I knew President Lincoln and PEBO, you’re no Lincoln
OK, so I really never knew President Lincoln, but I guess nobody else does either, since everyone is comparing the president-elect to our 16th president.
Paul over at Power Line notes just some of the strange comparisons.
On “Meet the Press” today, Tom Brokaw compared Obama’s resilience after losing the New Hampshire primary (which made him 1-1 in the early contests) to Lincoln’s resilience after setbacks on the battle field during the Civil War.
Did Brokaw compare loosing the New Hampshire Democrat primary to loosing men on the battlefield during a civil war that lasted four years and cost more than 600,000 lives?
[Mario] Cuomo claimed that Obama becomes president at a time of even more profound crisis than Lincoln because the problems Lincoln faced in 1861 affected only the U.S., not the whole world.
I’m seeing a pattern…
Obama is tied closely to the Copperhead Democrats from 1864, and George W. Bush is more closely tied to Lincoln. (Hat tip to Gateway Pundit)
Less than 40 days after Lincoln was inaugurated, the Union and the south were at war. By 1864, the war had gone on four years and the country had grown tired of the bloodshed. The Democrats – nicknamed the Copperheads by the Republicans – wanted Lincoln out of office and demanded compromise with the south; slavery would remain legal.
By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries’ best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln’s support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.
With this backdrop, the Democratic Party chose General George McClellan to be their Presidential Candidate at the Chicago National Convention in 1864. [It is written General McClellan did not agree with the Democrat Party platform.] The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. While on its surface the Chicago Platform was seductive in that it promised an immediate cessation of hostilities, and a restoration of the union. What was unsaid in the platform, but clearly implied, was that the “compromise” would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to “Sell Out” the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives.
Like Lincoln, Bush stuck to his principles and wants the mission accomplished. The word compromise is a nice word, but when it involves ditching a core value or two, what are you left with?
If your daughter told you she was going to compromise on her choice for a boyfriend since she could not find the perfect guy, how would you feel? What if that compromise was this guy only hit her once per year instead of once per month?
So, where are the main stream media comparisons between Lincoln and George W. Bush?
A little more than one year after Lincoln’s second inaugural, the Civil War was over, there was peace, the Union was back together, and slaves were free. Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, Lincoln was shot April 14, and died one day later.
So, Bush should be compared to Lincoln because he (a) started wars and didn't end them, and (b) wasn't shot immediately after his second inaugural. Lincoln was also from Illinois (Bush from Texas, Obama from Illinois), and Lincoln didn't have family in the government (Bush's father was also president, Obama didn't have any).
Look, yeah some of the comparisons are ridiculous. But it's just as ridiculous (if not more) to ask for a comparison between Bush and Lincoln. I guess we'll know in another 150 years, as history will show President Bush to be one of the greatest, right along side Lincoln, right?
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal;">
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; background-position: initial initial; padding: 0.6em; margin: 0px;">The comment about Lincoln's death – actually the last paragraph – was noted for historical reference.</div>
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; background-position: initial initial; padding: 0.6em; margin: 0px;">I thought it logical to compare Lincoln and Bush considering both could have given in on their principles – end the wars/give up – and did not because both knew they were doing the right thing, dispite the tragedy of war.</div>
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; font: normal normal normal 13px/19px Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; background-position: initial initial; padding: 0.6em; margin: 0px;">I do not agree with many of the Bush administration decisions, but I do think he has been a good war time president. I do not think I'm qualified to rank him as compared to the others from the past.</div>
So, on the one point, you're looking for the media to compare him to Lincoln. But you don't think you're qualified to make that comparison yourself… Isn't it just reasonable to suggest the abolishment of all comparisons instead?
We tend to forget that thanks to George W. Bush, 52 million people, in both Iraq and Afganistan were freed from horrible dictatorships and now are both young democratic nations.
Yes, thank you George W. Bush!
For 4,000 deaths of Americans troops.
For 100,000 dead Iraqis.
For putting my family and friends lives at risk by increasing Al Quaida's ability to recruit.
Methinks that Obama is glomming onto the Lincoln reputation to compensate for his incredibly thin resume. And the media is swallowing it like a bass inhales a minnow.
Brian's rebuttal above misses one thing: Bush never tried to compare himself to Lincoln, but Obama is doing everything possible to do so: the train ride, the Lincoln Bible etc. Like him or not, Bush has a level of humilty Obama seems not to possess.
And Chris: yes, the Iraq war may have resulted in the deaths of 4000 American heroes, but the media was predicting far more. How many Americans died on 9/11/01, which it would be hard to blame on the actions of Bush, barely in office for 8 months. How many of those dead Iraqis you quote were killed by Americans? How many by other Iraqis or Al Q? And do you seriously think that given the Muslim world's expert ability to keep people in poverty and desperation, coupled with the inherent nature of their religion to supply a ready means of escape through martyrdom (pounded into them from birth) was readily affected by Bush? They hated Clinton too. Do you think Obama is going to get a pass because his middle name is Hussein?
If you are an "infidel" you are the enemy. Liberal, conservative, you name it. Blame Bush for his real faults (and he has plenty!), not imaginary liberal ones.