To clarify...

To address each of your points...

I might, indeed, have been unclear. It was a busy evening for me, as I don't usually "Bund" after work. My apologies.

#1) I know Mr. Ford is dead... I was being ironic.

#2) My position on Clinton is that 90% of everything that came out of the Starr investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged real estate purchases he was instructed to investigate in the first place. In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?

#3) My point is that the Starr investigation was 100% politically motivated. There isn't one iota of what that man brought to the public's eye (via a rabid media, too... since when does a Federal investigator use mainstream media as the conduit for his investigation information, anyway?) that was in the pervue of his initial investigative agenda... not one. My point is that there is a price to be paid for that sort of "public flogging", whether it is justified by "bad character" or not.

FDR was known to have had an affair for his entire Presidency (even Eleanor knew about it), but most people agree that it couldn't or wouldn't have done any "public" good to have exposed the man for his "bad character" while he was in office. The "price" I keep referring to is the cost associated with making the Office of the President (or any major office in the govenrment) look cheap and demeaned by poor judgement for no gain other than partisan politics.

Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.

Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true. Why then should Nixon NOT bear the responsibility for his "bad character"? Why is Ford justified in pardoning Nixon, if Clinton deserved what he got? That is my reasoning in stating that I can't decisively dismiss arguments against Ford's pardon. I think it was the right thing to do, but NOT because I think Nixon was not guilty. I think Nixon was guilty, just as I think Clinton was guilty... but neither Clinton nor Nixon suffered even a fraction as much as the country did, in each episode. Our nation's legacy, history, honor and prestige all suffered at the hands of men who exercised very, very bad judgement.

It all boils down to the question "Where does justice lay?" Is it handed out through our legal system, or is it handed out via the media circus and the court of public opinion? Nixon never saw his day in "court"... and the country was better off for it, but Clinton was charged, tried and "judged" by everyone watching TV or reading a newspaper, and the country is a little less than what it was because of it.

I'm still a little irked by the thought that I am having to justify my position (as opposed to clarifying it) to someone that so ardently defended the perceived "position" of another scandalized former President... Andrew Jackson. I'm expected to over-look or ignore his blanket disregard for the law and basic human understanding in light of the "good things" he did for the country... but I should expect each and every sitting public official to readily admit to each and every sexual or moral indiscretion that might have occured in their lives? If it all comes down to character and judgement... there aren't many that can stand up to the test, are there?