|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I have always seen both Ford and Carter as caretaker presidents |
Reminds of...
| Quote: |
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! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Reminds of...
Quote:
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!
|
That's funny. Where does it come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| It is important that we use this opportunity to publicize the role he played in both the cover-up of the assassination of JFK and Watergate. |
Is that so?
Prosecuting a dead man. Very well. Cite your evidence... |
FWIW , the debate started well before his death, November 4th, on the
Education Forum.
If you want "proof" , please do your own research into the matter. I will
however, give you this to start:
Nov 4 2006, 05:17 PM Post #1
When Gerald Ford was appointed to the Warren Commission he was seen as the FBI representative. Ford definitely provided Hoover with leaks about what was going on at meetings. He also was responsible for a major part of the cover-up.
The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy's "back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." Ford realized that this provided a serious problem for the single bullet theory. As Michael L. Kutz has pointed out (The JFK Assassination Debates): "If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back."
In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfordG.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| And the reference to Ford as "the greatest president" is sacrcastic sneer |
Actually, some of the praise in the Counterpunch piece seems decidedly non-sarcastic, such as their kudos for Ford's appointing John Paul Stevens to the court. And I find it interesting that they try to exonerate Ford for what they regard as the worst aspects of his foreign policy, by blaming them on the supposed Nixon holdover Kissinger. If the whole thing was meant simply as a sarcastic attack on Ford, I don't think they'd bother doing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...some of the praise in the Counterpunch piece seems decidedly non-sarcastic, such as their kudos for Ford's appointing John Paul Stevens to the court. |
I just read it again. I see your point.
However, it remains so value-laden that one must actively and consciously read each and every phrase in order to separate the sneering from the praise.
Generally, this reaffirms my criticism of much leftist (and right-wing) writing: it chronically editorializes and judges.
Compare Counterpunch's eulogy, which seems to conclude that Ford was the best president in recent memory by default, with NPR's, for example.
As far as the greatest president in recent memory, that probably was Nixon. He was the greatest. And, at the same time, the worst. Probably not unlike LBJ, either, now that I think about it.
It may interest you to know that historians give the highest approval ratings to FDR and Eisenhower, with resect to the twentieth century. And although JFK did not serve long enough to be fairly appraised, I doubt he would have made the cut anyway, even though his inauguration speech (along with FDR's "we have nothing to fear but fear itself") remains one of the most famous.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:19 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Compare Counterpunch's eulogy, which seems to conclude that Ford was the best president in recent memory by default, with NPR's, for example.
|
I agree with you that their admiration for Ford is largely of the "by default" variety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
It may interest you to know that historians give the highest approval ratings to FDR and Eisenhower, with resect to the twentieth century. And although JFK did not serve long enough to be fairly appraised, I doubt he would have made the cut anyway, even though his inauguration speech (along with FDR's "we have nothing to fear but fear itself") remains one of the most famous. |
I'm sure you don't mean all historians give FDR such high marks. IMHO, FDR was one of the worst presidents to ever hold the office. He did things that are just as bad as those W is accused of. Not to mention the fact that FDR, almost single-handedly, made the federal government the monstrosity that it is today. Bush is responsible for 9/11? FDR was responsible for forcing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Hey, I know people loved him and credit him for "pulling the country out of the Great Depression" (although it took him to bring the U.S. into WW2 to do it) but, remember, the Germans loved Hitler as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| I'm sure you don't mean all historians give FDR such high marks... |
I mean that a few years ago AHA's Americanist caucus got together at the annual meeting and rated the presidents. And FDR and Eisenhower came out on top in the twentieth century.
It really means very little. It is not the definitive word on the presidents. It is merely the list that these professional historians produced at this time and place.
And if you would like my opinion, I would tend to agree with this judgment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually, some of the praise in the Counterpunch piece seems decidedly non-sarcastic |
I agree. I don't see it as sarcastic. (I question if the writer really believes he was the greatest of all time; I read that as hyperbole to make a point.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christopher Hitchens:
| Quote: |
One could graze for hours on the great slopes of the massive obituaries and never guess that during his mercifully brief occupation of the White House, this president had:
Disgraced the United States in Iraq and inaugurated a long period of calamitous misjudgment of that country.
Colluded with the Indonesian dictatorship in a gross violation of international law that led to a near-genocide in East Timor.
Delivered a resounding snub to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn at the time when the Soviet dissident movement was in the greatest need of solidarity.
Instead, there was endless talk about "healing," and of the "courage" that it had taken for Ford to excuse his former boss from the consequences of his law-breaking. You may choose, if you wish, to parrot the line that Watergate was a "long national nightmare," but some of us found it rather exhilarating to see a criminal president successfully investigated and exposed and discredited. And we do not think it in the least bit nightmarish that the Constitution says that such a man is not above the law. Ford's ignominious pardon of this felonious thug meant, first, that only the lesser fry had to go to jail. It meant, second, that we still do not even know why the burglars were originally sent into the offices of the Democratic National Committee. In this respect, the famous pardon is not unlike the Warren Commission: another establishment exercise in damage control and pseudo-reassurance (of which Ford was also a member) that actually raised more questions than it answered. The fact is that serious trials and fearless investigations often are the cause of great division, and rightly so. But by the standards of "healing" celebrated this week, one could argue that O.J. Simpson should have been spared indictment lest the vexing questions of race be unleashed to trouble us again, or that the Tower Commission did us all a favor by trying to bury the implications of the Iran-Contra scandal. Fine, if you don't mind living in a banana republic.
|
There's that "banana republic" phrase that was the focus of such heated debate around here a few weeks ago. 
http://www.slate.com/id/2156400/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the Other Hand: upon further reflection, it looks like the Counterpunch obituary was not so bad after all.
And remind me to have Hitchens or Regicide speak at my own funeral one day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
On the Other Hand: upon further reflection, it looks like the Counterpunch obituary was not so bad after all.
And remind me to have Hitchens or Regicide speak at my own funeral one day... |
I would do that if you prepare the eulogy in advance.
Ford is again in the news as documents were just released:
Many of the newly released records describe the bureau's controversial surveillance of anti-war and civil rights protesters as the FBI reported on plans for protest demonstrations at Ford's public appearances as a congressman, vice president and president.
Two documents provide a rare glimpse of the depth of security fears during the Cold War:
�A memo from Nov. 9, 1965, said the FBI performed a security check at Ford's request of telephones at his home in Virginia, his line at the phone company's central office and all points between. The FBI found no bugs, but a foreman said installation of new touch-tone dialing equipment in the area may have caused "some inadvertent noise on Mr. Ford's line."
�A memo from Dec. 2, 1959, showed the Navy was considering inviting Ford to a strategy conference at the Naval War College and asked the FBI � fully 11 years after Ford was first elected to Congress � whether Ford had any "subversive nature." The famously tightlipped FBI had amassed a large file on Ford, but replied only that when Ford had applied to work for the FBI in 1942 its background investigation "revealed no pertinent derogatory information." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: Was Ford the greatest American President? Some say yes. |
|
|
Yea, right.
Sickening. You couldn't be further off the mark.
A testimony to the caliber of people here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Far Left's ideal is mediocrity in leadership and foreign policy. And Ford was the most mediocre of Presidents. I, too, have a problem with overgrasping Presidents, but Eisenhower was much more virtuous and circumspect than Ford ever could be.
R.S.Refugee and the Far Left should be applauded for their consistancy, honesty, and bi-partisan tongue (even if it is in cheek). But their ideal is mediocrity itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
