Mac & Gordon Dipshiddy: perfect together

I'm not normally inclined to watch Letterman, Leno or any of the other late night talk shows, but just as I was going to bed the other night, I caught the tail end of McCain's appearance on Letterman, where he went on to kiss and make up with Dave for canceling last minute a few weeks ago.

It was a pretty predictable appearance, but toward the end of the interview, no matter how hard McCain tried to keep the interview light and superficial, Letterman kept up with the probing questions. Finally, toward the end of the interview, Letterman asked him about his relationship with Gordon Liddy. Watch the end of the video above for McCain's hemming and hawing about him.

[Fade to commercial]

When the show returns from commercial, after McCain had time to think about his response about Liddy further, McCain defiantly (stupidly?) said that he was "proud of his association with Gordon Liddy."

More from Media Matters:

And in an August 22 blog post about an anti-Obama ad highlighting Obama's association with Ayers, (Chicago Tribune reporter Steve) Chapman wrote:

But conservatives may not want to draw attention to the issue of ties to violent radicals -- since John McCain is longtime pals with convicted Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy, who once plotted a journalist's murder (which was never carried out) and has advocated the shooting of federal law enforcement agents.

More from Crooks & Liars:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character."

Oops!! One would think that before McCain got all sanctimonious over Ayers, he would have looked in the mirror and taken stock in his relationship with Gordon Liddy, and for that matter, his running mate's association with the Alaska Secessionist Movement.

Don't get me wrong - I'm beyond sick of all these guilt by association stories in the media, but the only reason I'm mentioning it is undoubtedly the same reason Letterman did the other night - McCain's past isn't nearly as clean as the mainstream media would have you believe. Of course, on Friday, when the corporate media reported on McCain's Letterman appearance, there was no mention of Liddy, anywhere.

As I wrote last week before the final debate, it's not a stretch to say that Liddy was a domestic terrorist under the Nixon administration. And if Liddy would have been turned loose to do everything he wanted to do under Nixon, he would have been much worse. Some of his ideas included firebombing the Brookings Institution (a left-wing think tank) using Cubans as firemen, kidnapping anti-war protesters during the 1972 Republican National Convention, and luring Democratic Party leaders to a houseboat to take pictures of them in compromising positions with hookers. Oh yea, and there was something called Watergate, too.

It's pretty safe to say that just about any national politician running for the presidency has had a few questionable associations in the past, to secure campaign contributions or a host of other reasons, and that these associations doesn't exactly paint a flattering picture. This is just another example of how McCain has run a dishonorable and dishonest campaign.

Anyway, I was only half paying attention to McCain and Letterman right before I fell asleep, but when I heard Letterman mention Liddy, I almost jumped out of my chair, because no one else in the media has had the temerity to question the Maverick about some of his past associations.

I have much more to say about Bill Ayers, but that's a separate post.

Aug. 9 - another bad day

Sorry for all of the inactivity - we just returned from Seattle the day before yesterday, and yesterday I want to a Dave Matthews Band concert, so I'm getting back on track. I just finished two books, and the political world never sleeps, so I've got plenty on the way, believe me.

In the meantime, I wanted to take a minute to reflect on another crazy day in history. Since I read a lot about history, two pretty big things happened on this date that I was not around to witness, and one from the world of sports that I do remember, and I'll never forget.

I suppose I'll go in chronological order, since it's tough to pick between the first two:

Sixty-two years ago today, the U.S. dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. It barely gets a mention in the U.S. media, but in Japan, it's observed each and every year. Since the number of survivors from both atomic bombings are shrinking by the year, observing the anniversaries of the atomic bombings takes on added importance in Japan (and it should in the U.S.). The photo above is often misidentified as being the Hiroshima bomb cloud, but it is in fact from the Nagasaki blast.

Above, people carry the head part of Virgin Mary image on Papal See in Nagasaki earlier today. The head part of the image was found amid debris of Urakami Cathedral in the suburbs of Nagasaki about two months after the bombing.

Above, people attend a ceremony held in front of the Statue of Peace at Nagasaki Peace Park earlier today. Nagasaki marked the 62nd anniversary of the world's second, and so far the last, atomic bomb attack with a somber ceremony and calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. If I live another 50 years, I pray that I never live to see the horror of another nuclear weapon detonation on people. It's a realistic fear that we may indeed see one though, and in America.

Above, this photo from video, from HBO, shows atomic bomb survivor Etsuko Nagano holding a picture of herself as a child in Nagasaki, Japan, during the making in 2005 of the HBO documentary film White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Filmmaker Steven Okazaki interviewed 14 survivors for the film, which premiered on HBO on Monday, Aug. 6, 62 years after the U.S. detonated the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

This weekend I'm going to watch the HBO film, and I'll bring you my thoughts on it. Here's a short clip from the film...

Today's probably the single biggest day in history that gave us the media coverage and political system we have today. (And, an annoyance - the reason we have "-gate" as a suffix to any political scandal of note.)

Thirty-three years ago today, President Nixon resigned in disgrace for abusing his power, attempting to subvert the Constitution, and thinking he was above the law. Sound familiar? It should.

Anyone who lived through Watergate can never forget Nixon's hubris to the very end of his presidency and beyond. I was three years old on August 9, 1974, so I don't remember, but the subject has always been one of fascination with me, and probably always will be, as long as good books continue to be churned out about he Nixon presidency. (And that's showing no signs of slowing down.) Above, Nixon does his ridiculous victory wave before he boards Marine One for his trip into exile in San Clemente, California.

Tell me if you notice the difference...

Between this...

...and this.

Nixon's resignation didn't hurt the country then, and Bush's impeachment wouldn't hurt the country now. Nixon more than deserved his fate, and the Bush presidency deserves a similar ending - impeachment. He'd never resign, and it looks like the Democrats are allowing Bush to get away with the many, many subversions of the law over the last nearly seven years.

Compared to the other two, the Wayne Gretzky trade pales in comparison, but it was my worst day ever as a sports fan - when the defending Stanley Cup Champion Edmonton Oilers traded Wayne Gretzky to the Los Angeles Kings on this day 19 years ago in 1988. I would argue that it is right up there with the trade that brought Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees as one of the worst sports trades in the history of professional sports. This trade was that huge.

The entire nation of Canada, where hockey is the first, second and third biggest sport, was outraged. I still remember where I was and who told me - my friend Brian called me up and said, "Hey man, Gretzky just got traded." I didn't even believe him - I thought he was kidding. I turned on the TV, and for one of the few times since I was a little kid, I sat down and cried over sports. (I also did when Gretz played his last game as a Ranger in 1999 when he retired.)

The Oilers' Cup victory in 1990 eased the pain a little, but it's difficult not to wonder how many Cups the Oilers could have won had #99 not been traded. It's almost too painful to contemplate. I'm guessing the team could have won at least 2-3 more championships above the five it won from 1984-1990, but we'll never know.

August 9 - not a fun date when I think about it.

Top photo AP file photo
Second & third photos AP/Kyodo News
Fourth photo AP/HBO

35 years ago, + 1 day: the break-in

I meant to blog about this yesterday, but I was just too tired to blog after we got home from visiting my dad in the Poconos.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, five men broke into the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and were caught by police after security guard Frank Willis noticed tape over a door latch (put there by the burglars to keep it from locking). The burglary touched off a cascade of events that led to the downfall and resignation of President Nixon.

Editor & Publisher had an interesting piece late last week about the anniversary that asks the question, "Would the Watergate story have been broken today?" A sample:

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact on reporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

It's not an easy question to contemplate, because much of the cynicism and partisanship that exists today can be traced back to Watergate and Vietnam. (It's not a stretch to say that without Vietnam, there would have been no Watergate Scandal.)

The idealist in me likes to think that somehow the truth would still come out if such a political firestorm happened today, but the realist in me says "no way."

Why?

Because Watergate-caliber stuff has been happening in this country for over six years now, and because of the poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, the rise of Fox News and the pervasiveness of right-wing radio and the consolidation of our media, it's highly unlikely that such a scandal would be revealed today unless some major whistle blowers stepped forward.

In today's partisan atmosphere, can you imagine how harshly Woodstein would be crucified by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity? They'd be labeled "reporters with an agenda, out to get the president." Period.

And that's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration has gotten away with the mind-boggling things it has since January 2001 - when a legit news story comes out that's a major embarrassment to the administration, either the people reporting it get attacked, or the administration manipulates the media with another terrorism or War in Iraq story. Remember the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict?

A few examples of the people who've been smeared: Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief from presidents Reagan through George W. Bush; former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; the U.S. attorneys who were fired; a number of former army generals who served in Iraq; John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's stalled effort to aid religious charities; and Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004.

Hey, the list goes on and on. The Karl Rove template on whistle blowers and defectors is simple - impugn the integrity of the turncoats, so at least the possibility is raised that they might be speaking out because of a missed-out promotion, or a political ax to grind.

So, in the end, I don't think Watergate could be exposed like it was from 1972-1974. Our mainstream media is too corrupted, consolidated and focused on pop culture pap, and very few journalists do honest, thorough reporting anymore. The norm now sadly seems to be "report now, and we'll correct it if we need to." In other words, report now, verify later, but only if someone screams and complains loud enough that we got the story wrong.

Think I'm being too cynical? Then you haven't been paying attention to the presidential candidates' press coverage so far, specifically on the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton's wardrobe and ancient marital problems to John Edwards' "$400 haircuts," the Dems, so far, have been subjected to a great deal of superficial, biased and irrelevant reporting.

On the flip-side, candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have largely gotten a pass. Giuliani, a man who has profited greatly and shamelessly from 9-11, made about $10 million in speeches last year, and his speaking contract demanded all sorts of ridiculous luxuries; use of a Gulfstream IV Jet among them, along with a $100,000 speaking fee. And the press is bitching about a $400 haircut? Please.

Anyway, Joe Strupp, the author of the E&P piece, ended with a note of optimism:

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Those are some good examples, no doubt, but I still maintain that in the age of infotainment, there is much, much more horrific and superficial journalism in our mainstream media than even adequate reporting.

June 6: a world-changing day in history

Today is a pretty significant anniversary in our country's history. I'll deal with them in separate posts.

Thirty-nine years ago today, we lost one of the last truly great statesman this country has seen: Robert Francis Kennedy, who was shot by assassin Sirhan Sirhan the day before at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California.

Above is a very moving eulogy by Robert's brother, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. It's probably one of the best eulogies I've ever heard - well written with just the right touch for his grieving family, and a mourning nation.

In his eulogy, Ted cited a very powerful speech that RFK delivered, ironically two years to the day before his death at the University of Cape Town, South Africa on June 6, 1966. An excerpt:

Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation ... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

This is a pretty collection of RFK moments during his storied and distinguished career in public life.

Many of RFK's detractors (and the rest of the Kennedys, for that matter) like to cite his womanizing as proof that he wasn't a good man. I don't buy it. No one is perfect, that's for sure, and neither was RFK. He did a great deal for this country, and could have been so much more.

I just can't help but think what would have happened had RFK lived. It's not a stretch to say that two American tragedies would have been different: Vietnam would have been been ended much sooner, there would have been no Watergate. We would live in a much different country today, almost certainly for the better. I wasn't alive then, but from what history I have read, I'd like to think that RFK would have beaten Richard Nixon. Actually, I don't know if he could have secured the nomination - by June 1968 Hubert Humphrey had a sizable lead in delegates to get the nomination. But, if RFK would have been able to sway party bosses (who still, to a certain extent, controlled the party back then), and I think he would have, he could have won the nomination.

It's easy to forget that Nixon only won the '68 election by some 900,000 votes (.07%); a very thin margin indeed. Who among us thinks that RFK's charm, charisma and idealism could not have bridged that gap. If a staid, conservative (in a social sense) candidate like Humphrey could get that close to Nixon, Kennedy surly would have beaten him.

I've heard of no one sum up RFK's life and dreams better than his brother, Ted, which he did during his eulogy:

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life. He'll be remembered simply as a good and decent man; He saw wrong and tried to right it, he saw suffering and tried to heal it, he saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us, what he wished for others, will some day come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation,to those he touched and sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?'; I dream things that never were and say 'Why not?'"

There will never be another man like him - I wish we had a candidate for president today, from any party, who is half the person he was.

I beseech you to read up on the man, and to see the movie Bobby, which has received favorable reviews. I read this today, and I believe it more than I've believed anything I've ever read about the Kennedys: President Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. formed the triumvirate of modern liberal philosophy, and with their assassinations, America was set back at least 40 years. I couldn't agree more.

Robert Francis Kennedy, b. November 20, 1925, d. June 6, 1968

RFK's legacy endures, and so does his hope for a better America. We'll get there, one election at a time.

Stewart spot on about VT Massacre coverage

It's pretty ironic that Jon Stewart ponders, "Is there anyone who has a coherent point" to make about the Virginia Tech Massacre, when he's one of the few who actually has anything coherent to say on the tragedy.

As usual, Sean Insanity shines in the face of another tragedy. Evidently, the people who were trying to score political points so soon after Virginia Tech "sicken him." Good call, Sean. Feel free to go ahead and condemn Judas John McCain, who didn't even bother to wait to leave the airport following the tragedy before reinforcing his belief that "we all have the right to bear arms."

All I've heard about in the nearly two weeks since the tragedy is how the Democrats have "avoided the issue." Most talking heads soo sagely opine that it's because "Gore tried to take on the gun lobby in 2000" that he lost the election. I guess I just missed something then, like Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recounts and handed Bush the presidency.

Repubes constantly complain that Democrats just won't let go of the 2000 election, yet they continuously bring it up, too. Let's face it - the 2000 election is a political travesty that will sit alongside other infamous political scandals in history - Iran-Contra, Watergate, the Clinton Impeachment, the War in Iraq, and on an on.

Anyway, my theory as to why the Democrats avoided the gun issue before the bodies were cold - perhaps they just wanted to show a little decency? That may be wrong, and I'm not completely discounting the fact that there may have been some political calculations involved, but when I turned on the TV or went to media Websites in the days following the tragedy, it wasn't Democrats I saw pathetically preening before the cameras for a few votes from gun owners who vote.

Anyway, well done, Mr. Stewart.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.

Ford's legacy will endure

Tuesday marked the passing of one of our most underrated presidents, Gerald R. Ford. Of all of the mid-to-late 20th century presidents, he gets talked about the least, but he deserves a great deal of credit for his stewardship following President Richard Nixon's downfall and resignation.

I post the photo above because when people pass away, I prefer to remember and commemorate them as they looked during their younger days, not how they looked just prior to death.

Many call Ford our "accidental president," not out of malice, but because he really did not want, nor did he seek the presidency.

His ascension to the Oval Office is without parallel. On October 10, 1973, President Nixon's first vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned in disgrace amid charges of income tax evasion. Ford was nominated to take Agnew's place on October 12, and he took the oath of office for vice president on December 12, 1973 upon his confirmation by the House. It received scant attention by the media, as the political firestorm continued to envelop Nixon's presidency.

Ford barely had time to make the seat warm in the vice president's chair before he was summoned again, this time by White House Chief of Staff Alexander M. Haig on August 1, 1974, to let him know that a "smoking gun" had been found on the Nixon tapes, implicating the president in criminal wrongdoing. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, and at noon, Ford took the oath of office. ...

However, upon taking the oath of office, President Ford made the biggest of all political blunders - pardoning President Nixon. It's a debate that will probably rage for decades, if not centuries in American political discourse. Should Ford have pardoned Nixon, or should have Nixon suffered the consequences for his administration's criminal behavior?

Ultimately, I understand why Ford pardoned Nixon. America needed to get moving again. Watergate had enveloped the nation for over two years and paralyzed its foreign policy. I've changed my stance over the years on Ford's decision to pardon Nixon. Up until a few years ago, I thought it was criminal of Ford to let Nixon skate; the American people deserved answers, I used to haughtily intone.

Well, I still feel that way - a trial would have paralyzed the nation, and probably almost certainly would have killed Nixon, and by that I mean physically. Some close to the former president at the time following his resignation even felt that Nixon might have committed suicide.

But, I strongly feel that Ford pardoned Nixon too soon. Without even being formally charged, Nixon was exonerated of all charges. The American people deserved better. Yes, I realize I didn't "live" in those times, so I'm only going on what I've read. I was born in 1971, so I was alive, but at three years old, I remember nothing of those events.

In my view, Ford should have at least let the charges come out against Nixon. Americans at least deserved to learn of Nixon and his administration's criminal misconduct before the entire mess was swept under the rug with a pardon. (Above, Ford signs the pardon on the Oval Office on September 8, 1974)

The pardon set off another political firestorm in America, and this even touched his own administration. Ford's first press secretary, Jerry terHorst, resigned in protest the next day. More importantly, it severely hurt Ford's credibility as the new president. Many still believe that a deal had been struck between Ford and Nixon; in return for Nixon's resignation, Ford would grant him a pardon.

Prior to Nixon's resignation, Haig had indeed offered Ford a deal, but most historians agree that Ford pardoned Nixon on his own.

In the end, though, I think the pardon, irrespective of its timing, was the right thing to do, even though it certainly cost him the election in 1976. Had he not pardoned Nixon, Ford would have beaten Jimmy Carter and remained president. (The election was very close, so no pardon could have made a world of difference.)

Several former leaders also gained experience in the Ford Administration. Future President George H.W. Bush (above, left) meets with President Ford after being appointed Director of the CIA.

A Ford between two Edsels. President Ford (center) talks with Donald Rumsfeld (left) and Dick Cheney (right) in the Oval Office in 1975.

Here's one that a president got right - Gerald Ford tears up in the East Room of the White House while listening to President Clinton's remarks while receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999. It was certainly a better decision than Bush's awarding the Medal of Freedom to the likes of George Tenet, who oversaw one of the biggest intelligence failures in U.S. history. Bush threw him under the bus in the wake of the WMD intel failure, Tenet resigned, and Bush gave him the MOF. I wonder how long it will be until Rumsfeld gets his? But, I digress.

Ford also had his dangerous detractors. On September 5, 1975, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to shoot Ford, and she may have succeeded, but she forgot to chamber a round into the firing chamber of her .45 before pulling the trigger.

Fromme (above) is currently serving a life sentence.

Just 17 days later, Sara Jane Moore (Below) managed to get off a shot toward Ford in San Francisco, but the shot was deflected. (Above, Ford approaches his limo as Moore fires)

After losing the '76 election, Ford kept probably the lowest profile of any recent former president. He occasionally made an appearance or went out for a round of golf, but he didn't make headlines in the vein of Clinton or his successor, Jimmy Carter.

He did do one thing that all other ex-presidents to date haven't managed to do, and that's live 93 years plus. He became the longest living president last month, besting Ronald Reagan by a little over a month.

Ford was a good and decent man who healed our nation in the aftermath of a real constitutional crisis, and that will be his greatest legacy.

God bless, and rest in peace, Mr. President.