PDA

View Full Version : What if...


Judy G. Russell
December 28th, 2006, 10:17 PM
Here's a what-if for you...

What if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon?

How would things be different today, if at all?

Mike
December 29th, 2006, 12:51 AM
What if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon?
I think things definitely would have been different. I'm loath to suggest how, because if I could do that, I'd first need to go buy a lottery ticket.

However, I think he likely would have been re-elected, and that would have changed a lot moving forward. I do believe in the time continuum theory as illustrated in the Back to the Future series of movies, so I think things would have been different, but I honestly can imagine so many scenarios that I won't bother to describe any.

Jeff
December 29th, 2006, 12:51 PM
Here's a what-if for you...

What if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon?

How would things be different today, if at all?

With a president in prison? Let me count the ways...

- Jeff

Lindsey
December 30th, 2006, 12:21 AM
Here's a what-if for you...

What if Gerald Ford had never pardoned Richard Nixon?

How would things be different today, if at all?
Another "what if" that was floated the other day: What if Ronald Reagan had managed to persuade Gerald Ford to run as his vice-presidential candidate? George H.W. Bush would not have been the V.P., and if Daddy Bush had not been in Reagan's White House, he would likely not have been elected president in 1988, and George junior would almost certainly not only have not been president himself, he likely would never even have become governor of Texas. He'd probably be selling life insurance somewhere... (Jeb would probably not be governor of Florida, either. There'd have been no Katherine Harris, no hanging chads, no Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court . . .)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 30th, 2006, 01:38 PM
I think things would have been different, but I honestly can imagine so many scenarios that I won't bother to describe any.I agree that the possibilities are almost endless... My own feeling is that Ford might well have won reelection.

Judy G. Russell
December 30th, 2006, 01:41 PM
With a president in prison? Let me count the ways...Actually, given that the federal sentencing guidelines came in much later (in 1984, to be precise), even had Nixon been indicted and convincted, prison was not a sure thing. A judge could well have considered that the ignominy of the felony conviction plus removal from office was enough and given him a probationary sentence.

Judy G. Russell
December 30th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Another "what if" that was floated the other day: What if Ronald Reagan had managed to persuade Gerald Ford to run as his vice-presidential candidate?Too far-fetched, I think. I can't imagine anyone who ever took the oath as President being content to accept the vice presidential candidacy with someone else at the top of the ticket.

Lindsey
December 31st, 2006, 12:12 AM
Too far-fetched, I think. I can't imagine anyone who ever took the oath as President being content to accept the vice presidential candidacy with someone else at the top of the ticket.
I do think Reagan was more keen on that setup than Ford was; Reagan apparently was not anxious to have George H.W. Bush as a running mate, and Bush apparently was the strongest alternative candidate. And the deal ultimately failed because Ford wanted what amounted to co-president status before he would consent to it. Reagan, I think, was wise not to consent to that; we've had a very good example of what happens with a co-president the last six years...

Still, they were apparently close enough to closing the deal that some east coast papers who had to go to press before the official announcement was made felt it was safe to go ahead and report that Ford had been named. (ooops)

--Lindsey

Jeff
December 31st, 2006, 01:42 PM
Actually, given that the federal sentencing guidelines came in much later (in 1984, to be precise), even had Nixon been indicted and convincted, prison was not a sure thing. A judge could well have considered that the ignominy of the felony conviction plus removal from office was enough and given him a probationary sentence.

And that would have continued the "long nightmare" by promoting further outrage in the country. The only answer was a pardon, or a pistol to the back of the head. I think we got the lesser of the two evils.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
December 31st, 2006, 08:32 PM
And that would have continued the "long nightmare" by promoting further outrage in the country. The only answer was a pardon, or a pistol to the back of the head. I think we got the lesser of the two evils.I certainly wouldn't have advocated the pistol routine. But I do question the granting of a pardon without an admission of wrongdoing.

Judy G. Russell
December 31st, 2006, 08:33 PM
Still, they were apparently close enough to closing the deal that some east coast papers who had to go to press before the official announcement was made felt it was safe to go ahead and report that Ford had been named. (ooops)"Dewey beats Truman" eh...

Lindsey
January 1st, 2007, 01:05 AM
I certainly wouldn't have advocated the pistol routine. But I do question the granting of a pardon without an admission of wrongdoing.
Ford wanted that, too, but never managed to get it. He found out many years later that Alexander Haig may have sabotaged those attempts: Haig apparently informed Nixon that Ford would grant him a pardon in any event, and encouraged him not to sign any admission of guilt.

Ford was left to cling to a 1915 Supreme Court ruling that acceptance of a pardon was an implicit admission of guilt.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
January 1st, 2007, 01:06 AM
"Dewey beats Truman" eh...
Exactly!

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
January 1st, 2007, 09:47 AM
Ford wanted that, too, but never managed to get it. He found out many years later that Alexander Haig may have sabotaged those attempts: Haig apparently informed Nixon that Ford would grant him a pardon in any event, and encouraged him not to sign any admission of guilt.Well... Haig was right... Regrettably, I think, for the country as a whole, but still, he was right in his advice to Nixon.

Ford was left to cling to a 1915 Supreme Court ruling that acceptance of a pardon was an implicit admission of guilt.Talk about slender reeds...

Lindsey
January 2nd, 2007, 02:19 AM
Well... Haig was right... Regrettably, I think, for the country as a whole, but still, he was right in his advice to Nixon.
I think Ford was under the mistaken impression that he and Haig were working toward the same goal (though I'm not sure why he would have thought that -- until Nixon resigned, Haig was working for him.)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
January 2nd, 2007, 02:39 PM
I think Ford was under the mistaken impression that he and Haig were working toward the same goal (though I'm not sure why he would have thought that -- until Nixon resigned, Haig was working for him.)Haig certainly had no reason, morally or legally, to have any loyalty to Ford while Nixon was still in office. But thereafter...