[Alberta's Child]

To some people, Lincoln's "outcome" was the destruction of the United States as it was established in the U.S., the loss of 600,000+ Americans in a stupid war, and 80 years of racial strife in the aftermath of his crusade to free slaves.

Lincoln's legacy is still a major point of contention, and has been largely established by northern liberals.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry . . . that should be: ". . . established in the U.S. Constitution . . ."

[massadvj]

Lincoln's legacy is still a major point of contention, and has been largely established by northern liberals.

I agree. Do you think making a statement like this would get you elected in a national election? What I am saying is that Giuliani's record as far as trampling on rights is not really going to affect his electability. Like Lincoln, he will be judged on outcomes.

Even Bush recognizes that the Patriot Act is a political winner as far as the public is concerned. Heck, I doubt that you could get a majority ofAmericans to support the Constitution as written today if it appeared on the ballot. Most would trade five pounds of freedom for an ounce of security and have many times.

In spite of the truth in what you say, I doubt very much you would get a majority of Republicans to agree that Lincoln was a dictator. I think most Republicans are proud to have him in our stable of past presidents. They certainly invoke his name enough.

I suspect that the only difference between us is that you think the erosion of liberty can be stopped; whereas, I see it as inevitable. If I went with my heart, I'd vote with Ron Paul. But it would be a vote as wasted as the ones I cast last year for Santorum and Swann. I want to back a winner more than I want to be right at this point.

[George W. Bush]

To some people, Lincoln's "outcome" was the destruction of the United States as it was established in the U.S., the loss of 600,000+ Americans in a stupid war, and 80 years of racial strife in the aftermath of his crusade to free slaves.

A pretty mythical idea, as I'm sure you know. Lincoln's war was to preserve the Union. While one could quote him on the subject or refer to his efforts to deport all blacks from the country, the single most telling thing he did was that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in Confederate territory. It in fact freed no one. It most certainly did not free slaves in Union-held states. That came much later and Lincoln would probably have opposed that too.

Lincoln was a Clay Whig and only believed in three things: centralized banking, high tariffs, and corporate welfare (for things like building the useless Erie Canal). His objective in restoring the Union was so that these three centerpieces of his policy could continue and grow. The slaves were irrelevant and annoying to him.

He also gave some Cindy Sheehan antiwar moonbat speeches during the Polk administration's war with Mexico. Very nasty. He was crushed when Polk won the war a few weeks later and was too chicken to face the voters for re-election.

Most people don't understand Lincoln the man or his politics very well. They generally can recite a few slanted bits of history that the public schools instilled about him and the War Between The States.