My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
2006-02-22
Of Whom Was This Said?
". . . made it clear that he considered the prosecution of the war primarily a function of the Chief Executive, to be carried out with minimal interference from the other branches of the government and without excessive respect to constitutional niceties protecting individual rights."
"Representative B. . . began the attack with a resolution demanding the immediate release of all political prisoners and charging that arbitrary arrests were 'unwarranted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and . . . a ususrpation of power never given up by the people to their rulers.'"
"The rabidly Democrat . . . set the tone by declaring that 'the tyranny of military despotism' exhibited in the arrest . . . demonstrated 'the weakness, folly, oppression, mismanangement and general wickedness of the administration at Washington.' At a huge rally in New York City on speaker asserted that if [the] arrest went unrebuked, 'free speech dies, and with it our liberty, the constitution and our country."
"Conservatives . . . thought the President 'an awful, woeful ass,' and protested, 'If [he] was not a damn fool, we could get along yet.'"
And, "There probably never was an election in all our history into which the religion element entered so largely, and nearly all on one side."
Sound familiar? Sound like some of the common complaints against the current President? They are certainly reminiscent of much of what has been said lately regarding Pres. Bush.
But might it surprise you to learn that all of this was said of Abraham Lincoln? All of these quotes were taken from the biography titled "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald.
What's the point? That Lincoln was equally hated in his time? That the views of Lincoln were just as invective-filled? That the fear of the "religious element" were just as widely recognized?
There are other quotes from the book that point even more strongly towards the Democrats as harmful of the war effort, even calling the Democratic platform for 1864 the "Chicago Surrender." But is that the point?
Perhaps.
Or, just perhaps, on this President's Day (actually, one day late, but whatayagunna do?), it would be helpful to take a long view, and recognize that--good or bad--consequential Presidencies are always controversial.
And that partisan politics are no new thing in America, even in a time of war.
And that, regardless of the outcome, the Republic survives. | |
|
