Enough about how bad Gerald Ford was. How about a poll on the real issue?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

Poll question: Enough about how bad Gerald Ford was. How about a poll on the real issue?

WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE IN OFFICE TODAY (and for clarity, I mean a living, breathing Gerald Ford, not one 24 hours cold)

George W. Bush or Gerald Ford?

[Swamp Rat]

1. George W. Bush = Gerald Ford

Same shit; different asshole.

[wizstars]

7. you said it well, brudder. n/t

[Selatius]

2. Why the fuck would any of you choose Ford when you also have the choice of "none..."???

Why on earth would you do that??????

[sweetheart]

3. red's not green's

political colours

people can't read. ;-)

[stonecoldsober]

4. I can read just fine, but I have no clue what you mean

[sweetheart]

8. The colour's of the graph

Vote for one colour or another, red is winning,
..
or in metaphor, red's would be the political leftist,
and 'greens' migth be like the green party. And the
poll shows we're a mix of both. :-)

[Selatius]

6. You suggesting people's reading comprehension is suspect here?

This is still early in the day for me, but the result of this poll so far is the most surprising thing I've seen so far today.

People wanting Gerald Ford over George W. Bush is like people wanting a shit sandwich over maggot burger. It makes even less sense given that there is a third option.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. The issue reminds us of one important truth

ou may have disagreed with Ford on his decision to pardon Nixon, but it tells us that the boy king has precisely that same authority under the constitution. It would be mildly amusing, extremely frustrating, almost maddening, but totally within the boy King's character to see him pardon his entire administration on his last day in office. Imagine that - the only part of the constitution that he respects would that part which empowers him to protect that criminal class that has committed countless crimes against our nation, against the Iraqis and against the world at large.

[sweetheart]

10. only in reading too much in to silly polls

:-)

[sweetheart]

14. ya know, maybe people are just voting for the 1970's

It was before the major deterioration of the social infrastructure,
and they remember their lives then, with a tinge of, fond recollection.

(not accounting for viet nam-related persons).. voting none of the above

[Selatius]

18. I don't think people want to go back to 10+ percent inflation, oil embargos, and rising unemployment

They called it "stagflation" for a reason, and it was bad enough for a country that was still healing from the chaos of the war and the Civil Rights Movement and the assassination of many prominent leaders.

[sweetheart]

22. skateboarding, led zepplin

peter frampton comes alive, good community colleges, more
wage equality than ever since.

[personman]

5. Seriously, WTF?

Yeah, lot of genocide and corruption enabler fans here I guess?

[Skinner]

17. Because the question is:

"WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE IN OFFICE TODAY ... George W. Bush or Gerald Ford?"

It is true that "none of the above" is probably the most appropriate approximation of who DUers would prefer to have as president, given the options provided.

But (IMHO) the difference between George W. Bush and Gerald Ford is massive. Selecting "none of the above" seems to vaguely imply equivalence between Bush and Ford. To ignore the vast difference between these two presidents and lump them together, well, it almost feels dishonest to me.

George W. Bush is such an intensely awful president that I would rather have *anyone* else in the job. Choosing "none of the above" does not, in my opinion, properly express how truely terrible Bush has been. Bush is so terrible that I would *gladly* take Gerald Ford instead.

(The real question here is why the fuck anyone would select George W. Bush.)

[Selatius]

21. You're supposed to select the best candidate for the job, not this "anybody but Bush" bandwagon.

I have to disagree with you there. Ford was a lot of things George is not, but I don't think the criterion of selecting a national leader should be set so low that anybody other than George gets the prize. If that was the criterion, we'd all be at the bottom of the ocean by now.

[Skinner]

26. Except we aren't picking the president here.

We're answering an opinion poll on DU, which is supposed to be in response to the question, "WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE IN OFFICE TODAY ... George W. Bush or Gerald Ford?"

If we are actually being asked to express a preference between these two men, the answer is easy.

The inclusion of the "none of the above" option, IMHO, is a late-stage addition which renders the entire poll meaningless. Of course we all would prefer none of the above.

I would suggest that the poll could have been more clearly written. Are we being asked to express a preference between Bush and Ford (as the question implies) or are we being asked to express a preference among Bush, Ford, and none of the above (as the answer-choices imply)?

I was answering the question implied by the question. You were answering the question implied by the answer-choices.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. you nailed it on the head. the "other" was a last second add-on, and I regret

even considering it.

I just suspected that many of the answers would have been none of the above, had I left it with two choices.

But, really, I don't see how there could be a contest. As much as Nixon deserved impeachment, Ford did try to sweep things aside and govern the country steadily. Bush has deliberately deconstructed every government agency he touches, he has led us to the seemingly impossible position of being as bad as the Soviet Union was to its own people back in the 70s. Domestic spying, torture as policy, calling every bit of bad news "secret" and worse, there is absolutely no doubt that Bush is the worst president i our country's short history. He may be even the cause of making our history shorter by destroying the very foundation of our democracy and freedom.

[sweetheart]

28. focault is really turning with that one...

... ouch. Deconstructed has come to be something wholly more physical
than perhaps we had hoped... sadly... the empire.. "Today, abstraction
is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation
is no longer that of the territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is
the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory
no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. - j. baudrillard

[personman]

30. I'm sure most of us would rather have Ford then Bush.

I don't think that's the issue at all.

Most of us would rather have Bush then Hitler, is that an argument FOR Bush? Not a very good one. That is essentially the same argument the OP is using in the headline.

This poll was not just an attempt to answer the question "would we rather have Bush or Ford" (which I don't think any of us need a poll to answer or that this question is at all relevant to the criticisms of Ford). In the heading the OP is clearly suggesting that Bush being as awful as he is somehow justifies Ford. I disagree for the same reason Hitler being awful doesn't justify Bush.

[personman]

31. "it almost feels dishonest to me."

If you acknowledge a narrower political spectrum the difference is vast. If you acknowledge a broader political spectrum the difference is small.

Here is a graph from political compass.



I doubt it's the most scientificly accurate thing on the planet, but hopefully it will illustrate my point.

If you look in the top-right quadrant, the authoritarian-right, you'll see Bush and Kerry. That small area around the two of them is roughly the spectrum of acceptable politics among politicians and the media. I personally believe through propaganda and framing the state push the people toward right-wing authoritarianism, and even considering that, the politicians are STILL more authoritarian and right-wing then the people. I'm thinking about trying to write something about it, Chomsky has talked about it, said studies have been done if I recall, but that will be a later post.

Anyway I don't have much reason to believe Ford would be far outside that area. There is a massive difference between say, Ralph Nader and Dubya, but between Ford and Dubya? I agree that the differences there are add up to a massive difference in peoples lives, but any policy differences on that scale of presidential power could be considered to have a massive effect.

[LTR]

11. Well, for all you Ford haters...

...He did finally end our involvement in an unwinnable war. And he didn't suck up to the religious wackos like future Repub presidents did. He was in favor of things like equal rights.

And he was left in a rather unenviable situation when he became president. The country's morale was terrible, the economy was in the crapper, and we were still somewhat involved in Vietnam.

Ford's decisions may not have been popular with all, but I do believe he was thinking long-term, and trying to at least make this country better. He actually used his own compassion in his decision making, and I'm hard pressed to think of future presidents that did that (except for maybe Carter).

[wizstars]

13. yeah, the economy was in the crapper, and what did he do?

he issued us all WIN buttons, that's what. It took Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker to actually do something about it. Screw all those morons that think ronald rayguns saved the economy--it was Carter and Volcker who had the courage to break the inflation we had.

[LTR]

16. I agree about inflation

The WIN buttons were pretty stupid. And I do agree that Carter and Volcker had a lot to do with getting the economy back on track.

[Captain Hilts]

24. WIN: Whip Inflation Now!!!!! nt

[Selatius]

15. The blood of East Timor is on his hands as well as everyone else who sold Suharto weapons

He gave tacit approval to the Suharto regime when it invaded and began butchering East Timorese. What's worse, he continued to green-light the sale of military weapons to the dictator even after it became apparent what was happening on East Timor was nothing short of genocide.

[LTR]

19. A lot of presidents have blood on their hands

Since the 1960's, probably the only one who didn't was Carter. He was one of the few who really worked for peace, though he did support the Shah of Iran (the lesser of two evils?).

But, unfortunately, our country has had a history of supporting some pretty nasty regimes. And no, I don't agree with it.

[personman]

25. "A lot of presidents have blood on their hands"

Precisely. None of the above for me.

As far as Carter's clean hands:

"Under Carter, the United States continued to support, all over the world, regimes that engaged in imprisonment of dissenters, torture, and mass murder: in the Philippines, in Iran, in Nicaragua, and in Indonesia, where the inhabitants of East Timor were being annihilated in a campaign bordering on genocide."

Edit: I found this in about 2 minutes of searching, haven't read the rest yet, but I'd imagine that's just a start.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Carter_PeoplesHx.html

[wizstars]

12. Let it not be forgotten...

...that this was the bastard who not only pardoned nixon, but also tried to impeach Justice William Douglas, one of the great jurists of the last 60 years. face it, he's just another worthless rethuglican right-winger, and we're better off burying him, forgetting him, and getting on with impeaching/hanging the one we have to deal with now, along with the horses he and his boys rode in on.

[mnhtnbb]

20. I'd rather have the duly elected Al Gore.

[LeftishBrit]

23. I would definitely choose Ford over GWB - NO CONTEST!!!

The world would be a lot safer.

Not saying Ford was the best president; but definitely better for the world that Reagan or Dubya.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. A living, breathing, President Bill Hicks.

...Hey- as long as we're in fantasyland, might as well go all the way.