http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16599540/
[ul][li]Harry Truman: High marks for handling foreign crises[/li][li]Dwight Eisenhower: Best President of Ford’s lifetime[/li][li]John Kennedy: Overrated[/li][li](What? No love for Johnson?)[/li][li]Richard Nixon: A foreign policy master[/li][li]Jimmy Carter: A ‘disaster’[/li][li]Ronald Reagan: ‘[P]robably the least well-informed on the details of running the government of any president I knew.’[/li][li]George H.W. Bush: Admired for his handling of the first Gulf War[/li][li]Bill Clinton: Average[/li][li]George W. Bush: Declined to rate[/ul][/li]Ford said Reagan received too much credit for ending the Cold War.
Why would anyone care? After he died I heard Ford described as arguably the only American to ever become President without deserving, earning or even wanting the job.
Why does anyone care what people post here? Why does anyone care what political pundits have to say about past Presidents? Why do people still talk about the Kennedy assassination? (News flash! President Kennedy it still dead!)
As to why anyone would care what Ford had to say, peer evaluation is useful as a tool for historical purposes.
I wasn’t really being snotty. I just thought the radio quote about Ford was interesting…according to the piece I was listening to he really only wanted to be a Senator(???) and only became VP to help the party out.
I wasn’t either. Sorry if it came across that way.
Not at all. I just thought I had stuffed up an interesting point - a guy who doesn’t really want the job manages, without being elected, to become the most powerful man on earth.
Apparently Junior Bush has begun comparing himself to Truman, as his father did in 1992. This has led one writer to call Truman, “The Patron Saint of Presidents with Low Approval Ratings.”
And Truman dropped The Bomb! :eek:
But why does that suggest one should discount his opinions? There’s a long, respected element of political theory, dating back to the Greeks and Romans, that the most dangerous people to be given power are those who focus solely on attaining power, and that it is better to give power to those for whom it’s not the all-consuming goal.
Which isn’t to suggest that Gerry Ford didn’t seek political power - he was a very successful Congressman, who loved being a Congressman. But looking for the top job wasn’t his consuming ambition. Since he was in Washington for so long, and had experience in the House, the Senate (as V-P), and in the Executive branch, I would have thought that his views on the various Presidents are worth considering.
Anybody who served as President of the U.S., regardless of how he got there, is bound to have some insight into the office.
And, as noted, the fact that Ford became president without specifically seeking the office can be interpreted as a point in his favor. Ford’s often seen as a dull, plodding, bumbling, average Joe, but I think he was smarter than he’s sometimes given credit for being.
I personally think it’s interesting hearing what people think of their peers: What do musicians think of other musicians? What do novelists think of other novelists? What do baseball managers think of other baseball managers? What do religious leaders think of other religious leaders? Stuff like that.
I certainly care more about this than about the latest Britney Spears or Donald Trump gossip.
I find it surprising (perhaps out of my nearly complete ignorence of Ford and his agenda while he was in office) that I essentially agree in both the broad outlines and many of the fine details of his assessments of the presidents. I’d have added a few more criticisms–specifically for Reagan and his support for state-sponsored insurgency and terrorism, Clinton for his fumbling of foreign policy during a critical and turbulent period of world events, and Johnson for being such an intransigent son-of-a-bitch with regard to Vietnam–but the only one I’d really disagree with is Truman, who managed to bungle several important post-WWII decisions (though to be fair, that may have not been clear except in hindsight, and he was dealing with a nation still recovering from a massive war and living in increasing understanding and fear of The Bomb.)
Ford himself, of what little I know about him, was principled, reasonable, moderate, a real gentleman, and fell on his own sword to protect the country from further damage due to Watergate and other legacies of the previous Administrations. I don’t know that he would have done any better than Carter had he been elected to a second term, but it seems likely he wouldn’t have done worse. (For his bit, Carter was a man who took the reigns of an out-of-control horse without any real past experience or outside support; had he been able to slide into the role without immediately being burdened by ongoing crises that were at least partially beyond his control, he might have fared better.)
And I totally agree that Reagan was then and is still today given too much credit for the dissolution of the long-in-default Soviet Union and “ending” the Cold War. By the time Reagan’s vaunted military buildup had any real effect, Gorbachev had already come to power, had isolated the few remaining hardline ideologues, started economic and social reforms, and generally set the stage for what would become the collapse of the Soviet Union (regardless of whether this was his intent or not). Reagan gave some great bombastic speeches; Lech Walesa and the members of Solidarity put their asses on the line, which gave the Iron Curtain the final tear that started it down.
Stranger
Maybe he means Jim Carrey.
Hmm. If there was a patron saint of regular low ratings, it might be ex-talk show host and Ford impersonator Chevy Chase.
This is a fairly common assessment, but I’ve never seen people spell out specifics regarding it (generally because, as you did, it’s a brief part of a more general point). I’m wondering if you’d be interested in talking about it in more detail and specifics in GD. A Truman’s pros and cons discussion might prove very interesting.