Slight hijack, but I was about the same age when I met Ted Kennedy and shook his hand and I had exactly the same reaction. Soft, squishy hands. When I see him now on TV I can’t help thinking he looks even squishier now.
Following links it was interesting to learn his press secretary resigned in disgust upon hearing about the pardons, even more interesting that the Ford library has the resignation document in display.
AFAIK, Ford justified the pardon by noticing that the supreme court agreed before that a pardon was not to declare the pardoned innocent, but that an acknowledgment of guilt was assumed. Was Ford the first to pardon someone before there were charges of any crime filed?
As for a legacy, I do think that many could had their careers short if the investigation and trial of Nixon had taken place, Ford IMO protected the holdovers of the previous administration, like Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
As for “healing the divisions” I’m confused, people were upset and 60% opposed the pardon, not much of a division IMHO.
What was his real culpability here? I don’t think it was “It’s hunky-dory with us if you kill 200,000 East Timorians over the next 25 years.” I suspect it was more along the lines of “We just got out of Vietnam a few months ago and there’s no practical way to commit enough troops to another Asian war.”
Hindsight tells us that Ford and Kissinger made a bad call, but I’m not clear on what alternatives they had.
Hadn’t considered that . . . he does have a lot to answer for!
Perhaps you are right. One of the books I was reading to refresh my memory on these issues stated that at the time Nixon had no plans to go anywhere. Others, however, may have been thinking differently.
What did either Cheney or Rumsfeld have to do with Watergate?
Just a slight hijack, James K. Polk was actually a very important and controversial President. The Mexican War through which the US greatly expanded its territory is sometimes called Mr. Polk’s war.
Officially, nothing, but then there is a reason we will never know.
I’m coming from the angle that many who resented seeing the powers of the presidency being eroded after Watergate were still kept in positions of power, and then came back like a bad penny.
Not having to testify what did they know IMO protected more political careers. Because I do think Republicans would had found many more willing to talk.
I think it’s more interesting to look at what Watergate had to do with Cheney and Rumsfeld. Both have been quite public about their views that it led to an erosion of power away from what was at the time frequently called (by others 
) the Imperial Presidency. They have both quite clearly devoted much of their attention to reversing that trend toward restoring the Constitution’s intended balance of power, essentially by simply disregarding Congress and the Courts in case of any disagreement or even question.
Both men, FTR, did urge Ford to veto the Freedom of Information Act, which he did, and which veto was overridden by Congress. Is there any disagreement anymore about its necessity, though?
It would also have demonstrated the salutory lesson that not even a president is above the law, a lesson that some presidents since could have taken to heart. I doubt that there would have been any exposure of others to criminal charges; the main players were already in the hot seat by then.
At the time Ford was nominated, no one (including, I believe, Ford) thought he would run in 1976, either for President or Vice-President. He was an innocuous choice, a competent politician respected by both sides, and certain to slide through confirmation without much difficulty. It’s mildly interesting that Ford chose his VP from Nixon’s short list. (Ford, Connally, Rockefeller, and someone I forget.)
But the trial process might have produced evidence enough to politically taint, if not incriminate, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. Enough to keep them out of public life thereafter.
You forgot GHW Bush? He was almost Ford’s choice, with Goldwater’s urging.
As for the President not being above the law, you can’t ignore context. The law is a tool of justice, not the end in itself. Doing justice is the higher requirement, ISTM. Nixon’s crimes were all the result of his conduct of his public office, and I think it’s fair to say that removing him from that public office amid public disgrace was the just penalty for them. Yes, there was an unsatisfied urge for vengeance beyond that, but justice is not based on vengeance any more than statecraft can be.
The crimes were committed for personal reasons, at least I would term the connection to his re-election personal reasons, and were not even tangentially connected to statecraft. Lots of people in that administration were removed from office, publically disgraced, and went to jail. Nixon should have also, or at least received whatever sentence was appropriate for whatever crimes he may have been convicted of.
I understand your point, and I understand the reasoning behind the pardon. I do not hate or despise Ford for it, I simply disagree that it was best for the country. I don’t think I wanted vengeance - though I’m remembering through the filter of 30 odd years, and I’ll admit that I despise Nixon as I have no other person until very recently - I wanted proof that the powerful in this country are, in fact, forbidden to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
The statecraft I was referring to was Ford’s pardon, not Nixon’s conduct. I do believe Ford did it for what he thought was the good of the nation, not a deal. But I certainly agree that the good of the nation could have led him to either action just as honorably.
Oh, certainly! If I’ve given the impression I thought otherwise, I didn’t mean to.
Interesting set of short interviews on All Things Considered this afternoon.
Richard Reeves, who excoriated Ford in his book, A Ford Not A Lincoln, published while Ford was still in office, remarked that he found Ford’s claim that Ford wanted to avoid having the entire nation (and the presidency) distracted by multiple trials and appeals by Nixon to be unbelievable. After watching the complete national distraction of the country during the OJ trial and the distraction of the country, the Congress, and the President during the Lewinsky fiasco, he changed his mind and actually published both a retraction and an apology to Ford. He said that he was very grateful that he was able to do that while Ford was still in decent health, considering how long it took him to realize that Ford was right.
Daniel Shorr observed that Nixon told Ford, up front, that he was the choice for VP, but that Nixon was going to support Connally in '76. As soon as Ford was sworn in as veep, (not before) he called on Al Haig to draw up a review of the powers of the president to pardon people and the ramifications of those pardons (such as the acceptance of a pardon being an admission of guilt). I don’t remember the details of Shorr’s comments, but he seemed to be pretty sure that Ford did not accept the Vice Presidency as a deal to get the Presidency by pardoning Nixon. (When Ford moved out of the House, many of Nixon’s henchmen were in the process of dropping like flies, but there was no indication–given their nearly unanimous silence–that Nixon, himself, would ever be caught out.)
The other story that caught my attention was that of the Helsinki accords. While they appeared toothless in themselves, they provided a public declaration by the U.S.S.R. to agree to certain behavior and, while the accords could not be enforced, it provided refuseniks and other protestors a base from which they could go to the outside world and say this is how the Soviets are breaking their public promises.
(The saddest story was the Dole interview; he answered at least three questions completely off-topic, as if he had not understood them. Like watching my 90-year-old Mom, it is sad to see someone who had been one of the sharpest minds in the Senate failing with age.)
My feelings about the pardon, and the real political pressures that existed does not require a quid pro quo with Ford to exist before the fact. Gerald Ford was a highly predictable (That is to say understandable, and honorable) man. Nixon knew he would not continue a witch hunt, or allow one to be conducted, after the resignation. Nixon also knew that no one else could get away with it, or would be likely to be accepted by his very many, and very powerful enemies on the Hill.
No, it wasn’t a deal made before hand. It was, as I said, part of the cost of not having Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, and most everyone knew it.
Tris
The Nixon pardon set a terrible precedent for future Presidents that the most they’ll face for any malfeasance in office is an early retirement. It put the President on such a high pedestal that even putting him on trial for his crimes (just like any other normal citizen who breaks the law and gets caught) is seen as “harming the country” or “preventing us from moving forward”.
Well, if that’s true, then it was a good bargain. At the time. (But there’s also much to be said for Blalron’s argument in the preceding post.)
I’m in favor of criminal prosecution of politicians who break the law, for the precedent-setting value of instructing future office-holders that their actions are NOT risk free. For this reason, I believe Jerry Ford is now roasting in Hell, his skin crisped, his insides still a nice pink, his fat beginning to caramelize…oh, wait, I don;t believe in Hell. OK, so Jerry Ford’s Hell is this legacy: He is the man who encouraged future politicians to think “Oh, what the heck, worse come to worse, I’ll get some pinhead to pardon me…”
Ford was the only president to hit a hole in one. He is also one of only four or five Michigan football players to have his number retired.