Have some respect, Tim. There were a lot of forgetable mediocre presidents, but they were presidents nonetheless. Ford gave his entire life to trying to help the people of America, even turning down a pro football contract. He was a good man and lead responsibly and with honor. Give me Ford ahead of 99% of the politicians we have to today. Respect his service and don’t be a pompous jerk, Tim.

Mr. Dickinson,

Are you of the opinion that there is a precedent for a former President to criticize a sitting President? I am not in favor of the war, but believe your criticism to be a bit simple-minded.

As to your other pot-shots, it seems to me that Ford did much — quite explicitly and intentionally — to reduce the imperial dimensions of the office.

He was notable as a servitor of the process and as a consensus builder…two things that Bush is not, for which Bush has quite justifiably been criticized.

Would you rather have a man seeking to determine the best solution to any given problem, or a man determined to impose his own private vision?

Ford took office with very little political capital during a time of national turmoil on many fronts: the economy, domestic political instability, tension in Europe…

That his tenure was “unremarkable” is — perversely I believe — a testament to his calm stewardship and effectiveness.

Mr. Ford was really an outstanding and ambitious guy,especially during his run at Watergate.Plus a top notch golfer telling from his pics.May God rest his soul.

I feel that the writer, Tim Dickinson does not truly believe what he has written. It is more than likely an attempt to be purposely controversial with statements about a man who is now dead, and cannot defend himself to this unfair criticism. Was he the perfect president in his limited and unforeseen circumstances? Simply, no. Do I agree with his presidential pardoning of Nixon? Also no. He had to take a leadership role in the middle of scandal and controversy as well as national turmoil. Cut the man a break, especially now when he is dead. And he disagrees with the invasion of Iraq, like who doesn’t now besides hardcore Bush supporters? Keep in mind that by law former presidents are not supposed to speak out against a current President. Ford himself said he’d keep his opinions of the war to himself out of respect for the presidency, even if it was disgraced by a horrible man like Bush. Clinton also said he would not criticize the war and even defended the war at its start to the radical left. In closing, I feel that this writer, as entitled to his opinion that he is and should, is obviously trying a little too hard to be shock worthy. But no surprise considering this publications strong left tendencies.

On another note, many times, presidents are remembered differently than when they were actually in office, depending on the tides of history. If we were alive during the Civil War, we would read the hard media criticisms of Lincoln, a time much more conservative than today, or during WWII, all the harsh criticisms about FDR, and both these men have for the most part been remembered in positive ways. It’s possible that in the near future, we may look back at more recent presidents such as Clinton and see he was not as truly effective as popular opinion would have you believe now, or that Bush’s actions in the middle east may in many decades to come actually result into something positive and be a good example for other nations neighboring Iraq or its region that democracy is a good thing for their people. We simply don’t know, and for those who do read this carefully, no I am not a Bush backer. Like many, I don’t agree with the war itself or how it has even been managed. As far as the moral or legal views of the war, it’s been up to this point completely unjustified with the WMDs nowhere to be found and even the capture, trial of Saddam, no real progress has come from that. From a military standpoint, it seems like the military has been restrained and even victimized for the sake of political reasoning. If the Bush was truly serious about the war as he should be, he called for it, he needs to act more like the Commander in Chief, and not a politician trying to make his critics get on his side. When he says there is no rush for a new direction oe “course” what about the young men and women dying without any reason for it? No rush? Sorry he isn’t sleeping in the desert right now. This is just one example of his incompetence as a Commander in Chief, and whether you’re for the war or against it, one thing we can all agree on I hope is that the American people deserve better than this as far as Bush being the Commander in Chief goes.

What we need now is another man to come in and help heal America. The democrats could learn alot from his example. We need healing and forward motion, not constant hearings and investigations.

Good one Tim! It’s ironic that it took death of Gerald Ford to make me read your article! It’s good thing he died…now you can make your 20 bucks.

You’re such a political hound, you came up with a new way to spell “Kissinger”. As far as research goes, I guess you “didn’t get around to that.” Ouch.

Good one Tim! It’s ironic that it took the death of Gerald Ford to make me read your article! It’s good thing he died…now you can make your 20 bucks.

You’re such a political hound, you came up with a new way to spell “Kissinger”. As far as research goes, I guess you “didn’t get around to that.” Ouch.

Ford pardoned Nixon and told NYC to drop dead. What Ford did was set the stage for elite politicans/corporatists to continue to commit crimes against the american people, raid our treasurer and subvert the constitution. Ford may have been a civil human being, but he covered up a lot of sins for his sponsors.

You’re getting killed here, Tim. Think about that next time you take shots at an honorable, dead man.

In times of peril, I often ask myself what the good Doctor Thompson would say. No doubt that Ford was one of his favourites- an accomplice to Mr. Nixon’s staining of the American genome. While healing the country, Ford also forwarded the idea that the establishment won’t punish one of their own, even if the individual helped to permanently alter the amount of faith and confidence the American people had in the office.

It is pretty unfortunate that a magazine with such a glorious history of political reporting has hired a short-sighted reactionary to manage the National Affairs desk. We should all be thankful for Pres. Ford’s courageous and forward-thinking pardon of Tricky Dick. Can you imagine what would have transpired if we had been subjected to a lengthy trial and possible sentencing process? True, the man deserved punishment or at least should have admitted wrong-doing. But we are all better off for what did not occur. Thanks, Jerry. We owe you one.

I didn’t agree at the time with pardoning Nixon, but it took political guts that only a few presidents have been willing to show to do that. The only other similarly courageous moves that I can recall were Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, noting, as he said, that the Democrats were giving away the South, and Carter trying to get us to conserve energy — 30 years ago!!!!! Maybe if we’d listened to him instead of mocking him, we wouldn’t be in certain messes today.

What really got me in watching part of Ford’s funeral (not my first choice, but a friend who had worked for his administration wanted to) was the current political hacks’ tributes. He was honest! He didn’t play games! He didn’t have an agenda! He tried to do the right thing! Are we going to honor his example? Hell, no!

Absolutely none of us leave this burnt out cesspool without paying up.
At the table of “they go in threes” Gerald Ford, you will forever be trapped in hell with James Brown and an asshole ex-dictator with an elongated neck.
You knew you should have never pardoned that ratfucker. Now its payback.
Gonzo Baby!

Charming. Well Tim, he agreed with you. Great company.

Wow, just wow. After that ridiculous diatribe, you’d better get working on YOUR legacy–asshole–you’ve set a high standard for yourself.

Is it Dickinson, or Dickinass?

It may have been meaningless, but at least it was not a total failure like the one that followed him.

Or the one that we currently have.

I think the moral equivalence Taibbi draws between the anger on the right and the anger in response is unpersuasive. Just because two book titles start with “I Hate . . .”, doesn’t mean the authors have equivalently valid or invalid points of view.

For example, imagine two books published in Europe in 1938, one entitled by a Nazi entitled “I Hate Jews,” and the other by a middle of the road author entitled “I Hate Nazis”. You’d have to be pretty morally deformed to assume the premise of each book was equally valid or invalid.