h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thank you for that nice post (it really is useful when you say what part the error is in, so thanks for that) and I've corrected all of those errors.

You enjoyed reading about Nixon? I think, besides Watergate, his life was pretty boring. Definitely the most boring to research - of the three presidents I've researched, Nixon was least interesting. But to each his own, I suppose <ok.

Thanks.

You're right, my T-Shirt wearing friend; there is a line of succession, but that is not what was followed. You correctly pointed to the usage of the 25th amendment, rather than the 'in case both disappear' succession.

I suspect you are also correct in assuming that the possibility of dual scandals causing dual resignations was a possibility. I believe that what was not anticipated was that they could time it to pick their own successor/puppet; or that elected officials would have the affront to try it.

I guess what really chaffs is that Congress did not refuse the resignations and force them both to stand for impeachment proceedings. They may have even beat the rap, but we'd know a lot more about what had been happening.

If I ruled the world (and it's probably a pretty good thing I don't), after Agnew's resignation, I'd have refused to let the 25th amendment to be employed until the president had answered to his own scandal. It was too much like giving a defendant the choice of sentencing judge. 'Oh, I'll take Jerry; he likes me and, if I get him the job, he'll owe me big time.'

Yes, the public did not like what happened. Yes, it was bound to be a bad result, but didn't have to be THAT bad if Ford had not decided to go the pardon route (I'm not sure that I really believe that it had been prearranged, but I'm paranoid enough to strongly suspect it).

On the voters' culpability though, I have to say that you are terrbily naive, politically, if you truly believe in the incredible power of the voters - even in election years. Legislators are constantly battling to stay in office, and are normally reliant on special interest groups and lobbyists for the financial support necessary.

Even the politicians don't always have the power to control the laws they write. You must have some idea of how often a veto is used, or is unused, based on amendments, dilutions, and riders to each piece of legislation. Any plan to help schools will likely have rider amendments related to military bases, energy exploration, farmers, tax breaks, or other unconnected minutia. The combinations are endless.

I don't expect that your piece will change, as it does what it is meant to do; describe the usage of the 25th amendment as applied in the case, to ensure an orderly transmission of power. And I don't expect that we'll ever agree on the morals and ethics issues. To me it was among the darkest events in American political history.

My personal preferance for 'What alternative was there' is that Nixon being denied the right to resign while under investigation, that he not be allowed to designate his successor (the Secretary of State could have taken the post); and, failing all that, Ford should have been impeached for collusion and abuse of executive privilege, and investigated for conspiracy to undermine the Constitution.

Sorry, but you asked.



PS: Still a darn fine entry! We just disagree on its outcome and its importance. I hear you saying that it was smooth, peaceful, and legal (letter of the law); and I would have as soon seen the whole lot of them facing a firing squad for failing to live up the ideals of the American forefathers who crafted the government's roles (spirit of the law).

I rarely wear a T-Shirt actually. My current shirt has a collar and everything.

"On the voters' culpability though, I have to say that you are terrbily naive, politically, if you truly believe in the incredible power of the voters - even in election years."

Just a bit optimistic

"Legislators are constantly battling to stay in office, and are normally reliant on special interest groups and lobbyists for the financial support necessary. "

What sort of special interest group lobbied for or against the 25th Amendment? The 'We Want the Post of the VP which Resigned to Remain Unfilled Until Elections' lobby? The 'We Hate Orderly Succession in Case of a President's Death, Impeachment or Resignation' lobby?

"To me it was among the darkest events in American political history."

What, the result of Watergate? If that's what you mean, we can agree there. And we can probably agree that a huge scandal like Watergate foreshadowed a bad effect.
There should never be a President that the people didn't elect to the office or to the VP office. It's unfortunate.

"My personal preferance for 'What alternative was there' is that Nixon being denied the right to resign while under investigation, that he not be allowed to designate his successor (the Secretary of State could have taken the post); and, failing all that, Ford should have been impeached for collusion and abuse of executive privilege, and investigated for conspiracy to undermine the Constitution."

The government doesn't often get away with violating the laws.
The 25th Amendment made it perfectly legal for a President to resign (whether investigation or not), and for the sucession to happen in the order it did.

You make me glad, Jodan, to think that there are still the optimistic among the voters! (Oh, and congratulations on the 'shirt' thing.

I understand the humour of your 'special interest group' against the 25th. But that was actually related to the point raised about voters' power, and how politicians have to 'compromise' to stay in office.

If you truly feel that there should 'never be a President that the people didn't elect to the office', I wish you'd tell that to the current pretender. That's the other shoe of the lack of voter power, but don't get me started on the 'electoral college' fiascos.

'The government doesn't often get away with violating the laws.'
Certainly that's no defense for when it does violate laws?

Again though, it WAS perfectly legal; no doubt about it. So were slavery, no voting rights for women, witch-burning, etc. What good is it when people are doing what is legal, if it is also evil and results in one of the darkest days in American political history.

Would the country have been any worse off if the Speaker of the House had simply stepped into the role of president, even if he had to keep GRF? (probably couldn't have happened THAT way, but if a law was to be violated, I'd rather it had been that one).

As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

A fine portrait of a biazarre man...

You might like to point out that in 1960, Nixon pledged to visit every state (and did) rather than 'crassly' campaigning hard in the states with the most electoral votes.

Some contend that winning Alaska at the cost of losing some others might have cost him the election...


- Jimi X

's done Thanks Jimi.

Hi again, Jodan!

Glad you got to Jimi's.

There is one more tidbit (that may not be appropriate to the piece, but you decide) that could be included.

In the months before his first term, Nixon campaigned proclaiming 'Anyone who can't end the war in Viet Nam in four years, shouldn't be given another chance!'. Then, four years later, he was asking for another chance.

What is most bothersome here was the revelation that he wanted to bring the boys home earlier, but was persuaded that bringing 50,000 young men home to a jobless economy was economic suicide; and so, chose to extend the campaign until the economy could significantly improve.

(Frankly, I don't recall if it improved that much before they were brought home, but it is his thinking that way that disturbs me.)

I'm a-hovering over the Accept button here, Jodan...

What do you want this time?
I *think* that I've gotten everything that I want to get. But then again, I said that last time.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Always a nice surprise...

Hi Jodan,

it's ready! The subbed version of your fine entry is at A2671689. As usual, drop me a note if there's something wrong with it.

SchrEck Inc.

Looks fine to me.