Bestest Presidents

[MrFun]

The Democratic Party of today is not the same Democratic Party of the 1860s.

[Ned]

Mr. Fun, in a sense yes, in a sense no. It does appear, though, that the opposition party in the past HAS played politics with a war, offering that they could do better or, in the cases of '64, 1952 and 1968, to end the war on "honorable" terms.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - if you look at what the "Gingrich" branch of the Republican party did in 2002, including to those Democrats who tried to be non-partisan (look at the lady senator in Louisiana, they are many other examples), I can not blame the Democrats at this point. The Gingrich revolution, or if you wish to name it's diabolical stepchild, Carl Rover (and Mr. Reed of the ex-Christian coalition who ran the Republican Georgia campaign that included the demonization of a paraplegic veteran as unpatriotic - remember Max Cleland) polarized the nation, shoehorning 9/11 into partisan victories, often in a vicious way.

While some of our posters may know inter-war history better and can give some comparable eras, I personally think we have reached a level now that approaches the 1850's which does not bode well for the country - can you say Buchanan. Yes the left-wing did the same tactics in the Vietnam war - and it came damn close to tearing the country in two then. If you look at what is going on now, it's worse. Plus after Reagan, if you wish, gentility with a bite, there is no blaming this on the sixties liberals, the Rove types targeted perfectly good moderates. In combination with the religious right, they are targeting their own Republican moderates in primaries, for c***t's sake.

Look at the post on people destroying voter registration cards. Polarization. Move On.org - whose only uniting factor is loathing the Bush administration. That's polarizaiton, Ned. In my own state, the local Republicans in Louisville, KY (google this, it's shameful) are putting voter challenges in the 80% plus black districts, ones where the Republicans don't even bother to supply a poll worker! Young blacks are going to tell these people to shove it, so it's primary purpose is to intimidate older, uncertain voters. Ned, that's evil (note - they had it planned last election but somebody got hold of the story - there ARE good Repulicans who have a sense of shame - and when they found out the local young blacks didn't quite like the idea of initimitidating their old folks - funny thing, most of the volunteer challengers didn't show).

You can give me Democratic examples - and that's my point. Karl Rove foments this. Bush and the Republican heirarchy cheer him on, so they get a good portion of the responsibilty (remember THAT word), and the other side responds ***-for-tat. Neither candidate shows leadership, and I will vote against Rove, Rumsfeld, Thomas (one of Bush's ideal SCOTUS justices, in his own words), and Cheney (doing business with Iran and Irag through the end of the 1990's and still justifying it - google it, Ned technically legal - but morally?). If that means I have to vote against Bush to do this, so be it. I do truly wish it wasn't Kerry, and I DO vote in my primaries, just ours is too late to make any national difference, so I play the hands - which suck IMHO - that I'm dealt. I wish we could get someone who could lead the country, neither candidate really can, and you know what scares me - even with 9/11, we may have reached a tipping point where we are so divided nobody can. If that is the case, the days of our being a Democratic Republic are numbered, no nation can be that when it is so profoundly divided.

SIZE=1]edited for grammar mistake[/SIZE]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

While some of our posters may know inter-war history better and can give some comparable eras, I personally think we have reached a level now that approaches the 1850's which does not bode well for the country - can you say Buchanan. Yes the left-wing did the same tactics in the Vietnam war - and it came damn close to tearing the country in two then. If you look at what is going on now, it's worse.

Me thinks this part of your post is a tad too melodramatic.

I really do not think social divisions in our country today, is worse than what it was in the 1960s. The protests and counter-protests in the 1960s were far more numerous, larger in size, and more violent than what we have ever had so far now.

[Mr. Harley]

MrFun, I didn't live through that time span as an adult, but I'm not sure I agree. There were certain consensus people could reach, and for example Republicans were embararessed by Nixon come 1974 - that was the first real political event I understood.

You are mistaking violence for division. I disagree, though I could be wrong. Watch the riots over police shooting in Cincinatti, and we game damn close here in Louisville. Plus we do not have any Kennedy's, King's, or for that matter Reagan's (who helped bring conservatives back in from the cold, so to speak). What has happened is that I believe that the so-called leadership, plus aspects of the current primary system, and the lazy votes who don't bother to vote in those primaries, are now creating a situation where nobody can "lead" within the parameters we've set up. As I've said, I hope I'm wrong.

Melodramatic - record (or near record for the percent GDP folks) deficits, a trade deficit that in two of the last three months has set major records over 50 billion PER MONTH while nobody does anything concrete about it except spout drivel, job losses in the private sector at near record levels, a realignment of the service industry to India and manufacturing to China that may never let our economy recover in the way we understand the word (freom the WSJ no less), detoriating infrastructure - google articles on what it's going to cost not only to fix our roads but our sewage systems, plus the deep divisions in the electorate, the return of ostentatious and conspicuous wealth (celebrated by the WSJ again, this isn't the liberal media), raping of corporate assets and the destruction of tens of thousands of retirements (next big crisis - again that liberal bastion the WSJ), increasing numbers of children without medical insurance, lousy schools, a new Luddite movement - do you have any idea how many Americans believe that evolution (let's be precise, puntuated equilibrium) doesn't work and that the earth is only 5000 some odd years old. Sadly, I don't expect America of 2050 to be the world leader. Look at GB after WW1 and then WW2 for the coup de gras. You can bugger a world class economy.

[Geronimo]

-edit moved response to secession debate to more relevant thread-

[Ned]

shawn, the Republican Party has drawn even with the Democrat Party in total registrations perhaps for the first time in history. Both parties, no just one of them, hammer each other as best they can. This can of course be disconcerting to the hammered party, but this is life. You have to understand that you own party is doing the same or the equivalent.

As I mentioned earlier (or in another thread) the Democrats have been demonizing the Whig/Republican party as the party of the rich since its first days even though the Whig/Republican Party has often been much better on the issues -- consistently being pro-economic growth throughout its entire history.

But now, we have leaders who fight back and can dish it out as well as the Democrats. Bravo for them, I say. This constant crap we have heard from Democrats that the Republicans will end Social Security or that their environmental programs will kill thousand of children is and has been over-the-top. We are not going to take it anymore and are now fighting back with all we've got againt the historically unfair and highly political Democrat Party.

[mrmitchell]

A political party is--highly political!!!??



The horror!
...
actually, just for you

Quelle horreur!

[Ned]

mrmitchell, I think most Republicans resented their party leaders being too civilized to get down into the muck with the Democrats.

With the likes of Karl Rove, that has changed. We have a champion for the Party the like of which we have rarely if ever seen before.

[David Floyd]

Ned,

Lincoln did what was necessary to save the Union. This nation owes its honor and thanks to this man who was truly the second founder of United States.

That still doesn't negate the point that Lincoln violated his oath of office and the US Constitution on multiple occasions, and upheld his edicts through military force.

Yes, but attempting to actually remove territory from the US is.

Kuci, possibly, if you believe that the federal government owns the states. But in the US system, states are sovereign bodies. Yes, the Supremacy Clause means that federal law trumps state laws, but states retain many rights and powers that the federal government can't touch.

MrFun,

Unwilling population??

The war effort in the Union was doing fine during the time before the draft was initiated. I cannot remember right now the high proportion of men who volunteered to fight to preserve the Union.

It became much less popular as the war dragged on, and as more and more people were drafted.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That still doesn't negate the point that Lincoln violated his oath of office and the US Constitution on multiple occasions, and upheld his edicts through military force.

And he burns in hell with the blood of millions on his hands.

[Al B. Sure!]

Lincoln

and special props to William Tecumseh Sherman for teaching the South, particularily Georgia, a lesson it would never forget

oh and i dont get any resentment for Lincoln... yeah he betrayed the constitutional right to seceed from the union, but he did so because the south had completely trampled upon the more important right of human rights. you have no excuse, plato, dave, et al.

[David Floyd]

and special props to William Tecumseh Sherman for teaching the South, particularily Georgia, a lesson it would never forget

to war criminals and butchers

[David Floyd]

yeah he betrayed the constitutional right to seceed from the union, but he did so because the south had completely trampled upon the more important right of human rights.

No he didn't. He stated that he would do anything to keep the Union together, whether that meant all slave states, no slave states, or part slave and part free. Slavery was not his main concern, or even very high up there on his list.

[Al B. Sure!]

to war criminals and butchers

he got the job done... and was the father of modern warfare. every single war since Sherman has been fought with his tactics in mind, for better or for worse. (and truly, Sherman wasn't even that bad. he didn't kill civilians and didn't actively burn down people's homes. it was just that fires spread)

No he didn't. He stated that he would do anything to keep the Union together, whether that meant all slave states, no slave states, or part slave and part free. Slavery was not his main concern, or even very high up there on his list.

and yet the Republican party ran as an abolitionist party... "House Divided" speech... it was Bell and the Unionists/Whigs who were the ones who wanted to preserve the Union at all costs.