Max Schulz has a good piece up on NRO on Gerald Ford’s posthumously published potshots at his fellow presidents. I initially didn’t think it was such a big deal when Ford’s 2004 Iraq comments to Bob Woodward came out — the conditions of the interview seemed to me to be a good balance between entering Ford’s views of the war into the historical record and trying not to undermine the sitting president.
But I’ve since become disturbed by the emerging pattern that Schulz has also noticed: Ford often said things in these interviews that contradicted what he was saying publicly. Ford was often quite effusive in his public praise for Ronald Reagan, especially during the final decade of both mens’ lives. It doesn’t surprise me that he also had some negative views — and some bruised feelings about 1976 and the near-universal Republican admiration for the Gipper — but the discrepancy between what he was saying publicly and what he was telling interviewers was striking. Ford didn’t just sound like he was making nice with Reagan when he praised him; he sounded like actually believed the GOP consensus about our 40th president. It’s okay if he didn’t, but why pretend? Even Jimmy Carter can play nice at funerals and library openings while criticizing his fellow chief executives the rest of the time.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?