famous man, the hosannas to his decency, to his honesty, to his modesty and his "steady as she goes" qualities. It's what we've come to expect on these occasions.
But this time there was extra value, for, in the case of Gerald Ford, these lyrics have the added virtue of being true.
Sometimes there are two versions to these hymns, one public and one private, separate and discordant. But in Gerald Ford, the man he was in public, he was also that man in private.
Gerald Ford brought to the political arena no demons, no hidden agenda, no hit-list or acts of vengeance. He knew who he was, and he didn't require consultants or gurus to change him.
Moreover, the country knew who he was, and despite occasional differences, large and small, it never lost its affection for this man from Michigan, the football player, the lawyer and the veteran, the congressman and suburban husband, the champion of Main Street values, who brought all of those qualities to the White House.
Once there, he stayed true to form, never believing that he was suddenly wiser and infallible because he drank his morning coffee from a cup with the presidential seal.
He didn't seek the office. And yet, as he told his friend, the late, great journalist, Hugh Sidey, he was not frightened of the task before him."
"As a journalist, I was especially grateful for his appreciation of our role, even when we challenged his policies and taxed his patience with our constant presence and persistence. We could be adversaries, but we were never his enemy, and that was a welcome change in status from his predecessor's time."
"One of our colleagues, Jim Naughton of the New York Times, personified the spirit that existed in the relationship. He bought from a San Diego radio station promoter a large, mock chicken head that had attracted the president's attention at the GOP rally.
And then, giddy from 20-hour days and an endless repetition of the same campaign speech, Naughton decided to wear that chicken head to a Ford news conference in Oregon, with the enthusiastic encouragement of the president and his chief of staff, Dick Cheney.
In the next news cycle, the chicken head was a bigger story than the president, and no one was more pleased than the man that we honor here today in this august ceremony.
When the president called me last year and asked me if I would participate in these services, I think he wanted to be sure that the White House press corps was represented: the writers, correspondents and producers, the cameramen, photographers, the technicians -- and the chicken.
He also brought something else to the White House, of course. He brought the humanity that comes with a family that seemed to be living right next door.
He was every parent when he said, "My children have spoken for themselves since they were old enough to speak, and not always with my approval. I expect that to continue in the future."
And was there a more supportive husband in America than when his beloved Betty began to speak out on issues that were not politically correct at the time?"
"My colleague, Bob Schieffer, called him the nicest man he ever met in politics.
To that, I would only add the most underestimated.
In many ways, I believe football is a metaphor for his life in politics and after.
He played in the middle of the line. He was a center, a position that seldom receives much praise, but he had his hands on the ball for every play, and no play could start without him.
And when the game was over and others received the credit, he didn't whine or whimper.
But then he came from a generation accustomed to difficult missions, shaped by the sacrifices and the deprivations of the Great Depression, a generation that gave up its innocence and youth to then win a great war and save the world.
And when Gerald Ford and that generation came home from war, they were mature beyond their years and eager to make the world they had saved a better place.
They re-enlisted as citizens and set out to serve their country in new ways, with political differences, but always with a common goal of doing what's best for the nation and all the people.
When he entered the Oval Office, by faith, not by design, Citizen Ford knew that he was not perfect, just as he knew he was not perfect when he left. But what president ever was? But he was prepared, because he had served his country every day of his adult life and he left the Oval Office a much better place.
The personal rewards of his citizenship and his presidency were far richer than he had anticipated in every sense of the phrase. But the greatest rewards of Jerry Ford's time were reserved for his fellow Americans and the nation he loved.
Farewell, Mr. President. Thank you, Citizen Ford."
Monday, January 1, 2007
Cheney's remarks at Ford's funeral
Vice President Cheney's eulogy of President Ford on Saturday was the best speech I've ever heard Cheney deliver. Here are some excerpts:
"Nothing was left unsaid, and at the end of his days, Gerald Ford knew how much he meant to us and to his country. He was given length of years, and many times in his company we paid our tributes and said our thanks. We were proud to call him our leader, grateful to know him as a man. We told him these things, and there is comfort in knowing that. Still, it is an ending. And what is left now is to say goodbye."
"He was an unassuming man, our 38th President, and few have ever risen so high with so little guile or calculation. Even in the three decades since he left this city, he was not the sort to ponder his legacy, to brood over his place in history. And so in these days of remembrance, as Gerald R. Ford, goes to his rest, it is for us to take the measure of the man."
"Jerry Ford was always a striver -- never working an angle, just working. He was a believer in the saying that in life you make your own luck. That's how the Boy Scout became an Eagle Scout; and the football center, a college all-star; and the sailor in war, a lieutenant commander. That's how the student who waited tables and washed dishes earned a law degree, and how the young lawyer became a member of the United States Congress, class of 1948. The achievements added up all his life, yet he was known to boast only about one. I heard it once or twice myself -- he said he was never luckier than when he stepped out of Grace Episcopal Church in Grand Rapids with a beautiful girl named Betty as his bride.
Fifty-eight years ago, almost to the day, the new member from Michigan's fifth district moved into his office in the Cannon Building, and said his first hello to the congressman next door, John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. They belonged to a generation that came early to great duties, and took up responsibilities readily, and shared a confidence in their country and its purposes in the world."
"Good judgment, fair dealing, and the manners of a gentleman go a long way around here, and these were the mark of Jerry Ford for a quarter century in the House. It was a Democrat, the late Martha Griffiths, who said, "I never knew him to make a dishonest statement nor a statement part-true and part-false, and I never heard him utter an unkind word."
"Even then, amid troubles not of his own making, President Ford proved as worthy of that office as any who had ever come before. He was modest and manful; there was confidence and courage in his bearing. In judgment, he was sober and serious, unafraid of decisions, calm and steady by nature, always the still point in the turning wheel. He assumed power without assuming airs; he knew how to treat people. He answered courtesy with courtesy; he answered discourtesy with courtesy."
"This President's hardest decision was also among his first. And in September of 1974, Gerald Ford was almost alone in understanding that there can be no healing without pardon. The consensus holds that this decision cost him an election. That is very likely so. The criticism was fierce. But President Ford had larger concerns at heart. And it is far from the worst fate that a man should be remembered for his capacity to forgive.
In politics it can take a generation or more for a matter to settle, for tempers to cool. The distance of time has clarified many things about President Gerald Ford. And now death has done its part to reveal this man and the President for what he was."
"He was not just a cheerful and pleasant man -- although these virtues are rare enough at the commanding heights. He was not just a nice guy, the next-door neighbor whose luck landed him in the White House. It was this man, Gerald R. Ford, who led our republic safely through a crisis that could have turned to catastrophe. We will never know what further unravelings, what greater malevolence might have come in that time of furies turned loose and hearts turned cold. But we do know this: America was spared the worst. And this was the doing of an American President.
For all the grief that never came, for all the wounds that were never inflicted, the people of the United States will forever stand in debt to the good man and faithful servant we mourn tonight."
"There is a time to every purpose under Heaven. In the years of Gerald Rudolph Ford, it was a time to heal. There is also, in life, a time to part, when those who are dear to us must go their way. And so for now, Mr. President -- farewell. We will always be thankful for your good life. In Almighty God, we place our confidence. And to Him we confirm you, with our love and with our prayers."
"Nothing was left unsaid, and at the end of his days, Gerald Ford knew how much he meant to us and to his country. He was given length of years, and many times in his company we paid our tributes and said our thanks. We were proud to call him our leader, grateful to know him as a man. We told him these things, and there is comfort in knowing that. Still, it is an ending. And what is left now is to say goodbye."
"He was an unassuming man, our 38th President, and few have ever risen so high with so little guile or calculation. Even in the three decades since he left this city, he was not the sort to ponder his legacy, to brood over his place in history. And so in these days of remembrance, as Gerald R. Ford, goes to his rest, it is for us to take the measure of the man."
"Jerry Ford was always a striver -- never working an angle, just working. He was a believer in the saying that in life you make your own luck. That's how the Boy Scout became an Eagle Scout; and the football center, a college all-star; and the sailor in war, a lieutenant commander. That's how the student who waited tables and washed dishes earned a law degree, and how the young lawyer became a member of the United States Congress, class of 1948. The achievements added up all his life, yet he was known to boast only about one. I heard it once or twice myself -- he said he was never luckier than when he stepped out of Grace Episcopal Church in Grand Rapids with a beautiful girl named Betty as his bride.
Fifty-eight years ago, almost to the day, the new member from Michigan's fifth district moved into his office in the Cannon Building, and said his first hello to the congressman next door, John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. They belonged to a generation that came early to great duties, and took up responsibilities readily, and shared a confidence in their country and its purposes in the world."
"Good judgment, fair dealing, and the manners of a gentleman go a long way around here, and these were the mark of Jerry Ford for a quarter century in the House. It was a Democrat, the late Martha Griffiths, who said, "I never knew him to make a dishonest statement nor a statement part-true and part-false, and I never heard him utter an unkind word."
"Even then, amid troubles not of his own making, President Ford proved as worthy of that office as any who had ever come before. He was modest and manful; there was confidence and courage in his bearing. In judgment, he was sober and serious, unafraid of decisions, calm and steady by nature, always the still point in the turning wheel. He assumed power without assuming airs; he knew how to treat people. He answered courtesy with courtesy; he answered discourtesy with courtesy."
"This President's hardest decision was also among his first. And in September of 1974, Gerald Ford was almost alone in understanding that there can be no healing without pardon. The consensus holds that this decision cost him an election. That is very likely so. The criticism was fierce. But President Ford had larger concerns at heart. And it is far from the worst fate that a man should be remembered for his capacity to forgive.
In politics it can take a generation or more for a matter to settle, for tempers to cool. The distance of time has clarified many things about President Gerald Ford. And now death has done its part to reveal this man and the President for what he was."
"He was not just a cheerful and pleasant man -- although these virtues are rare enough at the commanding heights. He was not just a nice guy, the next-door neighbor whose luck landed him in the White House. It was this man, Gerald R. Ford, who led our republic safely through a crisis that could have turned to catastrophe. We will never know what further unravelings, what greater malevolence might have come in that time of furies turned loose and hearts turned cold. But we do know this: America was spared the worst. And this was the doing of an American President.
For all the grief that never came, for all the wounds that were never inflicted, the people of the United States will forever stand in debt to the good man and faithful servant we mourn tonight."
"There is a time to every purpose under Heaven. In the years of Gerald Rudolph Ford, it was a time to heal. There is also, in life, a time to part, when those who are dear to us must go their way. And so for now, Mr. President -- farewell. We will always be thankful for your good life. In Almighty God, we place our confidence. And to Him we confirm you, with our love and with our prayers."
Friday, December 29, 2006
Noonan: Ford "decent man [...] we were lucky to have him"
PEGGY NOONAN
Ford Without Tears
He was a decent man, and that was just what the country needed.
Friday, December 29, 2006 12:01 a.m.
One of the greatest things about Gerald Ford as a former president was that he didn't say much. He had no need for the spotlight. He was modest in the old-fashioned way of stepping aside and not getting in the way of the new guy.
He kept a lot to himself. This was in part because he had a self to leave it to.
It must have taken some effort. The man who replaced him, Jimmy Carter, was a kind of non-Ford, offering personal goodness as his main calling card. He carried his own garment bag. He was not imperial. He was awfully proud of his humility. The man who followed him, Ronald Reagan, differed from Ford not so much characterologically as politically, and his success might have grated on his old foe. But it doesn't seem to have. Ford seemed happy when things turned out well for America. That was apparently his primary interest.
He seemed lacking in vanity. There is no evidence that he was obsessed with his legacy. He didn't worry and fret about whether history would fully capture and proclaim his excellence, and because of this he didn't always have to run around proving he was right. He just did his best and kept walking. What a grown-up thing to do. Former, current and future presidents would do well to ponder this approach. History would treat them more kindly. The legacy of a man who spends his time worrying about his legacy is always: He worried about his legacy.
Now we know Ford was not silent but discrete. He granted an interview with Bob Woodward in July 2004, to be released posthumously, in which he shared his views. Mr. Woodward reports Ford told him he would not have gone to war in Iraq based on the public information available at the time. "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."
This is the authentic voice of the American foreign-policy establishment, and it reminds me, among other things, that establishments are not all bad. They rise for a reason. One is an ability to apprehend reality.
By speaking posthumously, Ford gave his words greater weight. He did not insert himself into the current debate, and because he wasn't in the fight he had nothing to gain or lose, no position to defend or attack. And so he could tell the truth as he saw it.
It is not clear who will speak at his funeral, but it is now unfortunately common practice for politicians to see every eulogy as an opportunity. Invited to reflect on biography, they tend to smuggle in as much autobiography as they can, and advance their personal agendas. If Bill Clinton speaks, one suspects he will laud Ford's personal tolerance. The text: This was a man who did not judge others. The subtext: He wouldn't have voted to impeach me! If George W. Bush speaks he will likely laud Ford as an exemplar of the old bipartisanship. In this way he will attempt to confer the bipartisan mantle on himself. And so on. I don't suppose this is terribly harmful, but it often gives short shrift to the departed. Still, Gerald Ford, a practical man who enjoyed the hit and tackle of politics, would have understood. Would have chuckled, in fact.
There are three points about Ford that I'm not sure can ever be sufficiently appreciated.
The first is that when he pardoned Richard Nixon, he threw himself on a grenade to protect the country from shame, from going too far. It was an act of deep political courage, and it was shocking. Almost everyone in the country hated it, including me. But Ford was right. Richard Nixon had been ruined, forced to resign, run out of town on a rail. There was nothing to be gained--nothing--by his being broken on the dock. What was then the new left would never forgive Ford. They should thank him on their knees that he deprived history of proof that what they called their idealism was not untinged by sadism.
Second, Ford's personal dignity--his plain Midwestern rectitude, his old-style, pipe-smoking American normality, and his characterological absence of bile, spite and malice--helped the nation over and through the great tearing of the fabric that was Watergate. This is often referred to, and yet it is hard to communicate what a relief it was. Whether right or wrong, hopeless or wise, a normal man was in charge. This was a balm, a real gift to the country.
Third, he did not understand, and so was undone by, the rise of the modern conservative movement. He did not understand the prairie fire signaled by the California tax revolt, and did not see it roaring east. He did not fully understand how offended the American public was by endless government spending and expanding federal power. He did not see the growing estrangement between Republicans on the ground and a leadership they saw as tax collectors for the welfare state. He did not fully appreciate the public desire for a fresher, more candid attitude toward the Soviet Union, and communism in general. He was not at all alive to what would prove to be deep national qualms about abortion. He was not aware of its ability to alarm, to waken the sleepy Evangelicals of the South and the urban ethnics of the North, who'd previously been content to go with the Democratic flow. Ford was oblivious to this. He thought in his own stolid way that abortion was pretty much an extension of the new feminist movement, which he supported. How could a gallant fella not?
In all this he proved that it is not enough in politics to be good. You have to have vision. You have to be able to see. If you can't, they can tell, and they'll retire you.
Which Republicans almost did in the great Ford-Reagan primary of 1976, and the electorate did later that fall.
And yet. This must be said and should be said. He was a good man, and that's not nothing--it's something. Gerald Ford fought for his country. He didn't indulge his angers and appetites. He seems to have thought, in the end, that such indulgence was for sissies--it wasn't manly. He was sober-minded, solid, respecting and deserving of respect. And at that terrible time, after Watergate, he picked up the pieces and then threw himself on the grenade.
We were lucky to have him. We were really lucky to have him. Rest in peace.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Ford Without Tears
He was a decent man, and that was just what the country needed.
Friday, December 29, 2006 12:01 a.m.
One of the greatest things about Gerald Ford as a former president was that he didn't say much. He had no need for the spotlight. He was modest in the old-fashioned way of stepping aside and not getting in the way of the new guy.
He kept a lot to himself. This was in part because he had a self to leave it to.
It must have taken some effort. The man who replaced him, Jimmy Carter, was a kind of non-Ford, offering personal goodness as his main calling card. He carried his own garment bag. He was not imperial. He was awfully proud of his humility. The man who followed him, Ronald Reagan, differed from Ford not so much characterologically as politically, and his success might have grated on his old foe. But it doesn't seem to have. Ford seemed happy when things turned out well for America. That was apparently his primary interest.
He seemed lacking in vanity. There is no evidence that he was obsessed with his legacy. He didn't worry and fret about whether history would fully capture and proclaim his excellence, and because of this he didn't always have to run around proving he was right. He just did his best and kept walking. What a grown-up thing to do. Former, current and future presidents would do well to ponder this approach. History would treat them more kindly. The legacy of a man who spends his time worrying about his legacy is always: He worried about his legacy.
Now we know Ford was not silent but discrete. He granted an interview with Bob Woodward in July 2004, to be released posthumously, in which he shared his views. Mr. Woodward reports Ford told him he would not have gone to war in Iraq based on the public information available at the time. "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."
This is the authentic voice of the American foreign-policy establishment, and it reminds me, among other things, that establishments are not all bad. They rise for a reason. One is an ability to apprehend reality.
By speaking posthumously, Ford gave his words greater weight. He did not insert himself into the current debate, and because he wasn't in the fight he had nothing to gain or lose, no position to defend or attack. And so he could tell the truth as he saw it.
It is not clear who will speak at his funeral, but it is now unfortunately common practice for politicians to see every eulogy as an opportunity. Invited to reflect on biography, they tend to smuggle in as much autobiography as they can, and advance their personal agendas. If Bill Clinton speaks, one suspects he will laud Ford's personal tolerance. The text: This was a man who did not judge others. The subtext: He wouldn't have voted to impeach me! If George W. Bush speaks he will likely laud Ford as an exemplar of the old bipartisanship. In this way he will attempt to confer the bipartisan mantle on himself. And so on. I don't suppose this is terribly harmful, but it often gives short shrift to the departed. Still, Gerald Ford, a practical man who enjoyed the hit and tackle of politics, would have understood. Would have chuckled, in fact.
There are three points about Ford that I'm not sure can ever be sufficiently appreciated.
The first is that when he pardoned Richard Nixon, he threw himself on a grenade to protect the country from shame, from going too far. It was an act of deep political courage, and it was shocking. Almost everyone in the country hated it, including me. But Ford was right. Richard Nixon had been ruined, forced to resign, run out of town on a rail. There was nothing to be gained--nothing--by his being broken on the dock. What was then the new left would never forgive Ford. They should thank him on their knees that he deprived history of proof that what they called their idealism was not untinged by sadism.
Second, Ford's personal dignity--his plain Midwestern rectitude, his old-style, pipe-smoking American normality, and his characterological absence of bile, spite and malice--helped the nation over and through the great tearing of the fabric that was Watergate. This is often referred to, and yet it is hard to communicate what a relief it was. Whether right or wrong, hopeless or wise, a normal man was in charge. This was a balm, a real gift to the country.
Third, he did not understand, and so was undone by, the rise of the modern conservative movement. He did not understand the prairie fire signaled by the California tax revolt, and did not see it roaring east. He did not fully understand how offended the American public was by endless government spending and expanding federal power. He did not see the growing estrangement between Republicans on the ground and a leadership they saw as tax collectors for the welfare state. He did not fully appreciate the public desire for a fresher, more candid attitude toward the Soviet Union, and communism in general. He was not at all alive to what would prove to be deep national qualms about abortion. He was not aware of its ability to alarm, to waken the sleepy Evangelicals of the South and the urban ethnics of the North, who'd previously been content to go with the Democratic flow. Ford was oblivious to this. He thought in his own stolid way that abortion was pretty much an extension of the new feminist movement, which he supported. How could a gallant fella not?
In all this he proved that it is not enough in politics to be good. You have to have vision. You have to be able to see. If you can't, they can tell, and they'll retire you.
Which Republicans almost did in the great Ford-Reagan primary of 1976, and the electorate did later that fall.
And yet. This must be said and should be said. He was a good man, and that's not nothing--it's something. Gerald Ford fought for his country. He didn't indulge his angers and appetites. He seems to have thought, in the end, that such indulgence was for sissies--it wasn't manly. He was sober-minded, solid, respecting and deserving of respect. And at that terrible time, after Watergate, he picked up the pieces and then threw himself on the grenade.
We were lucky to have him. We were really lucky to have him. Rest in peace.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Kennedy targeted on 1963 Ireland trip
A brief respite in our coverage on the passing of Gerald Ford, with another bit of history, this time about our 35th president, John F. Kennedy:
Kennedy targeted on 1963 Ireland trip
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, Ireland - President John F. Kennedy was the subject of three separate death threats during his visit to Ireland in 1963, according to newly declassified police documents released Friday.
The documents released by the Irish Justice Department said police received two anonymous telephoned warnings in the weeks before the arrival of the United States' first Irish Catholic president. A third threat went to the newsroom of the Irish Independent newspaper.
Kennedy's June 26-29 visit went ahead trouble free as he was greeted by adoring crowds in Dublin, Cork, Galway and at his family homestead in County Wexford, in southeast Ireland.
He was assassinated in Dallas five months later.
One threat claimed a sniper would target Kennedy as his motorcade traveled from Dublin Airport to the residence of the Irish president at the start of his visit. The second warned a bomb at Shannon Airport, in southwest Ireland, would detonate as Air Force One was about to depart.
According to the documents the third threat, phoned to the newspaper, indicated that Kennedy would be attacked at Dublin Airport, although the method wasn't specified.
The documents detailed police security concerns — and also reflected officials' desire to impress both U.S. visitors and onlookers in Britain, Ireland's colonial master until 1922.
In a letter, Commissioner Daniel Costigan, the commander of Ireland's national police force in 1963, described the Kennedy tour as "the most important visit to this country since the establishment of the state, with worldwide publicity.
British journalists are likely to be ready to criticize any fault in arrangements."
He wrote that although unlikely, "we cannot overlook the possibility" of an assassination attempt.
Costigan said his officers would use binoculars to monitor rooftops along the route of the presidential motorcade. He said an unspecified number of police would be armed with handguns, rifles and submachine guns — an exceptional measure in a country with a largely unarmed police force — to engage any would-be sniper.
The documents indicated that 6,404 police officers were on duty the night Kennedy arrived, and 2,690 lined the U.S. president's route from Dublin airport to the Phoenix Park mansion of Irish President Eamon de Valera.
Which leads to one of the favorite mental exercises of historians, which begins with the phrase "what if?" - What if JFK had been assassinated while on this trip? A trival question? The dark day of November 22, 1963 would have come much sooner.
Kennedy targeted on 1963 Ireland trip
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, Ireland - President John F. Kennedy was the subject of three separate death threats during his visit to Ireland in 1963, according to newly declassified police documents released Friday.
The documents released by the Irish Justice Department said police received two anonymous telephoned warnings in the weeks before the arrival of the United States' first Irish Catholic president. A third threat went to the newsroom of the Irish Independent newspaper.
Kennedy's June 26-29 visit went ahead trouble free as he was greeted by adoring crowds in Dublin, Cork, Galway and at his family homestead in County Wexford, in southeast Ireland.
He was assassinated in Dallas five months later.
One threat claimed a sniper would target Kennedy as his motorcade traveled from Dublin Airport to the residence of the Irish president at the start of his visit. The second warned a bomb at Shannon Airport, in southwest Ireland, would detonate as Air Force One was about to depart.
According to the documents the third threat, phoned to the newspaper, indicated that Kennedy would be attacked at Dublin Airport, although the method wasn't specified.
The documents detailed police security concerns — and also reflected officials' desire to impress both U.S. visitors and onlookers in Britain, Ireland's colonial master until 1922.
In a letter, Commissioner Daniel Costigan, the commander of Ireland's national police force in 1963, described the Kennedy tour as "the most important visit to this country since the establishment of the state, with worldwide publicity.
British journalists are likely to be ready to criticize any fault in arrangements."
He wrote that although unlikely, "we cannot overlook the possibility" of an assassination attempt.
Costigan said his officers would use binoculars to monitor rooftops along the route of the presidential motorcade. He said an unspecified number of police would be armed with handguns, rifles and submachine guns — an exceptional measure in a country with a largely unarmed police force — to engage any would-be sniper.
The documents indicated that 6,404 police officers were on duty the night Kennedy arrived, and 2,690 lined the U.S. president's route from Dublin airport to the Phoenix Park mansion of Irish President Eamon de Valera.
Which leads to one of the favorite mental exercises of historians, which begins with the phrase "what if?" - What if JFK had been assassinated while on this trip? A trival question? The dark day of November 22, 1963 would have come much sooner.
Detroit News Editorial: "Ford restored our trust and healed the nation"
The Detroit News gets it right in their editorial on the passing of Gerald R. Ford.
Editorial: Ford restored our trust and healed the nation
When the nation needed healing, Gerald R. Ford was the skilled physician who restored its spirit.
President Ford, who died Tuesday at 93, never sought the office, but when it was thrust upon him, he did his job in classic Michigan fashion. He got it done.
For Ford, that job was bringing stability to the nation after more than a decade of tumult that climaxed with the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon left office rather than face impeachment and trial on charges of abusing the powers of his office in the Watergate scandal of the mid-1970s. To compound the poisoned atmosphere in the country, Nixon named Ford as vice president after his elected vice president, Spiro Agnew, left office amid charges of bribe-taking and corruption.
Ford, a Grand Rapids area congressman who had spent his career in the House of Representatives, was chosen for his affability and reputation for integrity. But when he was thrust by circumstances into the White House, the man matched the moment. He calmed the nation and restored faith in government.
He was a plain-spoken man of decency who kept the country on an even keel. He rejected the trappings of an imperial presidency and ran a quietly competent administration.
The veneer of affability masked a firm resolve. He could be steely when he had to be -- or wanted to be.
After all, he entered politics after his World War II service as a naval gunnery officer by deposing an incumbent to gain his congressional seat. And when he became dissatisfied with the Republican leadership of the House, he again deposed a congressional veteran to become minority leader.
Within weeks of assuming presidential office, he made one of the most momentous decisions of his career. He gave Nixon an unconditional pardon to spare the country the trauma of a former president facing a criminal trial. The pardon drew a firestorm of criticism -- including the resignation of his newly appointed press secretary, former Detroit News Washington Bureau Chief Jerry ter Horst.
The move may well have cost him the presidency. Many suspected some sort of secret deal between Ford and Nixon when Ford was named vice president. But Ford always denied it, and his denial is credible He simply thought it was the right thing to do. Even in his resignation letter, ter Horst reiterated his admiration for Ford while disagreeing with the pardon.
History now views that pardon as a vital step to pulling the nation out of the bitterness of Watergate.
As president, Ford's resolve manifested itself in his more than 50 vetoes of congressional legislation and spending. Most were not overridden.
And when Communist-controlled Cambodia seized an American merchant ship, the Mayaguez, Ford didn't hesitate to call the move piracy and order its recapture by U.S. Marines. They regained the ship, but with heavy casualties. Twice, he was the target of assassination attempts by disturbed individuals.
Yet he carried on. Ford's administration was also marked by high inflation and a subsequent recession, which also may well have played a role in his narrow defeat for the presidency by then ex-Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Ford was often caricatured as clumsy and stumbling, and he was not always a glib speaker. But in fact he was one of this nation's most athletic presidents, having been named the University of Michigan football team's most valuable player. He turned down an invitation to join the Detroit Lions to go to law school at Yale. He was a skier and swimmer well past middle age.
When he left the White House, he devoted himself to leisure pursuits and the corporate boardroom, unlike some of his successors, who continue to crave the stage.
What stands out about Gerald Ford is the valuable role he played in restoring confidence and trust in the nation's governing institutions.
He was Michigan's only president, and he made Michigan proud.
Editorial: Ford restored our trust and healed the nation
When the nation needed healing, Gerald R. Ford was the skilled physician who restored its spirit.
President Ford, who died Tuesday at 93, never sought the office, but when it was thrust upon him, he did his job in classic Michigan fashion. He got it done.
For Ford, that job was bringing stability to the nation after more than a decade of tumult that climaxed with the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon left office rather than face impeachment and trial on charges of abusing the powers of his office in the Watergate scandal of the mid-1970s. To compound the poisoned atmosphere in the country, Nixon named Ford as vice president after his elected vice president, Spiro Agnew, left office amid charges of bribe-taking and corruption.
Ford, a Grand Rapids area congressman who had spent his career in the House of Representatives, was chosen for his affability and reputation for integrity. But when he was thrust by circumstances into the White House, the man matched the moment. He calmed the nation and restored faith in government.
He was a plain-spoken man of decency who kept the country on an even keel. He rejected the trappings of an imperial presidency and ran a quietly competent administration.
The veneer of affability masked a firm resolve. He could be steely when he had to be -- or wanted to be.
After all, he entered politics after his World War II service as a naval gunnery officer by deposing an incumbent to gain his congressional seat. And when he became dissatisfied with the Republican leadership of the House, he again deposed a congressional veteran to become minority leader.
Within weeks of assuming presidential office, he made one of the most momentous decisions of his career. He gave Nixon an unconditional pardon to spare the country the trauma of a former president facing a criminal trial. The pardon drew a firestorm of criticism -- including the resignation of his newly appointed press secretary, former Detroit News Washington Bureau Chief Jerry ter Horst.
The move may well have cost him the presidency. Many suspected some sort of secret deal between Ford and Nixon when Ford was named vice president. But Ford always denied it, and his denial is credible He simply thought it was the right thing to do. Even in his resignation letter, ter Horst reiterated his admiration for Ford while disagreeing with the pardon.
History now views that pardon as a vital step to pulling the nation out of the bitterness of Watergate.
As president, Ford's resolve manifested itself in his more than 50 vetoes of congressional legislation and spending. Most were not overridden.
And when Communist-controlled Cambodia seized an American merchant ship, the Mayaguez, Ford didn't hesitate to call the move piracy and order its recapture by U.S. Marines. They regained the ship, but with heavy casualties. Twice, he was the target of assassination attempts by disturbed individuals.
Yet he carried on. Ford's administration was also marked by high inflation and a subsequent recession, which also may well have played a role in his narrow defeat for the presidency by then ex-Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Ford was often caricatured as clumsy and stumbling, and he was not always a glib speaker. But in fact he was one of this nation's most athletic presidents, having been named the University of Michigan football team's most valuable player. He turned down an invitation to join the Detroit Lions to go to law school at Yale. He was a skier and swimmer well past middle age.
When he left the White House, he devoted himself to leisure pursuits and the corporate boardroom, unlike some of his successors, who continue to crave the stage.
What stands out about Gerald Ford is the valuable role he played in restoring confidence and trust in the nation's governing institutions.
He was Michigan's only president, and he made Michigan proud.
George Will: "A Happy, Normal President"
Several passages from Will's column about the passing of President Ford merit attention:
"Those who believe that a kindly Providence keeps a watchful eye on America's welfare can cite the fact of Gerald Ford. On Aug. 9, 1974, at a moment when the nation was putting aside an unhappy, tormented president, and was aching for serenity in high places, to the center of national life strode an abnormality -- a happy, normal man as president."
"Ford was a political sedative for a nation with jangled nerves."
"In 1976 Ford might have won a full term if he had been less statesmanlike: His pardon of Richard Nixon unquestionably hurt him politically, but unquestionably helped with national healing. Ford also might have won if he had stepped out of character and been more adventurous -- if in selecting a running mate he had chosen, as he considered doing, Ambassador Anne Armstrong, a Texan, to be the first woman on a national ticket. Instead he chose a Midwesterner, Kansan Bob Dole, thereby giving a boost to a distinguished career that would produce the party's presidential nominee 20 years later."
"He almost won anyway. A change of 12,791 votes in Ohio and Mississippi would have sufficed. The 1976 presidential election was the only one the Republicans lost between 1964 and 1992. Ford was punished for Nixon's sins: Jimmy Carter won by running as the non-Nixon. "
"Henry Kissinger, who continued as secretary of state through the Ford years, wrote in 1999 a tribute to Ford, the "uncomplicated man'' who came to the presidency in perhaps the most complicated context since the Civil War -- in the aftermath of a disastrous war and as a result of a resignation. Kissinger understood that Ford, with his small-town, Midwestern aversion to histrionics, had perfect pitch for the needs of "a nation surfeited with upheavals.''
"Surely subsequent presidential history has deepened the nation's appreciation of what it had for 29 months."
"Those who believe that a kindly Providence keeps a watchful eye on America's welfare can cite the fact of Gerald Ford. On Aug. 9, 1974, at a moment when the nation was putting aside an unhappy, tormented president, and was aching for serenity in high places, to the center of national life strode an abnormality -- a happy, normal man as president."
"Ford was a political sedative for a nation with jangled nerves."
"In 1976 Ford might have won a full term if he had been less statesmanlike: His pardon of Richard Nixon unquestionably hurt him politically, but unquestionably helped with national healing. Ford also might have won if he had stepped out of character and been more adventurous -- if in selecting a running mate he had chosen, as he considered doing, Ambassador Anne Armstrong, a Texan, to be the first woman on a national ticket. Instead he chose a Midwesterner, Kansan Bob Dole, thereby giving a boost to a distinguished career that would produce the party's presidential nominee 20 years later."
"He almost won anyway. A change of 12,791 votes in Ohio and Mississippi would have sufficed. The 1976 presidential election was the only one the Republicans lost between 1964 and 1992. Ford was punished for Nixon's sins: Jimmy Carter won by running as the non-Nixon. "
"Henry Kissinger, who continued as secretary of state through the Ford years, wrote in 1999 a tribute to Ford, the "uncomplicated man'' who came to the presidency in perhaps the most complicated context since the Civil War -- in the aftermath of a disastrous war and as a result of a resignation. Kissinger understood that Ford, with his small-town, Midwestern aversion to histrionics, had perfect pitch for the needs of "a nation surfeited with upheavals.''
"Surely subsequent presidential history has deepened the nation's appreciation of what it had for 29 months."
Ford: "Profile in Decency"
Profile in Decency
Thursday, December 28, 2006; A27
We were fortunate in 1974, a time of crisis, to have the right person in the right place at the right time. When the country needed healing, reconciliation and restoration of confidence, Gerald Ford provided it.
He was a principled partisan, a GOP leader who worked diligently for Republican causes but who knew the limits of partisanship. He could also count -- and he knew that with Republicans in the minority, if he was to accomplish anything as House Republican leader or as president, he would often need a bipartisan approach.
He was never a person to nurse a grudge. He was willing to admit mistakes. Generally, he had a smile on his face, but he was determined and competitive, though realistic about what he could achieve.
In defeat he was gracious. Notwithstanding a heated 1976 campaign, in a race that went from a 30-point deficit to a cliffhanger, he and President Jimmy Carter became close friends and accomplished many worthwhile things together.
Gerald Ford had never sought the presidency and thus was obligated to no group or individual.
His legacy will be that he stopped the national hemorrhaging over Watergate. A man of courage and integrity, he made the tough choice of pardoning Richard Nixon, which helped heal the nation but very likely cost him the 1976 election. He showed his willingness to put the country's interest first.
-- Bob Dole
The former Senate majority leader was Gerald Ford's vice presidential running mate in 1976.
Thursday, December 28, 2006; A27
We were fortunate in 1974, a time of crisis, to have the right person in the right place at the right time. When the country needed healing, reconciliation and restoration of confidence, Gerald Ford provided it.
He was a principled partisan, a GOP leader who worked diligently for Republican causes but who knew the limits of partisanship. He could also count -- and he knew that with Republicans in the minority, if he was to accomplish anything as House Republican leader or as president, he would often need a bipartisan approach.
He was never a person to nurse a grudge. He was willing to admit mistakes. Generally, he had a smile on his face, but he was determined and competitive, though realistic about what he could achieve.
In defeat he was gracious. Notwithstanding a heated 1976 campaign, in a race that went from a 30-point deficit to a cliffhanger, he and President Jimmy Carter became close friends and accomplished many worthwhile things together.
Gerald Ford had never sought the presidency and thus was obligated to no group or individual.
His legacy will be that he stopped the national hemorrhaging over Watergate. A man of courage and integrity, he made the tough choice of pardoning Richard Nixon, which helped heal the nation but very likely cost him the 1976 election. He showed his willingness to put the country's interest first.
-- Bob Dole
The former Senate majority leader was Gerald Ford's vice presidential running mate in 1976.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)