By John E. Carey
December 29, 2006
As we bid farewell to President Gerald Ford, we should duly note that he lived squarely in the camp of those that eschewed the opinion polls and did what he thought was the best thing for the nation. With the American public overwhelmingly in favor of a public trial for former President Richard Nixon, President Ford issued a full pardon. In his address to the nation he said, “It can go on and on, or someone must write ‘The End’ to it. I have concluded that only I can do that. And if I can, I must.”
At the time of the pardon, Americans were overwhelmingly against the president’s decision.
Lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste wrote in the Washington Post on Friday, December 29, 2006, “The pardon decision was met with strident criticism by much of the media. The Post equated Ford’s pardon to another chapter in the coverup; the New York Times called it “profoundly unwise, divisive and unjust” and “a body blow to [Ford's] credibility.” With the benefit of more than 30 years of perspective, the public’s view of Ford’s decision has softened considerably.”
This memory leaped into my consciousness while I read the words of Delaware Senator and announced presidential hopeful Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Biden said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by the president to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
“Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can’t imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president’s position,” he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.
Biden put the situation in Iraq into cold political terms for Republicans.
If the violence continues two years from now, “every one of those Republican senators — and there’s 21 of them up for re- election — knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom,” Senator Biden said.
Biden states two reasons for his position: (1) The lack of “significant support for the president’s position;” and, (2) The probable fact that voting with the president could mean that a senator fails to achieve reelection. In fact, Senator Biden uses the word “doom,” rather than retirement or seeking some other line of work.
Methinks Senator Biden values his job in the Senate too much. Senator Biden never discusses the consequences of withdrawal or the “good of the nation.” He is enslaved by the opinion polls and the fear that he might lose his job: not his own rational thought or evaluation of the situation.Juxtaposed to that we find Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. In a Washington Post Op-Ed on Friday, December 29, 2006, Senator Lieberman says of Iraq, “How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.”
“Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism,” wrote Senator Lieberman. “To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province — an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.”
Senator Lieberman concludes: “Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.”
Sounds like a man convinced we must do the right thing: elections be damned.
When asked by British journalists why he thinks Tony Blair continually sides with President Bush, “And what’s the pay-off?,” the president himself answered: “Freedom and peace. Tony Blair is making decisions for the right reasons. He is a — in my relationship with him, he is the least political person I’ve dealt with. And I say that out of respect. He makes decisions based upon what he thinks is right.”
In fact, the president repeatedly avoids bowing to opinion polls, even telling reporters more than once that he doesn’t read the newspapers.
President Bush repeatedly has said he is not persuaded by opinion polls but prefers to do what he sees as “right for the nation.”
In a September 2, 2004 interview with NBCs Matt Lauer, President Bush said of his decision to go to war in Afghanistan, “It was an unpopular move in Pakistan as you might recall. And yet it was the right thing to do. When I’m making my calculations and I say to the Taliban, ‘Cough up Al Qaeda or face serious consequences,’ I’m not doing a focus group in Pakistan, Matt. I made decisions on what I think is best for this country, and yet the decision to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan was unpopular in Pakistan at the time. And in other places it wasn’t so popular either, I might add — same in Iraq, there’s no question.”
As taps is sounded over President Gerald Ford, we are reminded that American politicians have two vastly different ways of viewing national decision making. The choices we conclude, from Senator Biden’s remarks, is to go with the polls and ensure reelection. Senator Lieberman and President Bush prefer a longer, nation-centric and less selfish approach.
December 29, 2006 at 4:44 pm |
Very good analysis. We can’t let the Democrat progressives rewrite history. With blogs like yours, I think we can at least inform the public that there is another side to the media propaganda they’ve been fed for 40 years.