Gerald Ford dies at 93

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:51 pm

LOS ANGELES - Gerald R. Ford, who picked up the pieces of Richard Nixon’s scandal-shattered White House as the 38th president and the only one never elected to nationwide office, has died. He was 93.

“My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age,” former first lady Betty Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband’s office in Rancho Mirage. “His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country.”

He died at 6:45 p.m. Tuesday at his home in Rancho Mirage, about 130 miles east of Los Angeles, his office said in a statement. No cause of death was released. Funeral arrangements were to be announced Wednesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10949314/?GT1=8816

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53455

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:15 am

Gerald Ford, the one President of the United States who was never elected into that office. He lost to Jimmy Carter, the incompetent. In fact, Mr. Ford said in a debate with Carter during the '76 election:

“There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe...."

I don't understand why Ford's death was such a big story here in the states.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53547

manadren · Post by **manadren** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:18 am

Probably for the simple fact that he was once a president. That or it was an otherwise slow news day. I dunno.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53549

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:36 am

Yeah, but once again, he was never elected. He only ever became President because Nixon resigned, after which Ford pardoned him for what was a pretty clear-cut case against him for corrupt activity. I mean, he was little more than an ineffectual regent inbetween the Nixon and Carter regimes.

I can see why it made news.... But I guess I just take issue with the fact that when I turned on the news the evening of his funeral to get the details on Saddam's execution, it was nonstop coverage of Ford's funeral. One story had far more ramifications for future events than the other.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53551

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:51 pm

Stasi wrote: Yeah, but once again, he was never elected. He only ever became President because Nixon resigned, after which Ford pardoned him for what was a pretty clear-cut case against him for corrupt activity. I mean, he was little more than an ineffectual regent inbetween the Nixon and Carter regimes.

I suppose when Carter dies, we can say he was just an ineffectual regent between the Ford and Reagan regimes.

I can see why it made news.... But I guess I just take issue with the fact that when I turned on the news the evening of his funeral to get the details on Saddam's execution, it was nonstop coverage of Ford's funeral. One story had far more ramifications for future events than the other.

What details did you really need about Saddam's execution? They hung him. That's enough of a detail for me. Any story related to possible ramifications for future events would just be speculation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53560

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:08 pm

Bookworm wrote:
Stasi wrote: Yeah, but once again, he was never elected. He only ever became President because Nixon resigned, after which Ford pardoned him for what was a pretty clear-cut case against him for corrupt activity. I mean, he was little more than an ineffectual regent inbetween the Nixon and Carter regimes.
I suppose when Carter dies, we can say he was just an ineffectual regent between the Ford and Reagan regimes.

True, since it's obvious the people didn't feel interested in granting him a second term, but they DID grant him a first term to begin with.

I can see why it made news.... But I guess I just take issue with the fact that when I turned on the news the evening of his funeral to get the details on Saddam's execution, it was nonstop coverage of Ford's funeral. One story had far more ramifications for future events than the other.

What details did you really need about Saddam's execution? They hung him. That's enough of a detail for me. Any story related to possible ramifications for future events would just be speculation.

I wanted to see what was going on in Iraq as a result of his execution. I know how hangings are done - I wasn't interested in the grisly details. However, I wanted to see whether or not there had been a drastic spike in violence by Sunnis, celebrations by Shia and Kurds, or some threat or statement made by the portion of al-Qaida's head that still remains. Because all of these things have a greater impact on future events in the region and therefore on American foreign policy, it's a far more important story to cover than the funeral of an unelected, ignorant, and practically worthless President. It wasn't the death itself they were covering, but the darn funeral. I just don't see much of a correlation in significance of the stories. But then again, the news media is out to make money like any other business and they seem to operate more on the mentality that Americans don't want to know about what's going outside the borders if there is some story that can be over-sensationalized, just as they did with the death of the Pope, and the death of Reagan.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2979, old post ID:53564