One again we are shown why conservative ideology is so far outside of the mainstream of American thought.
In interviews afterward, some attendees said Mr. Giuliani lost momentum when he heaped lavish praise on Abraham Lincoln.
While many conservatives regard the Civil War president as the spiritual founder of the Republican Party, others deeply resent him as a man who ruthlessly suspended constitutional rights and freedoms in order to militarily challenge the South’s belief in its right to secede. Some saw similar disdain for individuals’ rights in Mr. Giuliani’s successful war on crime in New York City.
To the vast majority of Americans of any political affiliation, Abraham Lincoln is one of the greats. To some of us, he was the last good Republican president - he literally preserved the union of our entire nation. And yet, the modern cons don’t like him. Abraham freaking Lincoln.
Honestly, I can see this criticism of Lincoln. The guy put his opponent in jail to win an election in 1864.
Same story with Giuliani. However, these guys refused to say anything when Giuliani was in office, and belittled all the liberals who objected. Come to think of it, the same thing happened when the Reagan administration embraced Saddam Hussein. Many years after the fact, after all the damage was done, they say something.
Yeah, well I can see why they end up with scenes like this at the Conservative Policy Action Conference! Bwahahahahaha!
I smell some unreconstructed secessionists/segregationists/supremacists speaking. Who else has a problem with “militarily challeng[ing] the South’s belief in its right to secede”? And is that–”the South’s belief”–the most deceitful bit of doubletalk you’ve heard today? Do they mean that arming militias, declaring secession and firing on federal facilities were merely talking points?
We know that the modern Republican Party is now run by Dixiecrats and their evangelical allies from outside the South–no news there. But to hear that sort of supremacist talk at a political event–even if they thought they would only be read by subscribers to the Washington Times–is still bracing. We are dealing with some unmitigated evil here.
In most of the south (I am in in Richmond, VA - the capitol of the confederacy) Lincoln is not revered. They believe that the South was right and still drone on about “The War of Northern Aggression”. Also, the majority believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and that Ann Coulter is an intellectual because she writes books. On the positive side, the weather is nice.
So Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and some conservatives are critical of that.
Yet the left (including you Oliver) have shrieked like little girls over Guantanamo. Many of those same conservatives that criticize Lincoln over what he did, were the same ones criticizing the administration over Guantanamo.
So what is it Oliver? Is it ok to suspend habeas corpus or not? You cannot have it both ways.
The GOP should be proud that the republicans won the Republican War of Northern Aggression. Today’s GOP is the “party of Lincoln” as Bush calls it.
So what is it Oliver? Is it ok to suspend habeas corpus or not? You cannot have it both ways.
Wow, I sure am glad the issue is so incredibly fucking simple! OH WAI
Wow, I sure am glad the issue is so incredibly fucking simple! OH WAI
Oh really? Well look in the mirror kid. And at the rest of the left-wingers around here.
Right here is a post by Oliver approvingly linking to a screed by Olbermann where he is bitching about habeas corpus.
So apparently it was ok when Lincoln did it, but not when Bush refused Guantanamo detainees the same rights as an everyday crook.
The conservative viewpoint (not the Republican partisan one which is different) on it has not changed. It was wrong now and it was wrong then.
Once again, Oliver is cherry picking when something some important is wrong or right.
You missed my point, well done. I imagine that’s what you were aiming for.
One question: do you really think that the situation in America now is at all similar or analogous to the situation during the fucking Civil bloody War?
Is the answer “of course you don’t but there are points to be scored so let’s pretend”?
You missed my point, well done. I imagine that’s what you were aiming for.
No, I didn’t miss your point at all. You were mocking the notion that the issue is so simple when in fact that’s how the left breaks it down.
One question: do you really think that the situation in America now is at all similar or analogous to the situation during the fucking Civil bloody War?
What difference does it make? If the issue of habeas corpus so freaking black and white as those on the left believe it to be (at least that’s how they behave with regard to Guantanamo), then it doesn’t matter what time period we’re in or what we’re dealing with.
Bottom line: Lincoln sent 600,000 soldiers to their deaths fighting for a cause he believed in.
He is God.
Bush has sent less than 4,000 soldiers to their deaths fighting for a cause he believes in.
He is Satan.
Yes, things have changed a lot during the past 150 years.
Oh, so your ridiculous supposition is all the other guy’s fault.
I’m telling ya, the right wing machine only has room in its head for one Lincoln comparison at a time. They’ve already (hilariously wrongly) compared Bush to Lincoln, so they can’t use that one anymore this cycle.
Oh yeah, and Martin Luther King was a Republican.
That kills me every time.
He is also the ONLY Republican’t President to win a major war.