Has There Been a Better Enviromental President Since Gerald Ford?

Kind of amazing, isn't it? These days, he'd probably be considered too left-wing eco-wacked for either party.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec, 08:33 AM) [snapback]367169[/snapback]</div>

Except that he was not elected, either to the Vice Presidency or the Presidency. Maybe that's what it takes to get good things done?

 

May G. Ford rest in peace.

 

I forgot all about that (Like most people, I probably remember him most for the pardoning Nixon thing - which I notice they're now spinning to make it sound like a good thing. As if, as modern teenagers would say. That, and the WIN buttons). Maybe he wasn't such a doofus, after all.

 

I suppose CAFE success can be spun either way, but I see it as regulation that helped to usher in the SUV era, and was therefore a failure, beaten by the laws of unintended consequences. We as a society must contend with a couple of realities:

1. In general, americans LIKE big cars
2. And they like big engines.
3. A perception that bigger is safer is rampant.

Regulations are not going to help here; only cost will educate IMO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Dec 27 2006, 01:22 PM) [snapback]367233[/snapback]</div>

Yes; grab them by their wallets and their hearts and minds will follow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 27 2006, 11:33 AM) [snapback]367169[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I see Gerald Ford as the man who subverted the legal process...

...we'd finally proven that even the President isn't above the law...then Ford pardons Nixon and proves that, really, it's knowing people on the inside of the law that's important.

A reprehensible act that's done lots to further the idea that laws are selectively enforceable (are you listening, police officers with "get out of traffic ticket" cards for yourselves and your families?) than anything else.

I am drawing a parallel here not out of hatred (as it's been suggested) but to demonstrate that unless the law applies to everyone in the same manner, it's just another set of arbitrary, voluntary suggestions that we'd best abide by only when authority figures might catch us misbehaving/we don't know anyone who will let us off.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 27 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]367283[/snapback]</div>

Yep. Ford demonstrated that the President is indeed above the law, and sent a message to future presidents that they can do whatever they please: the law does not apply to them.

At the time we were told that Nixon had "suffered enough," and that the country needed to "put this behind us."

Suffered enough? Since when does anybody say that a bank robber has suffered enough because he was caught and interrogated, and we should now let him go so we can put all the trauma behind us?

Since when does anybody say that a murderer has suffered enough because the world knows what he did, and so he should be let go?

Nixon was allowed to keep all the perks of an ex-president, including his pension, secret service protection, health care, and office staff. Ford claimed to the end that there was no agreement, but I do not believe him. I think he got the appointment on the promise of giving Nixon the pardon. And he was pardoned even before a full investigation was made, thereby probably protecting other guilty people.

Daniel Shore commented on the radio that most Americans remember Ford principally for that one act, and that it probably cost him the election, as well it should have. Nixon got off scot-free, but at least Ford paid for his despicable action.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 27 2006, 05:52 PM) [snapback]367467[/snapback]</div>

We should heed the lesson of the game Stratego, where it takes a lowly Spy to topple the Field Marshall. I know the list of potential constitutional amendments is miles long, with long odds for any of them, but here's another:

"The President can pardon anyone EXCEPT an officer of the federal gov't charged with gov't malfeasance. Such a pardon can only be granted by 2/3 vote of the people, and the issue of pardon put to that vote only AFTER trial and appeals have been exhausted.
"An officer is anyone elected, or appointed, or is a member of the President's staff who has fiscal authority."


Fat chance of such a thing ever being considered, let alone passing, but what the hell, there it is.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Was the pardon legal?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 27 2006, 09:01 PM) [snapback]367534[/snapback]</div>

In U.S. law, the courts determine what is legal. I don't know if the Nixon pardon was ever challenged in court, but if the Supreme Court said it was legal, then by definition it was.

There is, however, a tremendous disconnect between "wrong" and "illegal." Everything the Nazis did was legal, by their law, at the time. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow was legal. On the other side, it was illegal for a slave to run away, and it was illegal for anyone to aid a runaway slave, even in a free state. Yes, the pardon was legal. But it was corrupt and despicable, and it undermined the trust that many people had in the U.S. government. (Though speaking for myself, I no longer had any trust in the government and I was not the least bit surprised by it.)

 

I'd have to argue that Jimmy Carter would be a contender. Despite his relgious ties or maybe more correctly because of them, he is very big on the environment.

That is not to take away from any achievements of Ford though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 27 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]367217[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 27 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]367283[/snapback]</div>

The architects of the constitution gave the President the right to pardon whomever he chooses. His pardon was certainly legal. He can pardon you too, you just have to apply. Millions do. The President pardons people he doesn't know all the time.

Gerald Ford felt his presidency had two goals:

1. To end US involvement in Vietnam

2. To heal the country and restore honor and trust to the presidency.

He did the first, and I think he did the best he could do for the second. Would trying Nixon have done anything to help the country? My guess is it would have brought up a lot of dirty laundry that we're all better off not having to sift through. Sometimes the truth can be more distructive and hurtful than the coverup and its better to just let the rat scamper away. That was the case with Nixon I think.

You say Ford's pardon of Nixon was corrupt and dispicable. Why? What did he gain from it? Nothing, in fact he paid a very dear price for it...

In order for there to be corruption there has to be something to gain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Dec 27 2006, 11:36 PM) [snapback]367586[/snapback]</div>

By pardoning Nixon, he did not restore trust in the presidency. Quite the contrary: he demonstrated that the presidency deserves no trust at all.

What would a Nixon trial have accomplished? It would have punished a criminal, and it would have demonstrated that the President is not above the law.

In what way might it have been "destructive" to root out criminality from the highest office of the land?

What Ford gained was the presidency. I say this because I believe that was the promise he gave in return for the appointment. There is such a thing as conflict of interest: a judge is required to recuse himself from a case if he knows the defendant. When the man doing the pardoning is a friend and associate of the criminal, and received his post from the criminal, and they then worked closely together for some period of time, there is a clear conflict of interest.

The pardon was legal, but it was a conflict of interest and was therefore unethical and dishonest.

And on the topic of the OP, I think signing the CAFE standards is small potatoes compared to Jimmy Carter's record on the environment. Carter put the entire power of the presidentcy and the "bully pulpit" behind the drive for conservation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Dec 28 2006, 02:36 AM) [snapback]367586[/snapback]</div>

Well, by the time Ford was in office Vietnam was pretty mucked up already as far as our military efforts went; he happened to be in office when it all came crashing down...but that's lots different than playing a part in *making* it happen.

I'd humbly suggest that it was Nixon and Kissinger, and Air Force One and the secret peace talks (while Kissinger was supposedly having sexual relations a prominent news correspondent) that were responsible primarily.

By pardoning Nixon, Ford meant to "heal the country" by attempting to get us to move on...problem was, the matter hadn't been concluded properly and so instead it smacked of cronyism.

By pardoning Nixon, Ford conveyed that the law, in the final analysis, does *not* apply to everyone equally...at least as far as the penalty phase goes. And that's a terribly problematic message to send to us all.

It's like, if I can marry a cop then I can speed and not get tickets...since I know someone on the "inside." I may be pulled over...but the there will be no penalty phase (ticket). Pardoning Nixon is no different than this, in my opinion. He knew someone on the "inside" and so received special treatment. No penalty. It's all really that simple.

I suppose that perhaps the "plea bargain" might have been for him to resign...but is that a normal penalty in obstruction of justice cases such as this one? I don't know, but I just heard a clip of Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech, where he said specifically that he was NOT obstructing justice...so he lied to us, too...

It seems like a fairly serious issue to me, but that's just how I see it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Dec 28 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]367796[/snapback]</div>

I think "splitting" threads is not the kind of thing the mods do here. They'll lock a thread if they are convinced it's a troll, or if it has gotten really nasty, and occasionally they'll lock a thread if two threads deal with the same issue, and it is one they think important enough to keep in one thread. But splitting a thread would be difficult.

You can, however, start a new thread and suggest that people move one aspect of the discussion there. But I'm not sure I think that's a good idea. If the topic is G. Ford, it's worthwhile the discuss the good and the bad together. (Not that I think he did anything good, but clearly there are those who do.)

 

Getting us back on topic, I'd humbly suggest that the original CAFE legislation was the BEST thing that happened to the auto industry in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Not only did it at least open a discussion about economy and emissions, but it forced the development of technology that's given us not only cars that are lots cleaner, but lots more powerful and LOTS more drivable (remember how badly mid 70's cars drove when cold, for example?)

And, even though it's sort of been perverted by an extreme emphasis on power instead of economy (if you recall, back in the early/mid 80's, the then "hot" new Mustang GT with the performance enhanced 302 V8 offered initially a grand total of 157 horsepower. That's only just over 0.5hp/cubic inch!) it's still a big step in the right direction.

The good news is that the technology is there, more or less across the board...and hopefully increasing MPG/reducing further emissions if suddenly called upon to do so won't be quite so difficult --- and result in such poorly running cars --- this time around.