Guest you blithering idiot---

>The hype over Ford's "private views" (I guess Woodward's shopping for >another Pulitzer) over Iraq is a non-starter. Ford showed the same >cowardice by not speaking out honestly--and publicly--

Clearly you know nothing, NOTHING about the standards of conduct
of former US Presidents. They make it a rule to keep their opinions
to themselves regarding the sitting president once they've left
office.

For good reasons: First, job is difficult enough without having a
former president, or two, or six publically second-guessing
what the current pres is doing. Second, the ex-President is
privy to certain information upon which he'd base his sideline
opinions, information which he is not free to share, perhaps
even in the form of an 'informed opinion' and certainly not
to publically justify that opinion.

Former Presidents take on the proper role of 'elder statesmen'
and can be extraordinarily effective in those roles.

They are, like good grandfathers are to parents, careful not to
undermine the ability of the sitting President to do his job, but
available for trusted counsel and consultation when asked.

They do these thing because they, themselves were accorded the
same respect when they were in the office.

>that he did >when he pardoned Nixon in order to put distance between >Nixon and the
>Republican Party.

Gerry Ford was not stupid. He knew there'd be fall-out and if
he wanted the Party distanced from Nixon, he'd have let the trial
play out and let the Party position Nixon as a 'bad apple.' Ford
was not particularly calculating--- if he said he did it to allow
the country and the administration to move on, that has to be
accepted at face-value.

>I've been watching all the cable news (including C-SPAM) this week, >and there are also "intimations" of the quid pro quo.

Where did you see this? The NPR report indicated that all Alexander
Haig was able to go back to Nixon with was that a pardon was not
out of the question, before the resignation. Not that it was
guaranteed.

>Future historians will be able to prove the quid pro quo, of that I >have no doubt.

Well, if you have no doubt...

>They will also show that Ford's decision to intervene and short >-circuit the constitutional process regarding impeachment has done >more damage to the constitution than was orginally thought.

Huh? Do you know the Constitution? Once Nixon resigned he was
no longer president and COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. It was NIXON
who 'short-circuited' the process, not Ford. If he'd not been
pardoned, Nixon likely would have been prosecuted for 'conspiracy,'
which is notoriously hard to prove. And it likely would have been,
at best 'conspiracy after the fact.'

>Ford's divine intervention in the impeachment process, which as I
>said was all about political expediency and NOT this revisionist >bullshit "healing the nation"

I don't think many people are saying 'healing.' It clearly didn't
heal the nation's relationship with the Republican Party. After
all do you really think Jimmy Carter could have won an election
without Watergate? What it DID do was spare us a continuation of
the Watergate hearings ad nauseum.

>crap we keep hearing repeated every news cycle right now (along with
>the idiotic Betty and me love story),

What is your issue with the guy? So he loved his wife and stuck
with her through thick and thin. Last time I checked, that was a
good thing.

>paved the way for the subverting of the constitution we have seen
>since 9/11 by both parties, ie the undermining of the constitution >with the Patriot Act, the executive branch putting themselves above >the law with the support of the courts (which has been relentless >since the Nixon administration), the Supreme Court intervention to >stop the Florida vote count in 2000, the abrogation of Congress' >oversight responsibilities and usurpation of it's constitutional >powers by both it's own members and the executive branch, blah blah >blah.

How about bird flu. Did Gerry Ford invent that too?

I fail to see the linkage. Gerald Ford exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL
powers to give a presidential pardon which, as it turned out, was
in the interest of the nation, to a president who had disposed of
himself rather neatly.

The notion of 'executive privilege' was really cemented by the
FDR administration, in their intervention in the economy during
the Depression.

How the silly Patriot Act relates to the Ford administration
eludes me--- especially as that administration seemed to be the
one to actually REDUCE US involvement in an undeclared war. As
I recall Ford didn't fight Congress on their reluctance to
continue to finance intervention in Viet Nam.

If you're talking about 'executive privilege' note that Nixon---
like Thomas Jefferson before him--- didn't prevail with that
argument.

In short, I find your arguments neither lucid nor cogent.