I had forgotten Strom Thurmond was an ex-parrot. Thought he was still hanging on, for some reason.
Some article I read described Tim Johnson, the Dem senator who collapsed, as "a youthful 59." Kind of a sad comment that pushing 60 makes you the young whipper-snapper on Capitol Hill.
What I wanna know is, why didn't people cheer when Reagan died? I mean... the guy was a fucking prick.
I actually rudely and emphatically chastised friends who went so far as to pour a 40 out for Reagan. I mean, I didn't applaud his death, but I definitely didn't mourn his passing, and I made sure none of my friends did either.
Why do people criticize Ford for pardoning Nixon? Even though Nixon was pretty despicable, the last thing America needed during the mid 70s was a huge long drawn out trial and such over the Watergate scandal. They already had a lot of shit on their hands that it was really the best thing to do at the time.
My impression of the situation (colored, of course, by the fact that I wasn't even alive when it happened) was that Ford made this decision for all the right reasons, exactly as you said. It was still a tremendous blunder, which marred his presidency and likely led to the massive Democratic victory in Congress as well as the election of Jimmy Carter. Plus, it further reinforced the notion that the President is above the law, and exempt from consequence. Though I don't want to draw a direct connection between the Nixon pardon and the current clusterfuck that is the Bush administration, I suspect that there is a certain causality there.
Also, it should be noted that, despite Ford's common image as a bumbler (due largely to SNL), he was probably the most athletic president the country ever had; he almost certainly could have played pro football and was also a skilled golfer and skier. Instead of playing football, he went to Yale, so he was also no dummy.
I think that history will ultimately regard Ford as a decent, honest, if unspectacular and disappointing President. He honestly wanted the best for the country but for the most part his actions blew up in his face. So, basically he was a Democrat.
Do you like beer and nachos? We can go inside and watch the game and have beer and nachos.
We are the mediocre presidents!
You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents
There's Taylor, there's Tyler, there's Fillmore and there's Hayes
There's William Henry Harrison, "I died in thirty days"
We are the adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the USA!
Oh SNPP, I mourn your disappearance every single day. And I had forgotten about that Dan Rather skit.
Like most, I am largely unfamiliar with virtually every aspect of his presidency except his appointment and Nixon's pardon. He appointed Justice Stevens, which I suppose is notable.
Ford's problem wasn't so much that he pardoned Nixon as that he didn't really bother explaining why. If he had prepared the public and gone into his whole reasoning about how he didn't want his presidency marred by endless hearings, he might have found the country more sympathetic to his decision. Or at least not hating him so much for it. He just didn't give the American people that due respect.
Because it was the most bald-faced use of public presidential power to the benefit of a personal or political ally probably since the "corrupt bargain" of 1824, because it cemented the principle at a crucial junction in history that we as a nation honor not rocking the boat over actually holding the powerful responsible for even criminal actions, because it was an act even Ford himself had indicated he would not stoop to during his own Vice Presidential confirmation hearings (claiming, when specifically asked about the issue, that he did not think the American people "would stand for it"), and because it was essentially the only official act of his entire public career which Gerald Ford is today remembered for?
I wonder if there's ever been a US president who, upon his death, did not spawn a gigantic wave of savage glee from a significant portion of the more fucked-up segment of society.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I wonder if there's ever been a US president who, upon his death, did not spawn a gigantic wave of savage glee from a significant portion of the more fucked-up segment of society.
I wonder if there's ever been a US president who, upon his death, did not spawn a gigantic wave of savage glee from a significant portion of the more fucked-up segment of society.
Seriously, man, there's just so many "Gerald Ford is Dead" parties tonight I don't even know which one to attend!
Though I wish people hadn't held the impromptu celebrations in the street this morning. It made it hard to get around town.
On a lighter note, when I first heard of Ford's death, I thought of the SNL skit about his death, and I giggled. Then I felt really bad about it, 'cause Ford was an okay guy. Then I giggled some more, because I'm kind of an ass.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On a lighter note, when I first heard of Ford's death, I thought of the SNL skit about his death, and I giggled. Then I felt really bad about it, 'cause Ford was an okay guy. Then I giggled some more, because I'm kind of an ass.
Me too. But then, the only other thing I'm familiar with about him about is the Nixon pardon. Wasn't alive for the half-term he served, so with me it's just the pardon and SNL. My mind didn't really have anywhere to go except "he was delicious".
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
The Trifecta has already played itself out. Peter Boyle > James Brown > Gerald Ford. At first I thought the pressmen were just being incompetent, but when I looked at the new papers coming off the press I also thought of Dana Carvey.
Because it was the most bald-faced use of public presidential power to the benefit of a personal or political ally probably since the "corrupt bargain" of 1824, because it cemented the principle at a crucial junction in history that we as a nation honor not rocking the boat over actually holding the powerful responsible for even criminal actions, because it was an act even Ford himself had indicated he would not stoop to during his own Vice Presidential confirmation hearings (claiming, when specifically asked about the issue, that he did not think the American people "would stand for it"), and because it was essentially the only official act of his entire public career which Gerald Ford is today remembered for?
So, if we assume that Bush did do something impeachable/convictable, then how is this different than not-trying-to-impeach Bush come next January?
Because it was the most bald-faced use of public presidential power to the benefit of a personal or political ally probably since the "corrupt bargain" of 1824, because it cemented the principle at a crucial junction in history that we as a nation honor not rocking the boat over actually holding the powerful responsible for even criminal actions, because it was an act even Ford himself had indicated he would not stoop to during his own Vice Presidential confirmation hearings (claiming, when specifically asked about the issue, that he did not think the American people "would stand for it"), and because it was essentially the only official act of his entire public career which Gerald Ford is today remembered for?
So, if we assume that Bush did do something impeachable/convictable, then how is this different than not-trying-to-impeach Bush come next January?
Uh.
Well, if there's no effort to impeach Bush in January, it will be for one of the following four hypothetical reasons:
1. There is not currently support in Congress for an impeachment or a drive for one
2. There is not currently support among the American Public for an impeachment or a drive for one
3. George W. Bush has not in any way I'm aware of been personally demonstrated to specifically have broken the law; if he has broken laws, Congress even so much as begun any investigation which might uncover the evidence which would show this. (And I don't think they'll find any. I think they should investigate any questionable actions the Bush administration has taken over the last four years anyway, just because if anything happened then the American public has a right to know, and my understanding is they plan to for that reason; but they won't find anything on Bush, since Bush himself will have been isolated from being allowed to do or know about anything illegal himself except torture.)
4. Even assuming it is possible, what on earth is the point of trying to impeach a president who hits the term limits in two years anyway and will be months or days from his term ending by the time you've even finished the paperwork? The impeachment proceedings took what, a year, two years to come to a head with Nixon? And evidence of explicit lawbreaking was practically shooting out of the Executive Branch's every orifice at that point. It's almost inconceivable that even an investigation of anything potentially illegal the Bush administration might have hypothetically done will finish before 2008. On the other hand, if evidence does show up of Bush having done something Watergate-level criminal, he can of course be convicted of those things after he leaves office; after all, there's precedent for the idea an ex-president can be prosecuted for actions in office if appropriate, that was the entire point of pardoning Nixon after he resigned in the first place. But before Bush's term naturally expires and that point is reached, Congress has more important and more urgent things to do right now than try to force out of office a lame-duck president. What would be the point?
On the other hand, the Nixon pardon was about an impending indictment, not an impeachment; the evidence of lawbreaking existed, was known to exist, had been found, and was in the hands of a prosecutor actually sitting ready to perform the indictment if he had to; and the levels and nature of support among pretty much everybody in the world were entirely different.
So... basically [pardoning Nixon] was different from [the 110th congress failing to impeach Bush] because it is different in every single imaginable way, except for the single fact that both of these two things are exactly what did/will happen.
4. Even assuming it is possible, what on earth is the point of trying to impeach a president who hits the term limits in two years anyway and will be months or days from his term ending by the time you've even finished the paperwork? The impeachment proceedings took what, a year, two years to come to a head with Nixon? And evidence of explicit lawbreaking was practically shooting out of the Executive Branch's every orifice at that point. It's almost inconceivable that even an investigation of anything potentially illegal the Bush administration might have hypothetically done will finish before 2008. On the other hand, if evidence does show up of Bush having done something Watergate-level criminal, he can of course be convicted of those things after he leaves office; after all, there's precedent for the idea an ex-president can be prosecuted for actions in office if appropriate, that was the entire point of pardoning Nixon after he resigned in the first place. But before Bush's term naturally expires and that point is reached, Congress has more important and more urgent things to do right now than try to force out of office a lame-duck president. What would be the point?
This exact same logic can be used to justify Ford pardoning Nixon, though. You're pissed at Ford because he didn't drag the country through a long and taxing trial, burning resources and money and time and trudging through two years of shit, because of the principle that a president shouldn't be above the law. Shouldn't this apply to the Dems in congress, as well?
Sure, Bush has been effectively neutered, and an impeachment would have no practical upshot. But the same could be said about Nixon. Sure, it has already been shown that a president can't fuck around with impunity and not expect to get cockslapped eventually. But the same could be said about Nixon.
I'm not even really trying to get you to see that Ford's pardoning was a good thing. Only that taking your logic and applying it to the Nixon pardon doesn't make Ford an awful person worthy of contempt. At worst, he made an error in judgement (and really, I don't think he did). That makes him human.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Perhaps he realized that when an ex-president speaks on policy, his thoughts are granted too much weight based on the level on importance he used to have, and didn't want to make the mistake of armchair-presidenting. If only certain other ex-presidents would follow tack.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Perhaps he realized that when an ex-president speaks on policy, his thoughts are granted too much weight based on the level on importance he used to have, and didn't want to make the mistake of armchair-presidenting. If only certain other ex-presidents would follow tack.
Perhaps he realized that when an ex-president speaks on policy, his thoughts are granted too much weight based on the level on importance he used to have, and didn't want to make the mistake of armchair-presidenting. If only certain other ex-presidents would follow tack.
Woodward wrote in the Post that his interview took place for a future book project, though the former president said his comments could be published at any time after his death.
Perhaps he realized that when an ex-president speaks on policy, his thoughts are granted too much weight based on the level on importance he used to have, and didn't want to make the mistake of armchair-presidenting. If only certain other ex-presidents would follow tack.
Or maybe he failed to grasp that it's a private citizen's right to voice their opinion, a leader and concerned critic's duty to do so, and ultimately the public's best interest to be making their decisions with as much information as possible. But then again, the guy who pardoned Nixon and worked on the Warren Commission wouldn't think much of the public's ability to think for themselves, would he?
This exact same logic can be used to justify Ford pardoning Nixon, though.
No it can't. I'm saying, the Congress doesn't have time to impeach Bush, and if they did it would have very little effect. Leon Jaworski, on the other hand, had time to prosecute Nixon-- prosecuting people was his job and such-- and this could have had real effect had Ford not pardoned him.
You're pissed at Ford because he didn't drag the country through a long and taxing trial, burning resources and money and time and trudging through two years of shit, because of the principle that a president shouldn't be above the law.
Right.
Shouldn't this apply to the Dems in congress, as well?
It isn't Congress's job to enforce the law. We have other branches of government for that. Congress has a responsibility to provide oversight on, investigate etc the actions of the rest of the government, of course, and I see no indications the Democratic-controlled congress will abdicate that responsibility the way the Republicans did. But as far as enforcing the law goes, the only option that congress has available to them is impeachment, and that's an option only available against persons actually holding some federal office at the time of impeachment. There is no remotely conceivable sequence of events that will allow an impeachment to finish within the next two years, therefore the democrats can't attempt to impeach Bush-- and if they do attempt to impeach bush, they can't succeed without the support of half the Senate Republicans, which seems unlikely except in a truly extreme circumstance given the extent to which those same congressional Republicans have spent the last five years trying to claim it's a good thing when the presidential administration breaks the law.
What the congressional Dems can do, what I expect them to do, and what I think they will do, is investigate some of the unsavory practices of the Bush administration of the last six years to determine whether, where, and by whom the law was broken. This is something that can be done without having to scramble for a two-year time limit, and it's a worthwhile endeavor even if no lawbreaking occurred because it increases governmental transparency. In the possibility, which I frankly don't find likely, that in the process of doing this Congress discovers Bush himself personally committed crime worthy of prosecution, it would be the responsibility of other branches of government to decide what if anything to do about it, not the legislature.
That's assuming President McCain doesn't offer Bush an unconditional pardon, of course.
Only [saying] that taking your logic and applying it to the Nixon pardon doesn't make Ford an awful person worthy of contempt.
No it can't. I'm saying, the Congress doesn't have time to impeach Bush, and if they did it would have very little effect. Leon Jaworski, on the other hand, had time to prosecute Nixon-- prosecuting people was his job and such-- and this could have had real effect had Ford not pardoned him.
What real effect could it have had? I don't mean Nixon being in jail (which would have been extremely unlikely even if he'd been prosecuted) versus him not. I mean on a large scale. What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place? It's not enough to say "Justice would've been served." Please explain what that would get us, that we're otherwise lacking.
It isn't Congress's job to enforce the law. We have other branches of government for that. Congress has a responsibility to provide oversight on, investigate etc the actions of the rest of the government, of course, and I see no indications the Democratic-controlled congress will abdicate that responsibility the way the Republicans did. But as far as enforcing the law goes, the only option that congress has available to them is impeachment, and that's an option only available against persons actually holding some federal office at the time of impeachment. There is no remotely conceivable sequence of events that will allow an impeachment to finish within the next two years, therefore the democrats can't attempt to impeach Bush-- and if they do attempt to impeach bush, they can't succeed without the support of half the Senate Republicans, which seems unlikely except in a truly extreme circumstance given the extent to which those same congressional Republicans have spent the last five years trying to claim it's a good thing when the presidential administration breaks the law.
It's extremely likely that the upshot of impeaching Bush would be about as meaningful as the upshot of prosecuting Nixon. That is, nothing gained but adherence to principle. Why was principle more important then than now? Was wiretapping political opponents and covering up a crime that he wasn't even party to really that much more heinous than incarcerating potentially innocent people in a dank hole with no chance of trial indefinitely, and more or less ignoring the Constitution?
Only [saying] that taking your logic and applying it to the Nixon pardon doesn't make Ford an awful person worthy of contempt.
Did I say he was?
Your commentary on him was pretty harsh. Perhaps I overstated your case. You certainly think his actions were awful and worthy of contempt.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place?
Well, it would have demonstrated to future presidents that if they willfully break the law, there will be some consequences other than public embarrassment followed by an enormous government pension for the rest of their lives.
There's a slight chance that as a result, the presidents since would have been a bit less cavalier about breaking the law.
Ford's problem wasn't so much that he pardoned Nixon as that he didn't really bother explaining why. If he had prepared the public and gone into his whole reasoning about how he didn't want his presidency marred by endless hearings, he might have found the country more sympathetic to his decision. Or at least not hating him so much for it. He just didn't give the American people that due respect.
...he did. He sat before a Congressional judiciary committee on that specific subject (I forget the chamber) for the sole purpose of answering questions on why he did it and explaining his reasoning. He has held to that reasoning until his dieing day, and more or less history has vindicated him. Watergate was taking up time and resources that the Fed really didn't have to waste rather than focusing on actual problems facing the country. Unemployment and inflation were at levels unmatched since the depression and having a circus wrapped around Nixon wouldn't have helped anybody.
To me, it's the principle of pardoning someone, particularly someone entrusted with so much responsibility.
For people who feel the Nixon pardon is warranted, could you perhaps outline other scenarios where you feel pardons are good? And let's go ahead and make the safe assumption that we're pardoning someone of a real crime, and not just some "alleged" crime to spare them the investigation. When else is it warranted to pardon a criminal?
Sorry, I'd go more in-depth, point by point, but cooking up longer, thought-out posts is harder at work, so I figured I'd just toss this in there while it's on my mind.
What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place?
Well, it would have demonstrated to future presidents that if they willfully break the law, there will be some consequences other than public embarrassment followed by an enormous government pension for the rest of their lives.
There's a slight chance that as a result, the presidents since would have been a bit less cavalier about breaking the law.
I'd just like to say that John McCain has very little chance of winning, due largely to the fact that the American Public isn't in the practice of electing men who do, in fact, have more than a passing resemblence to the common ghoul.
I'd just like to say that John McCain has very little chance of winning, due largely to the fact that the American Public isn't in the practice of electing men who do, in fact, have more than a passing resemblence to the common ghoul.
Yeah, it's too bad Dubya took the nomination from him back when he was alive. Undead McCain doesn't have the testicular fortitude for the job.
I'd just like to say that John McCain has very little chance of winning, due largely to the fact that the American Public isn't in the practice of electing men who do, in fact, have more than a passing resemblence to the common ghoul.
Yeah, it's too bad Dubya took the nomination from him back when he was alive. Undead McCain doesn't have the testicular fortitude for the job.
Yeah, I never understood that. Clinton, Bush, Jr., and Kerry all seem to have mysteriously appeared out of nowhere during their respective primaries. And they are all so connected to each other. I think Mr. T, Orville Redenbacher, and George Bush, Sr., really are in some kind of world-controlling cabal.
What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place?
Well, it would have demonstrated to future presidents that if they willfully break the law, there will be some consequences other than public embarrassment followed by an enormous government pension for the rest of their lives.
There's a slight chance that as a result, the presidents since would have been a bit less cavalier about breaking the law.
Or to be better at covering up their crimes.
I think it might be kinda hard to run a country when the former elected leader is being held in prison waiting for trial. They probably could have gotten away with it then, but the country would literaly shut down with today's news media.
What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place?
Well, it would have demonstrated to future presidents that if they willfully break the law, there will be some consequences other than public embarrassment followed by an enormous government pension for the rest of their lives.
There's a slight chance that as a result, the presidents since would have been a bit less cavalier about breaking the law.
Or to be better at covering up their crimes.
I think it might be kinda hard to run a country when the former elected leader is being held in prison waiting for trial. They probably could have gotten away with it then, but the country would literaly shut down with today's news media.
Posts
Some article I read described Tim Johnson, the Dem senator who collapsed, as "a youthful 59." Kind of a sad comment that pushing 60 makes you the young whipper-snapper on Capitol Hill.
"I think we've got an eater!"
"I'll get the oven on."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-89770458144460734&q=dana+carvey+tom+brokaw
Was Ruby paid to shoot Oswald?
Was Oswald set up?
We may never know
My impression of the situation (colored, of course, by the fact that I wasn't even alive when it happened) was that Ford made this decision for all the right reasons, exactly as you said. It was still a tremendous blunder, which marred his presidency and likely led to the massive Democratic victory in Congress as well as the election of Jimmy Carter. Plus, it further reinforced the notion that the President is above the law, and exempt from consequence. Though I don't want to draw a direct connection between the Nixon pardon and the current clusterfuck that is the Bush administration, I suspect that there is a certain causality there.
Also, it should be noted that, despite Ford's common image as a bumbler (due largely to SNL), he was probably the most athletic president the country ever had; he almost certainly could have played pro football and was also a skilled golfer and skier. Instead of playing football, he went to Yale, so he was also no dummy.
I think that history will ultimately regard Ford as a decent, honest, if unspectacular and disappointing President. He honestly wanted the best for the country but for the most part his actions blew up in his face. So, basically he was a Democrat.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Oh SNPP, I mourn your disappearance every single day. And I had forgotten about that Dan Rather skit.
Like most, I am largely unfamiliar with virtually every aspect of his presidency except his appointment and Nixon's pardon. He appointed Justice Stevens, which I suppose is notable.
Though I wish people hadn't held the impromptu celebrations in the street this morning. It made it hard to get around town.
Kiss me, Billy!
So, if we assume that Bush did do something impeachable/convictable, then how is this different than not-trying-to-impeach Bush come next January?
Uh.
Well, if there's no effort to impeach Bush in January, it will be for one of the following four hypothetical reasons:
1. There is not currently support in Congress for an impeachment or a drive for one
2. There is not currently support among the American Public for an impeachment or a drive for one
3. George W. Bush has not in any way I'm aware of been personally demonstrated to specifically have broken the law; if he has broken laws, Congress even so much as begun any investigation which might uncover the evidence which would show this. (And I don't think they'll find any. I think they should investigate any questionable actions the Bush administration has taken over the last four years anyway, just because if anything happened then the American public has a right to know, and my understanding is they plan to for that reason; but they won't find anything on Bush, since Bush himself will have been isolated from being allowed to do or know about anything illegal himself except torture.)
4. Even assuming it is possible, what on earth is the point of trying to impeach a president who hits the term limits in two years anyway and will be months or days from his term ending by the time you've even finished the paperwork? The impeachment proceedings took what, a year, two years to come to a head with Nixon? And evidence of explicit lawbreaking was practically shooting out of the Executive Branch's every orifice at that point. It's almost inconceivable that even an investigation of anything potentially illegal the Bush administration might have hypothetically done will finish before 2008. On the other hand, if evidence does show up of Bush having done something Watergate-level criminal, he can of course be convicted of those things after he leaves office; after all, there's precedent for the idea an ex-president can be prosecuted for actions in office if appropriate, that was the entire point of pardoning Nixon after he resigned in the first place. But before Bush's term naturally expires and that point is reached, Congress has more important and more urgent things to do right now than try to force out of office a lame-duck president. What would be the point?
On the other hand, the Nixon pardon was about an impending indictment, not an impeachment; the evidence of lawbreaking existed, was known to exist, had been found, and was in the hands of a prosecutor actually sitting ready to perform the indictment if he had to; and the levels and nature of support among pretty much everybody in the world were entirely different.
So... basically [pardoning Nixon] was different from [the 110th congress failing to impeach Bush] because it is different in every single imaginable way, except for the single fact that both of these two things are exactly what did/will happen.
What a sad, pathetic, spineless little fuck.
Because what he said would have actually affected Bush?
No, it wouldn't have.
This exact same logic can be used to justify Ford pardoning Nixon, though. You're pissed at Ford because he didn't drag the country through a long and taxing trial, burning resources and money and time and trudging through two years of shit, because of the principle that a president shouldn't be above the law. Shouldn't this apply to the Dems in congress, as well?
Sure, Bush has been effectively neutered, and an impeachment would have no practical upshot. But the same could be said about Nixon. Sure, it has already been shown that a president can't fuck around with impunity and not expect to get cockslapped eventually. But the same could be said about Nixon.
I'm not even really trying to get you to see that Ford's pardoning was a good thing. Only that taking your logic and applying it to the Nixon pardon doesn't make Ford an awful person worthy of contempt. At worst, he made an error in judgement (and really, I don't think he did). That makes him human.
Perhaps he realized that when an ex-president speaks on policy, his thoughts are granted too much weight based on the level on importance he used to have, and didn't want to make the mistake of armchair-presidenting. If only certain other ex-presidents would follow tack.
Right.
It isn't Congress's job to enforce the law. We have other branches of government for that. Congress has a responsibility to provide oversight on, investigate etc the actions of the rest of the government, of course, and I see no indications the Democratic-controlled congress will abdicate that responsibility the way the Republicans did. But as far as enforcing the law goes, the only option that congress has available to them is impeachment, and that's an option only available against persons actually holding some federal office at the time of impeachment. There is no remotely conceivable sequence of events that will allow an impeachment to finish within the next two years, therefore the democrats can't attempt to impeach Bush-- and if they do attempt to impeach bush, they can't succeed without the support of half the Senate Republicans, which seems unlikely except in a truly extreme circumstance given the extent to which those same congressional Republicans have spent the last five years trying to claim it's a good thing when the presidential administration breaks the law.
What the congressional Dems can do, what I expect them to do, and what I think they will do, is investigate some of the unsavory practices of the Bush administration of the last six years to determine whether, where, and by whom the law was broken. This is something that can be done without having to scramble for a two-year time limit, and it's a worthwhile endeavor even if no lawbreaking occurred because it increases governmental transparency. In the possibility, which I frankly don't find likely, that in the process of doing this Congress discovers Bush himself personally committed crime worthy of prosecution, it would be the responsibility of other branches of government to decide what if anything to do about it, not the legislature.
That's assuming President McCain doesn't offer Bush an unconditional pardon, of course.
Did I say he was?
What real effect could it have had? I don't mean Nixon being in jail (which would have been extremely unlikely even if he'd been prosecuted) versus him not. I mean on a large scale. What social benefits would have been realized by prosecuting Nixon that outweighed the social benefits of not prosecuting him? How would the nation have been made a better place? It's not enough to say "Justice would've been served." Please explain what that would get us, that we're otherwise lacking.
It's extremely likely that the upshot of impeaching Bush would be about as meaningful as the upshot of prosecuting Nixon. That is, nothing gained but adherence to principle. Why was principle more important then than now? Was wiretapping political opponents and covering up a crime that he wasn't even party to really that much more heinous than incarcerating potentially innocent people in a dank hole with no chance of trial indefinitely, and more or less ignoring the Constitution?
Your commentary on him was pretty harsh. Perhaps I overstated your case. You certainly think his actions were awful and worthy of contempt.
There's a slight chance that as a result, the presidents since would have been a bit less cavalier about breaking the law.
...he did. He sat before a Congressional judiciary committee on that specific subject (I forget the chamber) for the sole purpose of answering questions on why he did it and explaining his reasoning. He has held to that reasoning until his dieing day, and more or less history has vindicated him. Watergate was taking up time and resources that the Fed really didn't have to waste rather than focusing on actual problems facing the country. Unemployment and inflation were at levels unmatched since the depression and having a circus wrapped around Nixon wouldn't have helped anybody.
For people who feel the Nixon pardon is warranted, could you perhaps outline other scenarios where you feel pardons are good? And let's go ahead and make the safe assumption that we're pardoning someone of a real crime, and not just some "alleged" crime to spare them the investigation. When else is it warranted to pardon a criminal?
Sorry, I'd go more in-depth, point by point, but cooking up longer, thought-out posts is harder at work, so I figured I'd just toss this in there while it's on my mind.
Or to be better at covering up their crimes.
I think it might be kinda hard to run a country when the former elected leader is being held in prison waiting for trial. They probably could have gotten away with it then, but the country would literaly shut down with today's news media.
This makes no sense.