Picking a Fight with President Abraham Lincoln
Before I get to President Lincoln, last week, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. The new state was formerly recognized by the governments of the United States, Britain, France and Germany, to name the only prominent government and three minor governments.
In the last week, just the US Embassy in Serbia has been sacked. The "demonstrators" now have their eyes on the US Consulate. Pictures of burning American flags fill my television screen.
Serbia's Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said "the United States has taken on historic responsibility because it trampled on the international law that is the basis of the peace and stability in the world." He added, "As a nation and a state, we will put up resistance every day until the United States is convinced that the rule of international law must be re-established in the Balkans and the illegal declaration of the fake state of Kosovo is annulled."
Drats! If only the United States was in Europe!
The Republican nominee will be the next President of the United States but the nominee should not underestimate Sen. Barack Obama if he is the Democrats' nominee.
I am flabbergasted that someone with a resume of no accomplishments could go as far as Sen. Obama has traveled. But maybe there is an explanation in the words of President Abraham Lincoln who early in his political career said, “A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded . . . In this day and age, and this Country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.”
I found this quote AFTER my immediately prior post citing Sen. McCain’s legislative success. Extremely odd, no?
I’m reluctant to pick a fight with President Lincoln though my recent post would clearly indicate he and I hold opposing views.
Clever me, allow me to suggest the 1850s are a completely different “day and age” than 2008 and that public sentiment is not everything and accomplishment should count for something.
Before I get to President Lincoln, last week, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. The new state was formerly recognized by the governments of the United States, Britain, France and Germany, to name the only prominent government and three minor governments.
In the last week, just the US Embassy in Serbia has been sacked. The "demonstrators" now have their eyes on the US Consulate. Pictures of burning American flags fill my television screen.
Serbia's Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said "the United States has taken on historic responsibility because it trampled on the international law that is the basis of the peace and stability in the world." He added, "As a nation and a state, we will put up resistance every day until the United States is convinced that the rule of international law must be re-established in the Balkans and the illegal declaration of the fake state of Kosovo is annulled."
Drats! If only the United States was in Europe!
The Republican nominee will be the next President of the United States but the nominee should not underestimate Sen. Barack Obama if he is the Democrats' nominee.
I am flabbergasted that someone with a resume of no accomplishments could go as far as Sen. Obama has traveled. But maybe there is an explanation in the words of President Abraham Lincoln who early in his political career said, “A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded . . . In this day and age, and this Country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.”
I found this quote AFTER my immediately prior post citing Sen. McCain’s legislative success. Extremely odd, no?
I’m reluctant to pick a fight with President Lincoln though my recent post would clearly indicate he and I hold opposing views.
Clever me, allow me to suggest the 1850s are a completely different “day and age” than 2008 and that public sentiment is not everything and accomplishment should count for something.
posted by Zack at 4:44 PM
18 Comments:
(This is from Conscience -- still can't post via the "Name/URL" for some reason)
Funny you should mention Lincoln -- I don't know the context for his quote, but Lincoln's seeming qualifications to lead the country through one of its darkest and most challenging times paled in comparison to those of his presidential rivals -- Seward, Chase, et al. Likewise, I'm not sure that JFK had accomplished any more than Obama at the time he beat a candidate with a much more impressive resume.
And JFK's accomplishments were as unimpressive as his resume...
Conscience,
Are you leaving the URL line blank?
If not, leave it blank.
Below, I was all over Harry Truman being a one-term Rep. before being tapped for the VP spot. I think Lincoln was a one-term Rep. as well. But, I do think the 1850s were a completely different day and age from today. The was no hate-filled New York Times, for example.
JFK passed major tax cuts, Hardball, so I have to disagree with you a bit on him. He also teed-up the Civil Rights Act of '64. Plus, I don't even want to touch the obvious.
I have no knowledge of JFK's Senate accomplishments and I suspect his heroics re: 109 are over-blown but he did serve, he did stand a watch and he did have his boat rammed by a destroyer.
zack,
By "I don't even want to touch the obvious", do you mean the Bay of Pigs fiasco where JFK turned yellow when things went south? Or were you referring to the Diem assassination which set a terminal course for 58,000 American souls? Or were you referring to the pathological womanizing? Or possibly it was the political machine that rigged local vote counts in Chicago an Appalachia and which found it's source in an illegal business operation, namley running alcohol when distribution & use of same was illegal by the dirty father.
I have to disagree re Lincoln and the 1860's (not the 1850's). I don't think any President since has faced times and decisions as difficult as those that Lincoln faced from his very first day in office, trying to hold the country together and fighting a civil war with ungodly casualties. And, the mud thrown around in the politics of that day make today's politics seem tame in comparison.
I have to disagree re Lincoln and the 1860's (not the 1850's). I don't think any President since has faced times and decisions as difficult as those that Lincoln faced from his very first day in office, trying to hold the country together and fighting a civil war with ungodly casualties. And, the mud thrown around in the politics of that day make today's politics seem tame in comparison.
Conscience,
I certainly know the years Lincoln was President; I was referring to the years of the quote I used in the original post.
Elections in the 1850s and 60s were not done by cable TV and the internet. I haven't thought enough about how this would help the unaccomplished or not to express an opinion on that, yet.
I agree no President, not even Truman, faced what President Lincoln faced and that's saying something.
Hardball,
In your original post I couldn't tell if you were talking about JFK's accomplishments before the Presidency or of his Presidency. "The obvious" I wrote of was his short time as President but I think you knew that. I appreciate the list. Though, I could not care less about with whom a President sleeps.
I was referring to his Presidency.
I am shocked at what you've posted.
I care about with whom a President sleeps. Clearly, the pathological (2. abnormal) behavior of JFK and WJC speak to a core character flaw that limited each man's ability to lead. Just as a candidate's position on abortion is certainly not a litmus test, with whom he (she) sleeps certainly is. It speaks to who they are as at the core (loyalty, fidelity, honor, integrity, responsibility for (and to) self and others). And it presents a direct security threat (to what extent will one go to protect the 'secret'?). Ignoring such a flaw is a rationalization akin to granting Pete Rose admission to the HOF because he had >4,000 hits. He is, obviously, unqualified for admission, and JFK and WJC were compromised leaders limited in their effectiveness by the same character flaw.
Hardball,
Please put the following in order, most "offensive" to least as character flaws for a President.
Completes a NCAA basketball pool bracket for real money or has the boys and girls over to the WH for some Texas Hold'em action every other Thursday night (assume no scotch during poker); binge drinks while hosting the boys and girls for University of Notre Dame football game watches; womanizes (manizes, if you will, for a female President; heck, assume a homosexual President and those combinations, as well).
If (wo)manizing is number 1 on your list, do the other two fall above or below the "ability to effectively lead" line?
If (wo)manizing is number one, should I care about the other two if they fall below the "ability to effectively lead" line?
There is no right answer. You have an answer. I have an answer. Every other voter has an answer.
I only listed three items. I invite you and others to list a "vice" that voters should know about BEFORE a Presidential election so voters know what they are getting with their vote.
Should voters know of all three of these before-hand?
March 2, 7:22 am.
Zack,
There is, of course, one answer. All equally disqualify a candidate for the Presidency.
and that is why Mitt is the most qualified human of all time to be POTUS.
You aren't qualified to be President if you have entered brackets in a March Madness pool (which is not illegal by the way)? While I agree with you on the point that a person's fidelity does play a factor for me in my evaluation of a Presidential candidate, I think someone who's a real person and can enjoy some casual fun in a March madness pool is actually a plus rather than a negative for me. Likewise, although every other week is a bit much, again a guy who enjoys an occasional night out with the boys playing poker (or gal having a night out with the girls) is more than fine. Again, that is not illegal (so long as the "house" doesn't get a cut of the action). Of course, that can be taken to extremes, and for both I'm talking about friendly amounts rather than real gambling, and I'm not sure I would want the President hosing poker games while in office, but I don't see that it comes remotely close to disqualifying someone for president.
Conscience,
Please clarify: The March Madness Pool disqualifies?
And, girls play poker, too, you know.
But what of a few glasses of wine at dinner? Suppose the President regularly goes to just 0.1 on Saturday night because that's beef stew night in the White House and the President enjoys four glasses of wine with her beef stew? Should the public know this? Is it disqualifying? Should we know it before the election?
Hardball,
I do not want my President to be a prude. March Madness pools do not disqualify. One too many scotches while reading "Anthem" is fine with me.
Conscience...Zack didn't take the minimalist, nor reasoned, approach as you do. Rather he proposed the extreme example(s): "a NCAA basketball pool bracket for real money ["real money" being the extreme], has the boys and girls over to the WH for some Texas Hold'em action every other Thursday night (assume no scotch during poker) [no scotch during poker being the extreme], binge drinks while hosting the boys and girls for University of Notre Dame football game watches [girls watching ND football = extreme]; womanizes (manizes, if you will, for a female President; heck, assume a homosexual President and those combinations, as well) [womanizes/manizes = extreme obviously as by definition this is someone with serious mommy or daddy issues]."
So we can agree that someone who operates on the extremes is by definition disqualified for the Presidency. I qualify someone for the Presidency using my dead grandmother's standard that worked for eighty(+) years, "moderation in all things." I'm comfortable using the Supreme Court's definition of pornography to define "moderation", namely "you'll know it when you see it."
Thus we can also agree that Senators Obama and Clinton are not qualified and Mitt is.
Hardball,
Wow! Simply, I cannot follow your first paragraph.
I tried to put in colorful examples of gambling and drinking; if there is a subliminal message in my examples, please be explicitly clear. I mean, do I need to make an appointment with a "counselor"?
But at least know I completely agree that Sens. Clinton and Obama are not qualified to be President and Gov. Mitt Romney is. I also think, though, that if elected, Sens. Clinton or Obama will nominate smart, qualified people for Secs. State and Defense. Or, if they don't, even Sen. Biden (D, DE) will be responsible and say so.
Allow me to clarify. All extreme behavior disqualifies a candidate for, or incumbent of, the Presidency. Extreme behavior includes betting "real money" on anything including NCAA brackets, a Texas Hold 'Em match where scotch isn't served [that would be humor veiled as sarcasm], binge drinking [ever], and womanizing(manizing). These, of course, are not the only examples of extreme behavior.
Moderate behavior on the other hand is the standard. A low stakes ("friendly") NCAA tournament in the West Wing is moderate. I don't know what Texas Hold 'Em is. "Social" drinking while watching "the game" is moderate. A monogamous for a forty year old+ adult is moderate.
Thus my logic based conclusion that Sens Obama and Clinton are not qualified for the Presidency.
I hope this helps!
Zacklyright,to answer your question, I think voters should know about any and all vices of a presidential candidate that are taken beyond moderation prior to an election. This includes: Gambling, sexual addictions/perversions, philandering, drug/alcohol use and although this is hardly a vice, any history of mental illness. That's not too much to ask, is it?
anonymous,
It is not too much to ask that voters know about vices beyond moderation but I am fearful of where that line gets drawn depending on who the candidate is.
March 8, 7:15
Post a Comment
<< Home