You can’t just write an article about a former President without getting in digs about the current administration can you? President Ford and his wife have done so much to improve the human condition, but you have to get the ‘dig’ in about the current occupant of the Oval office - it really must make your day!
You are a true ‘blue’ american…and really have to make the other people bleed ‘red’ whenever you have a chance to do so. Dear Lord – what are you waiting for? I am ready to be made ‘white’ as snow.
Blessings on the Ford Family and the memory of a great American – G. R. Ford.
This was tacky.
Great article by Duane. As someone who has spent his lifetime in Grand Rapids, I have much respect for President Gerald R. Ford.
I care not if you are 'blue' or 'red,' he had integrity. What current elected officials in Washington currently live by 'honesty is the best policy'? Not too many... we can only hope for those peope to return.
Remind me to never go to a funeral where Duane Shank is speaking.
This harkens back to the Wellstone memorial service. It kind of shows how much common decency has declined. Some people don't seem to realize how rude it is to politicize someone's passing.
Though I did not vote for Gerald Ford, I came to appreciate his stewardship of the office and of the country as years passed and I grew older, and yes, wiser. I listened again to his speech announcing the pardon of Nixon and was struck again, with the decency, the wisdom, and the humility; knowing that if he was to receive mercy, in the end, he must grant it. May God bless him and keep him.
This is a fine piece.
The passing of a person of Ford's stature is always politicized (even calling him "a great American" is "politicizing" of a sort.) But let's hope the orgy of bathetic rightwing ultranationalism that followed Ronald Reagan's death, which took "tacky" to olympian heights, is avoided in this instance.
Since Duane Shank isn't speaking at a funeral, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate for him to include a reflection on current politics when discussing the passing and significance of a political figure.
I'll go further and speak ill of the dead: despite Gerald Ford's general decency, he probably did us a disservice by ending "the long national nightmare" the way he did, with the pardon of Nixon. That act, I believe, contributed to a political culture of unaccountability and impunity.
We didn't need vengeance but we needed justice. The judicial process against Nixon would have continued the unpleasantness and sense of turmoil, but it might have raised the perceived cost of political wrong-doing and headed off some later crimes.
Nowadays, pardoned political felons can be brought back into positions of power with impunity.
He spoke well of Ford and pointed out accurately the parallels to today’s situation.
Then asked for someone to step up and be truthful, candid and straightforward.
Of course the Republi-Nazi apologist see an opportunity in every word uttered.
They, the RN, politicize everything.
Excuse me - but from one that lives in MN and tried to watch the memorial for Wellstone. ( or as it became the Wellstone Memorial Rally) I believe that it is the liberals that have cornered the market on tacky. When the university police have to move the republicans that came out of respect to Paul Wellstone to a safe place because the republicans were being pelted with various objects from the other side (liberal)...that is over the edge.
But then it seems that is where some liberals need to be as they can not hold their own with their peers.
OK - Ford is dead so why don't those of you that seem to hate him so break open your favorite adult beverage and toast to one less republican in the world.
I for one will give Carter and Clinton the respect that they deserve as former Presidents of the United States and ask God to be with their families as they greve their passing.
rob, you idiot quote what anyone said about hating Former Pres Ford.
Once again, Robster plays his 'I'm a victim of liberal abuse' card.
You can’t just write an article about a former President without getting in digs about the current administration can you? President Ford and his wife have done so much to improve the human condition, but you have to get the ‘dig’ in about the current occupant of the Oval office - it really must make your day!
You are a true ‘blue’ american…and really have to make the other people bleed ‘red’ whenever you have a chance to do so. Dear Lord – what are you waiting for? I am ready to be made ‘white’ as snow.
This is getting to be a joke, Robster.
'Victim of Liberal Abuse' cards will no longer be honored here.
.
Good editorial Duane, the actions of a man in the position of president should be exposed and not covered up. If Ford did something wrong we need to transparent so that there are no secrets.
When we hold the presidency of the United States up as a great position it is important for the truth to be held up so that we don't have anything to be ashamed of.
Peace!
As a native Michigander, I was brought up on family vacations to the Ford Library. Though as an adult I don't agree with his politics, I have the utmost respect for the man and the honor he brought back to the presidency. That said, how could we not look and compare Ford's words to the word's we need to hear from our current president? Bush has created a division in our country; he needs to bridge the gap of red and blue and find a moral center. Perhaps the reflections on Ford's words will serve as guide not only for Bush's words, but also his future actions.
I appreciate Duane Shank's reflections. I wish (and perhaps hope) that the words about truth, openness, and candor reflected Gerald Ford's and other presidents' actions as well as their stated ideals. However, deep down, I doubt that Gerald Ford or any President, democratic or republican, has consistently been truthful and candid. I suspect the public record reveals this to anyone who wants to investigate.
Accepting my doubt as true, an important question is how a decent man such as Gerald Ford would feel compeled to be less than truthful or candid. An altenative question might be just what we mean when we say that a President should be truthful and candid.
Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq
By Bob Woodward, December 28, 2006;
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6122701558.html
.
I opposed the war in Vietnam and the present war. Ford was just a blip on the screen during that period of conflict between those who had to have war and those who wanted America to live in peace with it neighbors.
The metaphor of healing is inaccurate. The festering boil was covered over by a bandaide. It may have been healing for the Republicans but it continued a culture war that continues to this day.
I do not understand how "Christians" can continue to support violence as a tool to subjugate other countries into business deals that benefit us.
Justintime wrote -
'Victim of Liberal Abuse' cards will no longer be honored here.
- Sorry, never played the ‘victim’ card here. It is just that why do the writers on this website (not those of us that post) have to get a dig in against this adm. even in writing about the death of a former president? Ford did a lot of good in his time of public service and was a great man to many. He has been the recipient of many awards since he left office from both liberal and conservative groups. There is so much that could be said about him and his life and family.
- Please God – when Pres. Clinton passes, don’t let anyone write about the women he abused, blue dresses, cigars that left world leaders waiting in the Rose Garden etc. Let his daughter morn the passing of a father that loved her without embarrassment.
- Yes, I know that so many of you still gag at Ford's pardon of Pres Nixon. He also offered amnesty to the draft dodgers in an effort to begin the healing. Can we morn and remember a former Pres without taking pot shots at the current one - please.
Robsture, my brother in Christ,
why is this so important to you?
Kevin--
I would agree. Watergate WAS tacky, as was/is innocents dying for no reason.
The parallels exist in all the important ways.
Do the decent thing and acknowlege them.
To me the main missing piece of the puzzle is; we keep allowing politicians to cover up their own parties bad behavior. I'm looking for the party or politician who calls for reform in their own ranks.
You can look at any President or Congressman that behaved poorly and there were many who knew or participated.
This is not partician, we don't need information when it is to late.
In my life time, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 and maybe all of them were involved in things unlawful or unconstitional.
We need to know in real time?
Herbert Huncke wrote -
why is this so important to you?
- I just find it extremely tasteless that when writing about the death of someone you would take the time and blast something that has nothing to do with that person. But I am finding out that it seems to be permissible and approved of if it is a liberal dissing a conservative.
- I was very sad when Wellstone’s plane went down. Talked with my friend for hours who knew him well. Then to see how the liberals acted toward the conservatives at the memorial – throwing things at them…please. Let us celebrate his life and accomplishments; you can also mention their shortcomings. But to blast someone that had no connection to Ford other than being the President – some 30 years apart.
- Don’t know if you saw the Bright Eyes video…that was tasteless, if in fact this website is trying to bring liberals and conservatives together in hopefully meaningful dialog. Still looking for some apology from Wallis or the Web-Master about that one.
- There are many things that I don’t agree with that are articles on this site or postings like yours and mine. I will say when I don’t agree with them and will give my view. But I have never labeled people that don’t agree with me as ‘trolls’ or what they write is bs. Sadly, that can not be said about some on the other side of the issue. Come-on…tell the person where you think their logic is lacking – don’t attack their character, label them or diss them as ‘victims’.
- I have found this site to be one of the most intolerant places for anyone that disagrees with what the web-master or Mr. Wallis allows to be put on this site.
- Most likely more than you wanted to hear - sorry
- Praying for a more tolerant 2007
Robstur,
I join in your prayer for more tolerance.
Have a happy New Year.
Rob your logic is so bad that I would have to take you to task on every point, trully. All of your connections come out of feelings about things unsupported by facts.
The Wellstone things may be facts but not connected in any logical way.
I was being kind when I said BS, I really think your nuts.
Butch
Its OK - your logic is a little off on my meter so we can just disagree - I just will be more tolerant in hopes of having meaningful conversation with others and in some way open their eyes to another point of view.
Rob
Rob you point out things you saw about Wellstone, then your feelings about that.
It has nothing to do with Ford or what Ford has to say on these newly released tapes.
Stay on Ford and I will go anywhere you want later.
Robstur wrote that "liberals" threw objects at Republicans at Wellstone's funeral and that university police had to move them to safety.
I've read accounts of that event from both sides and haven't seen any reference to that. The hoo-ha that I read in places like the Weekly Standard was about some scattered booing and a couple of "win one for the Gipper" passage in speeches by Wellstone's son Mark and another young mourner.
I googled "Wellstone funeral" and "university police" and came up with no references at all.
Bill,
Like you, I haven't seen any proof of Robster's claims.
I think this was just another story cooked up by right wing spinners to direct sympathetic feelings toward themselves and away from Wellstone.
Right wingers are always using the phony victim ploy to get sympathy and obfuscate their brazen hypocrisy.
Robster wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual.
Along with many others, I'm suspicious of Wellstone's plane crash, but I haven't seen convincing evidence on that either.
.
Returning to President Ford, although in an earlier comment I referred to his "general decency", I think it's also appropriate to remind oneself that general decency in the context of politics doesn't mean that a decent person doesn't do terrible and destructive things.
A case in point is Indonesia's invasion and oppression of East Timor. President Ford, with Kissinger, gave approval in advance.
Similarly, President Ford, through Kissinger, gave approval to the start of the "dirty war" in Argentina and to the reign of Pinochet, despite qualm over human rights abuses, in Chile.
Seeing eveything leftist and socialist through the lens of the Cold War and anti-Soviet Communism made coups, murder, and torture acceptable.
Yet Ford was "an honorable man. So are they all, all honorable men."
As we mourn the passing of a decent man and give condolences to his family, we should also mourn those who were slaughtered by their governments which he supported. And try to do something about it.
justintime wrote -
Robster wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual.
Along with many others, I'm suspicious of Wellstone's plane crash, but I haven't seen convincing evidence on that either.
- But I live in MN and had friends from both parties that were invited to the event and they were the ones that informed me as to what went on.
- As for the plane crack - I guess you believe that was a vast RR conspiracy too.
- Oh that all our dirty laundry could be hung out after we die for all to see and we can not defend ourselves. Now that is a society that I want to be a part of - NOT!
- You seem to know me so well and just have a great time dismissing anything I say because of your ?? meter. Get a life - as I have said in the past I am much more complicated than you give my credit for and extremely more understanding of other people and their opinions than you have shown to be.
Rob, you can't stay on point, your references do not relate to the discussion.
"Right wingers are always using the phony victim ploy to get sympathy and obfuscate their brazen hypocrisy."
Actually, the controversy surrounding Wellstone's funeral we it's own brazen political turn. The instigator for the sour turn in public opinion was Jesse Ventura's departure from the service. Ventura is not a Republican.
Same old Republi-Nazi switch.
What do Wellstone or Ventura have to do with Pres Ford's death.
We can learn from Ford's life or times?
As it works out Ford did leave us a legacy in his own words.
When Bush/Cheney are removed from office,
I hope we get a solid, fair minded replacement that can listen to the American people.
Someone at least as good as President Ford was after we removed Nixon/Agnew from office.
Ford wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree,
but he was fair minded, relatively honest and he could listen.
I'll miss President Gerald R. Ford.
I wish the GOP could find more leaders like him.
.
justin
Ford's circumstances and times doesn't really let us know what he was capable of.
Hi Duane, thanks for your continually thoughtful reflections. Blessings, Joe
OK Butch -
I am to 'stay to the point' and bringing up Wellstone is 'wrong' on your meter but Justintime talks about the removal of Bush/Cheney and you are OK with that? Wellstone is dead and had a funeral and it got out of hand - overly political. Now we have someone writing about Ford's passing and have to get a dig in about Bush - and that is OK?
My original premise was that can we talk about the life of a public servant with out the side bar comments about someone from the other party.
I will be a work the day of the funeral and so I will tape it to watch later - hoping to hear about Ford's life, faith and family. I would have really liked to have heard the same at Wellstone’s' service - but all I heard was comments about 'interim presidents - keeping Paul's seat in the Senate with the Democratic Party – Harkin from Iowa caring on about ‘whatever’ - etc. Coleman was the one with class - after is was determined that Wellstone and some members of his family had died in the crash - he made a statement to the citizens of MN and the US that now was not the time to campaign so that the family could have time to grieve and then took his political sign out of his front yard. He said nothing until the memorial service was over. Now that is class.
And you bring up Wellstone again then in comes Harkin from somewhere out your feelings.
Feelings are wonderful and terrible, bring your intellect to inform your feelings.
Butch -
Again you are the King of the one liners. Totally skipping my origional premise. You approve when someone sticks it to the Rep. regardless of the issue but are very protective of the oppsite.
I look forward to watching the Ford memorial service and hear about a great american. I am sure that there will not be a Rep. counterpart of Harkin spewing 'whatever', which will be refreshing.
What about Coleman and his respect for Wellstone - too much feeing on that one eh?
Robstur you idiot, what does Colemam, Wellstone and Harkin have to do with Pres Ford's death.
And you feel I've approved of some Rep which I know nothing about, this is all out of your own mind.
PS, when you respond be sure to add one more name to the list of Wellsone, Harkin and Coleman!
The thing is someone could just as easily take some other words that Ford said and use them to attack Democrats. Or you could use the same words to attack Clinton for his own dishonesty. You could do tit for tat all day long.
It's all just in poor taste. And it would be just as rude for someone to use his death for attacks against Democrats.
Well, Jesse, Robster,
You haven't read an irreverent eulogy until you read Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy for Richard M. Nixon.
MEMO FROM THE NATIONAL AFFAIRS DESK
DATE: MAY 1, 1994
FROM: DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON
SUBJECT: THE DEATH OF RICHARD NIXON:
NOTES ON THE PASSING OF AN AMERICAN MONSTER... HE WAS A LIAR AND A QUITTER, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED AT SEA... BUT HE WAS, AFTER ALL, THE PRESIDENT.
"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is becoming the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of
every unclean and hateful bird."--REVELATION 18:2
Richard Nixon is gone now and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing--a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."
I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, and I am a better person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.
Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said. "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."
It was Richard Nixon who got me into politics, and now that he's gone, I feel lonely. He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive--and he was, all the way to the end--we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.
That was Nixon's style--and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don't fight fair, bubba. That's why God made dachshunds.
Nixon was a navy man, and he should have been buried at sea. Many of his friends were seagoing people: Bebe Rebozo, Robert Vesco, William F. Buckley Jr., and some of them wanted a full naval burial.
These come in at least two styles, however, and Nixon's immediate family strongly opposed both of them. In the traditionalist style, the dead president's body would be wrapped and sewn loosely in canvas sailcloth and dumped off the stern of a frigate at least 100 miles off the coast and at least 1,000 miles south of San Diego, so the corpse could never wash up on American soil in any recognizable form.
The family opted for cremation until they were advised of the potentially onerous implications of a strictly private, unwitnessed burning of the body of the man who was, after all, the President of the United States. Awkward questions might be raised, dark allusions to Hitler and Rasputin. People would be filing lawsuits to get their hands on the dental charts. Long court battles would be inevitable--some with liberal cranks bitching about corpus delicti and habeas corpus and others with giant insurance companies trying not to pay off on his death benefits. Either way, an orgy of greed and duplicity was sure to follow any public hint that Nixon might have somehow faked his own death or been cryogenically transferred to fascist Chinese interests on the Central Asian Mainland.
It would also play into the hands of those millions of self-stigmatized patriots like me who believe these things already.
If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.
These are harsh words for a man only recently canonized by President Clinton and my old friend George McGovern--but I have written worse things about Nixon, many times, and the record will show that I kicked him repeatedly long before he went down. I beat him like a mad dog with mange every time I got a chance, and I am proud of it. He was scum.
Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man--evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him--except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.
It is fitting that Richard Nixon's final gesture to the American people was a clearly illegal series of 21 105-mm howitzer blasts that shattered the peace of a residential neighborhood and permanently disturbed many children. Neighbors also complained about another unsanctioned burial in the yard at the old Nixon place, which was brazenly illegal. "It makes the whole neighborhood like a graveyard," said one. "And it ****s up my children's sense of values."
Many were incensed about the howitzers--but they knew there was nothing they could do about it--not with the current president sitting about 50 yards away and laughing at the roar of the cannons. It was Nixon's last war, and he won.
The funeral was a dreary affair, finely staged for TV and shrewdly dominated by ambitious politicians and revisionist historians. The Rev. Billy Graham, still agile and eloquent at the age of 136, was billed as the main speaker, but he was quickly upstaged by two 1996 GOP presidential candidates: Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas and Gov. Pete Wilson of California, who formally hosted the event and saw his poll numbers crippled when he got blown off the stage by Dole, who somehow seized the No. 3 slot on the roster and uttered such a shameless, self-serving eulogy that even he burst into tears at the end of it.
Dole's stock went up like a rocket and cast him as the early GOP front-runner for '96. Wilson, speaking next, sounded like an Engelbert Humperdinck impersonator and probably won't even be re-elected as governor of California in November.
The historians were strongly represented by the No. 2 speaker, Henry Kissinger, Nixon's secretary of state and himself a zealous revisionist with many axes to grind. He set the tone for the day with a maudlin and spectacularly self-serving portrait of Nixon as even more saintly than his mother and as a president of many godlike accomplishments--most of them put together in secret by Kissinger, who came to California as part of a huge publicity tour for his new book on diplomacy, genius, Stalin, H.P. Lovecraft and other great minds of our time, including himself and Richard Nixon.
Kissinger was only one of the many historians who suddenly came to see Nixon as more than the sum of his many squalid parts. He seemed to be saying that History will not have to absolve Nixon, because he has already done it himself in a massive act of will and crazed arrogance that already ranks him supreme, along with other Nietzschean supermen like Hitler, Jesus, Bismarck and the Emperor Hirohito. These revisionists have catapulted Nixon to the status of an American Caesar, claiming that when the definitive history of the 20th century is written, no other president will come close to Nixon in stature. "He will dwarf FDR and Truman," according to one scholar from Duke University.
It was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death. When students at Kent State University, in Ohio, protested the bombing, he connived to have them attacked and slain by troops from the National Guard.
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism--which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.
Nixon's meteoric rise from the unemployment line to the vice presidency in six quick years would never have happened if TV had come along 10 years earlier. He got away with his sleazy "my dog Checkers" speech in 1952 because most voters heard it on the radio or read about it in the headlines of their local, Republican newspapers. When Nixon finally had to face the TV cameras for real in the 1960 presidential campaign debates, he got whipped like a red-headed mule. Even die-hard Republican voters were shocked by his cruel and incompetent persona. Interestingly, most people who heard those debates on the radio thought Nixon had won. But the mushrooming TV
The last part of Hunter S. Thompson's Nixon eulogy was truncated by haloscan.
The rest is here:
http://www.liberalavenger.com/20...xons-
death.html
My deepest apologies if this has offended anyone.
.
justintime wrote -
You haven't read an irreverent eulogy until you read Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy for Richard M. Nixon.
- whatever...but this was not an article on a website that has a 'desire' to bring Dems and Reps together with greater understanding. I believe (not feelings Butch) that most of the articles are written by people that only take on the liberal montra. Thompsons' eulogy was written and is partisan - so is Duane's. But is the mission of Sojo moved forward with such an article? Is the posting of Bright the Eyes video supporting the mission of Sojo?
I don't think so and feel ($%^& sorry Butch) it does more to seperate us than unit us. I am more interested in 'understanding' not so concerned that we have to be in total agreement.
Happy New Year.
.
Much better Rob, now you are not accusing someone, rather looking to close the divide.
Remember when you feel something stop and look for the evidence that supports your feelings. In the absence of evidence then you may be simply wrong.
Butch wrote -
Much better Rob,
- whatever. look, your want to judge the debate - work with your local high school debate team. You have brought very little to the table when it comes to most of my observations. Most of the articles on this website are written to rally the liberal troupes and more or less totally dismiss any conservative view point.
I am not seeing where the writers want us to be 'purple'. From most of what I have read I could get the same information and bias by reading CNN. Where do you see the middle ground or closing the gap? Every step that I try to take to the middle - most writers take a step backwards - I am not going to chase the carrot on the stick anymore.
Mr. Wallis - you are a liberal and I find so little that could be viewed as a conservative thought I don't think we can come to terms much less understanding or agreement. Be proud that you are a liberal; there is no shame in that. But do not insult my intelligence that you want to enter into open dialog with someone like me. Yes - I am looking for the apology for Bright Eyes. That did nothing more than drive a huge wedge between you and me. (I am not concerned that it might be the web-master...this is you site isn't it?)
Praying that all of you have a great 2007 - not sure that I will be back as I will be looking for a site that truly wants to talk about the issues and respect each others opinions. Where it is OK to agree to disagree without being labeled as a Troll or BS.
I am still reading your book Mr. Wallis - I have read My Life - Living History and It Takes A Village - and I am a %^& conservative.
Rob, I went back an searched this entire thread and the only reference to Bright Eyes is from your post.
How could anyone on this thread owe you or anyone an apology about Bright Eyes when you are the only one talking about what ever it is?
If you will quit thinking of your self as conservative you will be able to actually think!
Butch wrote -
If you will quit thinking of your self as conservative you will be able to actually think!
- That one got by your meter?
- that is as offensive as if I had said the opposite to you. Liberal - smart, conservative - dumb. Yup - king of the insensitive one liners. The major problem that I see when it comes to having any meaningful discussion on topics is that liberals want to narrow the margin of what can be talked about on the issue for conservatives but broad brush their observations. Liberals are the only ones in the game that are allowed to play the race - tolerance - bipartisanship cards. Cards that are never deal to the conservatives and I don't need them. I an not and never will be the victim.
- there were many that agreed with me on the Bright Eyes video before it was removed the same day that it was posted.
-
I can vouch that there was a pretty offensive post featuring a clip from a Bright Eyes song that was also pretty offensive. It was removed, rightly so, which to me is recognition enough that it didn't belong here to begin with.
I liked Gerry Ford. I think He did what seemed best to bring peace to a riven country. But I think it was a big mistake to pardon the Nixon Whitehouse. You really shoudn't be able to pardon someone before a trial. It invites disrespect for the law. In this case, it has fostered a vision of executive power that is clearly and dangerously inconsistent with the Constitution. The chief executor of the Constitution must be fully accountable to constitutional due process in his or her stewardship. In fact I think the entire idea of executive pardons is an invitation to corruption and has rarely beeen used for the commomn good.
I believe the "national nightmare" of financial corruption, executive privelege and unaccountable power( as much connected to Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin based escalation of the VietNam War as Nixon's power abuses)was not ended by Gerald Ford's pardon. The same rascals came back with more lies and war, more spying and secrets, more CIA killings and torture. The long national nightmare, which I believe is rooted in the corrupting influence of an unholy marriage between Imperial militarism abroad and big money politics at home, has only been delayed. A self governing people cannot make corrections if serious crimes and errors are not brought to light.
Rob you don't get it Bright Eyes has nothing to do with Ford, nor does Wellstone, Coleman, etc.
Were you ever diagnosed with attention deficit?
What you see as insensitive is exactly as I would talk to my son or grandson who wasn’t thinking clearly. Jumping about grabbing for anything to support a self proclaimed title of conservative. And I am probably more conservative than you are.
Butch wrote -
Were you ever diagnosed with attention deficit?
- so you don't care for my analogies but seem to praise others when their analogies blast the current administration. My comparing the Wellstone memorial and what happened there as to what I feel ($%^& there is that word again) or hope/know will not happen at the Ford memorial. The respect that Colman gave to the Wellstone family at his untimely and tragic death - i.e. not politicizing it. To what I have read on this website from the articles and postings about Ford's passing and making political jabs at the Bush adm.
attention deficit - troll - bs - what else do you have to label people that you do not agree with?
attention deficit - maybe - you seem to enjoy disrespecting me but never engaging my except with the uplifting one liners you are so good at. Well - I believe that I can have one word for you - Bye. Find someone else to take you frustrations out on - I want to talk to someone that will engage me and maybe - just maybe by showing me another perspective and not shutting me off with the BS phrase - change my mind.
I am a flawed conservative but at least I am not arrogant.
Rob you don't get it, you come out of your head with things that are not connected to reality. When uou say I "seem to" means you feel something, now find facts to support those feelings?
Find my words and quote them when I praised others?
Butch
not interested anymore - you hold me and others that are more conservative to your higher standard that the Bush haters you seem to agree with more. I am to be more 'on point' but they could say something as stupid as 'the wheather sure is lousey today - %^&* Bush and his adm.' and you would can make that connection. But compairing funerals like the Wellstone rally (as if a conservative would have been asked to speek at that one) and what will be a more dignified service for Ford - even to the point of having Carter speek. You dismiss the idea that their is any connection between the funerals or even ask for clariication about what I wrote.
You're just not worth the effort when I get labeled with AD or BS or whatever your new little phrase is going to be -
Have a great life - Bye
.
I asked one simple question, below.
"Find my words and quote them when I praised others?"
You jump all around again and never address the simple question.
Butch
not commenting anymore - I have been 'labeled' enough.
Bye
-
I asked a simple direct question, no label.
Duane, you nailed it. Pres Ford was a good and decent man who at least tried to follow his best instincts and a good portion of the time succeeded. We do need to hear those healing words again, because we're in the midst of another "State of Denial" (apologies to Woodward). I don't know if there is anyone who is capable of giving the nation what it needs at this time, they're so all consumed with themselves. Perhaps John Edwards? Barak Obama? Perhaps.
Debbie Lackowitz wrote -
I don't know if there is anyone who is capable of giving the nation what it needs at this time, they're so all consumed with themselves. Perhaps John Edwards? Barak Obama? Perhaps.
- You are most likely right in that that they are 'consumed with themselves'. But to select Edwards or Obama as a comparison to Ford - don't see the connection. Ford as a Republican was more moderate even in his voting record in the house. On a scale of 1 to 10 one being conservative and 10 more liberal I think a Ford is somewhere between a 4 and a 5. Using the same scale for the other two - they are more 9 to 10. Edwards according to some anaylsis is more liberal the H Clinton. I understand your thinking and as you see it - your thoughts are OK. But I would put an Edwards up next to a Newt G as comparisons to the political ideologies.
Just my thoughts - still not the victim
-
By posting here, you agree to abide by the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct.
