The American Spectator

Deborah| 2.13.09 @ 7:01AM

Quaint word, "honesty." Sad to say, but as you have noted that word doesn't apply to our new president. For him to equate himself with Lincoln (also known as Honest Abe) is just another propaganda tool by a leftist president.

His hidden agenda in the campaign, which was outed by Joe the Plumber but was hushed up by the media with their scathing attacks on citizen Joe, is now not so hidden...but the media still whitewashes it and it seems everyone is afraid to say what is going on here. Has political correctness or fear of media lambasting gone so far that no one is able to tell the truth anymore?

This is simply the scariest, biggest attempt at total power and theft of younger generations in my lifetime. This is the New Deal on steroids being shoved down our throats in the middle of the night with no chance to review what's in the biggest spending bill in our lifetimes. And, the media just seems so happy. Let the mighty One and his leftist cabal in Congress do whatever they want. This is how Republics die. Thanks, media folks for adding weight to this sinking ship by your lack of honesty with the American people.

Speaking of how Republics die, great piece in TCS Daily here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020609A

Robert Rosencrans| 2.13.09 @ 7:25AM

Obama has told one whopper after another, and when caught, has his Press Secretary confidently exclaim, "You have to bend the rules."

Barack Obama has some form of a mental illness, call it megalomania or whatever, where he is convinced the majority of the public will never catch onto his lies and deception.

Perhaps it's time to remember this.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln.

Robert Rosencrans| 2.13.09 @ 7:29AM

That quote above was incorrect. The actual quote was:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln.

stu.b.con| 2.13.09 @ 7:49AM

What continues to be amazing to me is the number of seemingly thoughtful, intelligent people who either are unable or unwilling to recognize this charlatan for what he is. This, despite his words, actions, and deeds.
For him to try to glom onto the legacy of one of our greatest makes me want to yak, he couldn't carry Lincoln's briefcase let alone fill his shoes.

GreginOkinawa| 2.13.09 @ 8:29AM

Obama is just another Chicago thug politician. Those who don't know sore stupid, those that do and don't care are evil.

Curly Smith| 2.13.09 @ 9:15AM

I think the press is actually telling us the truth when they say Obama is like Lincoln.

According to the USA Today a new generation has discovered Lincoln. The experts say Lincoln was a homosexual, a racist, chronically depressed, a tyrant, a "crybaby", and his wife was insane. Sounds like Obama to me.

You just have to remember that the press is comparing Obama to the Lincoln THEY know versus the Lincoln YOU know. And the press knows who Obama really is...

Read what journalists call American History and what psychiatrists call projection: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-10-lincoln_N.htm

Robbins Mitchell| 2.13.09 @ 9:34AM

Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue

Red Phillips| 2.13.09 @ 9:37AM

Mr. Neumayr, you are kidding yourself. The monstrosity of a federal government we have today that Obama is residing over is the DIRECT RESULT of Lincoln's destruction of the Republic. Lincoln destroyed the Old Republic of the Founders and replaced it with an ideological post French Revolution modern state. Lincoln is the villain who gave rise to all the modern governmental excesses.

The days are over when "conservatives" can praise Lincoln on conservative website and not expect to get feedback.

les grossman| 2.13.09 @ 9:49AM

It has been nauseating to watch the modern day Copperheads claim Lincoln as one of their own.

ncattty| 2.13.09 @ 9:54AM

I was skeptical of Ms. Goodwin and perhaps still am, but she has written a helluva good book in Team of Rivals. As for what is happening in Washington now, it is only the fulfillment of the Prophet Emmanuel's (Rahm) statement "Never waste a crisis." They haven't.

Dave| 2.13.09 @ 9:59AM

Anyone who can read anything by Doris Kearns Goodwin needs to either get therapy or leave the country. I am surprised she has any credibilty at all.

Red Phillips| 2.13.09 @ 10:03AM

Almost all recent Lincoln "scholarship," including Goodwin, has been hagiography produce by the Lincoln Cult.

John| 2.13.09 @ 10:19AM

Right on Red!!
How any modern day conservative can extoll the virtues of Lincoln is beyond me. Someone I read said Lincoln replaced the Federal gov't's engine with a Indy race car engine and then FDR came along and with the New Deal removed the brakes from the Federal gov't's vehicle. We now have the Democrats steering that car toward the edge of a cliff and disaster.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 10:43AM

Ok Red, since in your words almost all recent Lincoln scholarship is product of the Lincoln cult, name me the ones that aren't and I will give them a try.

Keith K.| 2.13.09 @ 10:44AM

There is one area in which The Messiah and Honest Abe are exactly alike. Lincoln trampled on the U. S. Constitution with impunity (suspending Habeas Corpus, imprisoning and then deporting political enemies, etc.). In that area, Chairman Zero is following exactly in Lincoln's footprints.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 10:45AM

And John, what should Lincoln have done to avoid getting on your bad side?

Charles Edwards| 2.13.09 @ 10:46AM

Next year there will be an orgasmic worship of Lincoln on his 200th birthday. I can guarantee that the truth about Lincoln will come out and amaze all of you less educated Lincoln lovers. Things such as his contempt and dislike of the Negro. His manipulation of the Emancipation Proclamation (where he only freed slaves in the Confederate states, not in the Yankee states - read it for yourself in its entirety). Probably the first U.S. President to commit war crimes on the people (Sherman's march to the sea - raping and burning and starving people) and finally creating the beginning of the vast central federal government and bureaucracy and loss of state and individual freedoms that now have.

What a truly wonderful man.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 11:03AM

Charles, you left out his suspension of habeas corpus. Unconstitutional, right?

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 11:14AM

Keith, I am not sure about all of the "trampling" you mention but suspending the writ of habeas corpus is constitutional. Article I, Section 9.

Red Phillips| 2.13.09 @ 11:16AM

Charles, this year is his 200th. That is why we are seeing all this.

Lincoln Goes to War and Lincoln's Darkest Year: the War in 1862 by William Marvel are honest attempts at evenhandedness by an honest scholar.

Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked are admittedly written from a point of view, but are great counterbalances to all the biased pro-Lincoln stuff. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is also good.

Nick| 2.13.09 @ 11:23AM

How appropriate that B.O.'s porkulus spending bill will be voted on Friday the 13th.

Thanks for saddling the next two generations with all this debt, stinking liberals. Why do you guys love stealing your future grandchildren's money, bleeding hearts?

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 11:26AM

The Marvel books are good.

Nick| 2.13.09 @ 11:40AM

ncatty,

Article I of the U.S. Constitution deals with the powers delegated to the congress, not the president.
So how was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus constitutional again?

Ro| 2.13.09 @ 12:00PM

Dave -

A long time ago I read "Wait 'Til Next Year" by Doris Kearns Goodwin, about her love for the Brooklyn Dodgers. I was a Cubs fan as a little girl, and although her experience was a few years before mine, it brought back the wonderful summer evenings, reading the Chicago Daily News boxscores, checking to see how my Cubbies were faring against the Mets.

It is a lovely book. And believe it or not, it has nothing to do with Lincoln. I suppose that is how someone could read one of her books. I hope I don't have to leave the country now because I have neither the money nor the patience for therapy!!

Ro

Keith K.| 2.13.09 @ 12:24PM

ncatty - Article 1, section 9 of the constitution does not grant to the POTUS the power to suspend habeas corpus.
If you will look again, the Article dealing with Presidential powers is next.
Or, has the President recently taken up residence in the Congress?

David Govett| 2.13.09 @ 12:53PM

The deeper one is in muck, the more intently one gazes upward at the distant stars.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 1:10PM

Article I, Section 9. Powers denied to Congress....The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

When Lincoln suspended the writ Congess was not in session. When they reconvened, they approved his actions.

Keith K.| 2.13.09 @ 2:16PM

Thus, trampling on the constitution by taking to himself powers that were granted to the Congress.
You have made my point.
That, however, was chump change when compared to his imprisonment of those who vehemently disagreed with his conduct of the war.

GayLiberalWhoLovesPavarotti!| 2.13.09 @ 2:40PM

Republican opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 2:45PM

I agree that in the absence of Congress he took unto himself the responsibility of suspending the writ. He admitted it and consequently asked Congress for their approval, which they gave. Should every part of the Constitution been destroyed to save one, namely the writ of habeas corpus?

Red Phillips| 2.13.09 @ 3:35PM

ncatty, had he allowed the Southern States to secede he would have been upholding the Constitution because secession was perfectly legal and constitutional. By going to war to prevent it, he trampled the Constitution.

Keith K.| 2.13.09 @ 3:54PM

ncatty - Like most who worship at the altar of A. Lincoln, you make excuses of his abuses of the Constitution by saying that it "worked", "was necessary", or "preserved the Union".
In fact, Lincoln turned what was a loose confederation of sovereign states into what our founders most feared and what we have today - an all powerful, overreaching central federal government.
The evils that are about to be rained down on us from that monolith are going to be a wonder to behold.

Interloper| 2.13.09 @ 4:30PM

Such lamentations! And, at a time when 63 percent of the public is very pleased with the President of the United States, Barack Obama. One could think he was in some alternative reality reading these comments on what is an upbeat day among most Americans. The stimulus bill is on its way to complete passage with cuts that show the President's willingness to compromise. Accounting for how the money is spent is included, unlike with the Bush 'gifts' to the banks. There are no earmarks in the bill.

President Obama's remarks at the event honoring President Abraham Lincoln, the best chief executive this nation has ever known, were brilliant. I recommend watching the video to any reasonable person reading this thread.

The nonsense that passes for an article here came be summed up by examining this paragraph:

"A president who says, as Obama did in his inaugural address, that the central question for the federal government is not whether it is "too big" but whether "it works" has snapped the mystic cords of memory stretching back to the founders."

Anyone who thinks the most important thing about a form of government is NOT whether it works to provide the basis that makes a society functional is delusional. The size of government should be determined by what it needs to achieve. Modern societies need to achieve much more than those of the centuries past did.

We, as a nation, have just taken another significant step to mitigating the harm caused by eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush. More such steps must, and will, follow.

Alan Brooks| 2.13.09 @ 4:31PM

excellent piece.
but let me demure on Abe: he wasn't honest, he was a politician; in other words as a politician he was top-notch but that isnt saying a whole lot, is it? Politicians are paid to lie to different factions in smoothing things out.
i know i am a gadfly, but want to write away from platitudes-- otherwise there is no purpose in writing... leading us back to golden silence.
to sum it up: Abe wasn't honest, he just had enough integrity to get us through our biggest war. that's it.
'nuff said, bury the dead.

ncatty| 2.13.09 @ 4:33PM

Let me approach it from another angle. Is it constitutional now for a State to secede?

Red Phillips| 2.13.09 @ 4:55PM

"Let me approach it from another angle. Is it constitutional now for a State to secede?"

Absolutely! If it was constitutional in 1861 then it is constitutional now. Surely you are not arguing that might makes right.

"Conservative" who support Lincoln, it really should bother you that Interloper, our token lib, thinks he was the "best chief executive" we ever had. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Todd| 2.13.09 @ 5:27PM

So Red, do you really believe we would be better off today if Lincoln just sat back and let the Confederates secede? This country would have never reached its potential if that had happened and been able to defeat the evils of Nazism and Communism. Slavery had to be stopped, it was tearing the country apart and Lincoln did what was best despite the massive cost of life. That was a price that had to be paid so stop with the nonsense of Lincoln of trampling the Constitution. Have you really not been able to let the Civil War go yet? Lincoln is the first Republican President and we should rightly be proud of him as the standard bearer of the party. The Democrat party is ashamed of their racist past though they try to whitewash it and therefore and trying to take Lincoln for their own and link Obama with in ridiculous ways. Look, Obama is taking the train to Washington just like Lincoln did!

Alan Brooks| 2.13.09 @ 5:54PM

charity for all, sure.

But malice towards none? that's in heaven, not down here.
Abe was as dishonest as Nixon-- who was more bungling than lying.
Abe gets a pass because of the civil war.

btw, there was a civil war 1969- '70.
i was a teenager then, but was a part of that war.

ashok| 2.13.09 @ 6:10PM

From above -- "Obama casts his cheap, showboating pragmatism as Lincolnian -- as if fighting for pork is akin to holding the union together."

Agreed on that point entirely: I would also add the cheapening of equality, where equality of result (to put a kind spin on the pork, which is really just outright corruption) lowers human dignity and creates barriers to equality of opportunity.

What's amazing to me is how Lincoln considered equality, like liberty, to be part of something sacred. If people didn't feel those ends were worthy, how could they fight and die for Union? For more: Analysis / Commentary on the Gettysburg Address

Alan Brooks| 2.13.09 @ 6:20PM

um some of them fought and died because they were conscripted, like.

BJC| 2.13.09 @ 7:05PM

George Neumayr is brilliant (as usual) and acerbic (as occasionally). Honest Abe is commonly cited for inquiring, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

We're living in an age of pose and posturing that is roughly the antithesis of Lincolnesque stance. Today Barack Obama trots out his nonstimulative so-called "stimulus" plan, praising it as the five-legged dog, and the establishment media organs blast conservatives for opposing the dog getting a fifth leg. And they say they are honoring Lincoln? Amazing! But certainly reliant on an uneducated public to not catch on to their diametrical, diabolical distortion! They are direct descendants of George Orwell's "1984" Big Brother -- with "doublethink" and "newspeak" their only stylebook guides. If Obama says that tail is a leg, talk up the five-legged dog because "he won."

Alan Brooks| 2.13.09 @ 7:27PM

of course they honor Abe, he was not as dishonest as they. Tim McVeigh admired Terry Nichols: "he was basically an innocent bystander"

we all admire those more decent than we are. how BIG of us to do so.

JimP| 2.13.09 @ 9:57PM

Interloper: but what about the world wide whiteman conspiracy that is stopping all the stuff you say is gonna happen? Over on the other blog you were ranting about neo-Confederates & the whitemen had it all locked up forever and ever blah blah. Now you concede that the great white conspiracy has chinks in its armour? Sacre bleu! I know, not only do you teach and are an attorney and a 'reputable' historian, but you are also some kind of secret agent with super powers to overthrow the white conspiracy................... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. LOL

Quartermaster| 2.13.09 @ 10:29PM

"Honest Abe" is about as accurate a sobriquet as calling water dry. Lincoln was a cunning politician, and was about as corrupt as they came. Slavery wasn't tearing the country apart, the rural city division was, and we have that with us still. Lincoln's war did not solve that problem.

Lincoln's war worsened the problem of political centralization. Lincoln was Hamiltonian to his dishonest core, which gave the Feds the ability to shove everything down the throats of the states, with no recourse. The Lincoln was the first Rep President is not a matter of pride, but of shame.

If the war was so important you have to ask why the north was overwhelmingly in favor of peaceful secession. The proponents of the war, and the Lincoln propagandists refuse to deal with that one question because it blows all of their sweet propaganda out of the water.

If you like liberalism, you have to like Lincoln as he is the one that made it all possible.

Alan Brooks| 2.13.09 @ 10:57PM

you got it: the rural city division. but there's more to it, there's heritage vs science, it was that way in 1861, too..

for instance cyber has stealth changed us-- these things creep up. i wish i'd known! but that's always the case.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 1:16AM

We have made progress since 1863, but since 1963?
deep down, i suspect progress is all really about preventing the other nations from getting the jump on us-- not to mention their huddled masses yearning to jump into our "melting" pot.
i try to wrap my mind around it, but it keeps coming back to 'progress to WHAT?'

as the city is very open ended, so too is science.

Rich Rostrom| 2.14.09 @ 2:20AM

Article I says "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It does not say who may suspend it. Article I deals mostly with the Legislative Branch, but at least two clauses (in the same Section) apply to the Executive Branch:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;

and

a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts
and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Quartermaster: "Slavery wasn't tearing the country apart, the rural city division was..." In 1860, the U.S. as a whole was 80% rural. The free states had 61% of the population, so if the entire urban population lived there, the free states were still over 2/3 rural. And in fact over 800,000 people lived in slave-state cities, so the free states were about 73% rural. Southern city-dwellers whooped it up for secession. Southern mountaineers were mostly Unionists, as in western Virginia and eastern Tennessee. But then they owned few slaves. Northern farmboys volunteered by the hundreds of thousands; it was urban Irish immigrants who balked at the war.

"the north was overwhelmingly in favor of peaceful secession". This is a flat lie. The only northerners who approved of secession were some abolitionists who saw it as getting slavery out of the U.S. - and who were howled off platforms for saying so. Before Lincoln issued his proclamation of a rebellion and call for 75,000 troops, he showed it to his old adversary, Sen. Stephen Douglas. Douglas told him he should call for 200,000 troops!

Nick| 2.14.09 @ 2:54AM

Mr. Rostrom,

The SCOTUS decision, Ex parte Milligan (1866), said Lincoln didn't have the right.

Red Phillips| 2.14.09 @ 8:34AM

As I said above and this thread proves, the days when "conservatives" can say good things about Lincoln and have it go unchallenged are gone. As gone as the days when "conservatives" could call for the bombing of Muslim Country X in the name of world democratization and have that go unchallenged. And the two issues are at base related. Do conservatives want an ideological modern state or do they want to restore the old federated republic. What authentic conservatives want is clear. Now if we could just bring the pseudocons around.

Carl| 2.14.09 @ 11:24AM

"Thanks for saddling the next two generations with all this debt, stinking liberals. Why do you guys love stealing your future grandchildren's money, bleeding hearts?"

What's the cost of the Iraq war adding up to these days?

coffee| 2.14.09 @ 2:17PM

it'll be a tough road ahead for A-Roid as he seeks to become A-Rod once again

Nick| 2.14.09 @ 5:19PM

Carl,

While some of the spending on Operation Iraqi Freedom has been wasteful, and should be investigated, almost all of the porkulus spenda-palooza is a complete waste.

DaveS| 2.14.09 @ 5:41PM

Red: your inane, narcissistic, blabber continues. Sit down, have a drink, relax - no one is rallying to your flag.

michael mccoy| 2.14.09 @ 8:08PM

The South rebelled because they knew that the addition of Western States would eventually end with a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery. If anything ends up destroying the Republic it can be laid at the feet of the so called "Confederacy."

Red Phillips| 2.14.09 @ 11:07PM

DaveS, you keep on believing that. And then go on conservative websites, especially ones that are not total neocon or GOP water carrier sites, and see the anti-Lincoln, anti-intervention sentiment popping up everywhere. You no longer get an echo chamber. You are whistling past the graveyard.

That the Confederacy represented the conservative position in the WBTS is self-evident. It is hardly even worth discussing. Take the side of the North and you take the side of revolutionaries.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.09 @ 12:45AM

yesiree, the south was worried about the western states becoming free states and vastly outnumbering the south at some point in their future-- when, no one can say.

but now that i doubt-- not reject-- progress, the southern position becomes more sympathetic.
all i can say for absolute sure is if this herky jerky mess in the midst of what we ludicrously call civilization is progress,
then we'd better not ever find out what progress is not; only a SF writer would dare try to do justice to such a hideous dystopia.

Alan Brooks| 2.15.09 @ 12:57AM

yes indeedy, heritage v science was gathering steam in the ante bellum era.
marx 1848
darwin 1859

three years later-- Kaboom

Peter Cammarata| 2.15.09 @ 12:17PM

The truth needs to be told in all quarters of our society. This includes conservatives who are not telling the American people the whole truth regarding Lincoln. When young people find out the truth they can become disallusioned.
I believe the President has a motive when he encourages people to study Lincoln. Lincoln is a hero in American culture. However, he was a white supremist. In his own words he describes negroes as being an inferior race. That they shouldn't hold office or intermary with white women. He was a strong believer colonizing freed blacks because they could never be assimilated into American society. He urged the State Department to look into possible areas of settlement out of the country. It's like telling children that Jesus was born on Decenmber 25th. When they find out the truth somewhere along their life experinece they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I believe that is the President's motivation. It's
yet another way to turn people away from the American heroes that made this country great.

Interloper| 2.15.09 @ 3:52PM

Peter, your description of President Lincoln is NOT the truth. What you've posted is far from the full story of Lincoln's perspective on race. You soil his name for your own purposes.

President Lincoln held racial attitudes typical of his times. However, he grew as a person between his campaign and his assassination. He admired the bravery of black soldiers during the Civil War, took counsel from Frederick Douglass, rejected notions of sending blacks, who he believed to be Americans, back to Africa. Most importantly, he presided over the end of slavery.

President Obama often cites President Lincoln because he admires him, as do most educated Americans. One of the things we admire about Lincoln is that he was able to change. Your claims to the contrary, President Obama is turning Americans' attention TO a great American hero.

Peter| 2.15.09 @ 6:04PM

Dear Interloper. Lincoln said all the things that I commented on. What I'm saying is that some will read those words and come to certain conclusions. We should not leave this out of history. As far as Lincoln changing his views you need to point me to direct quotes from him to that effect.

Interloper| 2.15.09 @ 9:57PM

Not so dear, Peter, I am puzzled about why someone who claims to know about President Lincoln has not read the many wonderful biographies and other scholarly works about this incredible leader. You can start with Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." The book is on sale just about everywhere because people are following President Obama's lead in reading it. You might also read James M. McPherson's "Abraham Lincoln, and David Herbert Donald's "Lincoln."

You disparage President Lincoln by claiming he maintained white supremacist notions, including wanting to send black Americans to Africa. That is false.

You try to discredit President Obama by claiming he is somehow attacking President Lincoln. That is so inaccurate that it may be delusional. President Obama is complimenting the Great Emancipator by modeling some aspects of his campaign and administration on Lincoln's.

Peter| 2.16.09 @ 9:31AM

Interloper, your conversation is getting nasty. I have not communicated with you on that level.

Peter| 2.16.09 @ 9:37AM

Interloper, your comments are getting nasty. I have not communicated with you on that level. You fail to understand my point. I'm not intereseted in interpretations of what Lincoln was thinking I want direct quotes from him which clearly show that he experienced a transformation. He may not have wanted "negroes" to return to Africa but he had several other countries in mind. I don't need to read books with analysis of Lincoln. I want direct quotes from him. There is no denying that he was a great Politician and did much to save the Union.

Interloper| 2.16.09 @ 1:30PM

Someone who says: "I don't need to read books with analysis of Lincoln," has no serious interest in understanding America's most important President. A truly interested person wants as coherent accounts of the man and his times as possible. Such accounts, of course, include Lincoln's words. As I thought, Peter, you are just a shallow person saying silly things.

Kit Winterer| 2.17.09 @ 8:24AM

George, Is there any way you can make Rome understand before Pope Benedict meets NP on
Wednesday, that SHE is pushing FOCA? I find even his agreement to allow her in his presence disgraceful! Be that as it may, I hope he uses it
to PUBLICLY put down her anti-life advocacy.

Nick| 2.18.09 @ 12:10AM

Kit,

I hope the Holy Father has the Vatican exorcist with him. Or at least a bucket of water in case she bursts into flames!

ghfgh| 11.24.09 @ 8:59PM

DVD Copier For Mac,
DVD To DVD Copier Mac