Since he was never Elected so how could he be Re-Elected.
2007-01-15 01:52:12 · 10 answers · asked by tardis1977 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I have to agree with you and say "yes", simply because a person cannot be re-elected without first having been elected.
2007-01-15 06:08:50 · answer #1 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically, they are wrong because President Ford was not initially elected but as Vice President became President upon the resignation of the office by President Nixon. Similar situations in recent history were faced by Presidents Truman and Johnson who succeeded Presidents who had died in office. President Ford, for example, could have run for re-election in 1980 had he defeated President Carter in 1976. Similarly, President Truman could have run for re-election in 1952 but chose not to. President Johnson could have run for re-election in 1972 had he ran and won in 1968.
So technically, President Ford did not run for re-election in 1976 since he was never elected but is considered the "accidental President."
2007-01-15 10:42:20 · answer #2 · answered by cliff 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ford is the only one to be Vice President and President, and not be elected to either post. The only reason Nixon resigned was because Ford guaranteed his pardon. The deal was made by Alexander Haig.
2007-01-15 13:28:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are absolutely right. Ford was NEVER elect VP, or to the presidency.This is the same as firing someone who doesn't work for you.
2007-01-15 01:57:09 · answer #4 · answered by WC 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the only one among people who i do unlike or do no longer care approximately is: protecting us of a protection rigidity presence in Iraq even with marketing campaign grants to withdraw right this moment. On that I bear in mind that he mentioned mutually as nonetheless campaigning that he could shop on with the settlement signed by potential of George. So mutually as I choose we weren't there i'm no longer likely to fake that he does no longer have a sturdy reason to nonetheless have them there. it is the treaty.
2016-12-13 07:13:11 · answer #5 · answered by aaron 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they would be wrong.
It doesn't make as good of a headline.
If you look for technical accuracy in the media give it up.
2007-01-15 01:58:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I think they are technically wrong. But we all get what they mean.
2007-01-15 01:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by ME 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Exactly. The "re" is inaccurate. Just like it is when referring to Bush in 2004.
2007-01-15 01:56:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, technically they are wrong.
2007-01-15 01:55:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NIT PICKER Give us a break Rather anal of you
I have no life and you have less than I do
I feel sorry for you
2007-01-15 02:26:46 · answer #10 · answered by bob b 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋