Posted on 10/24/2009 9:46:36 AM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
Editor's Note: This is the first in an ongoing series in which NewsReal's Paul Cooper focuses on the exploits of CNN's Jon Stewart-wannabe, the clownish embarrassment Rick Sanchez.
If you can make up recent history with attributing false quotes to Rush, what is there stopping you from completely distorting how two of the most popular US Presidents of all time handled the press? Obviously nothing. CNN's Rick Sanchez has proven once again that truth and research is not needed on CNN's mid-day programming.
This week Sanchez decided the best way to defend President Obama's war with Fox News was to equate the tactic with other US Presidents. I am assuming his argument is that if other people did something similar - well than it's okay for Obama to do it. (Apparently two wrongs make a right.) Sanchez said Obama's treatment of the press was no different than Presidents Richard Nixon, Franklin Roosevelt, or even Abraham Lincoln.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
I take a whiskey drink; I take a vodka drink;I get in my car and run you down!
>>Smarmy Sanchez gets smacked down by those who know history...<<
The problem is most people will never see this.
Clownish is much too mild a word to describe Sanchez.
He’s a killer who got away with murder. IMHO
Horowitz falls far short of “knowing his history” regarding Lincoln. Thomas DiLorenzo does a good job of collecting Lincoln’s more interesting dictatorial actions.
Fact is, Obama has many of the same characteristics as did Lincoln and FDR. Pretty accurate actually. Of course, Lincoln and FDR advocated centralized government, as does Obama. And both of them also ignored or defied the Constitution openly to achieve their political goals...Just like Obama. Huh...? Yup, looks fairly accurate to me.
Note what Horowitz says:
On May 18, 1864 Abraham Lincoln issued an executive order to arrest some of the journalists and editors of two New York publications that printed and published what they knew to be a forged Presidential proclamation calling for 400,000 more troops and a new draft. It was an act of treason to raise up resistance to the Union during a time of war. The act warranted imprisonment.
Did Tommy Delusional tell you that in his books?
Maybe Tommy's the one in need of a history lesson.
Lincolnoltry is a disease. You evidently are afflicted. Try to read beyond Harry Jaffa and Claremont, if you read.
Btw, do you have something in particular that DiLorenzo wrote that is actually wrong - as opposed to your thinking that whatever Lincoln did was really swell while DiLorenzo (and others) don’t agree?
Lincoln was an interesting man. He certainly was not the sainted figure he has been portrayed to be, but his assassination was a tragedy for the country as a whole, not merely the South, because those that came to power him were far worse statists.
I agree. It is hard to find anything balanced on Lincoln. I also agree that DiLorenzo only discusses the negative - perhaps as effort at shocking people into realizing that the Sandburg Lincoln is a gross distortion. If the Yale history that you refer to is a mulitvolume history produced by Yale, I think I have it. I just haven’t read all of it because it runs for 10 or 20 volumes.
And stupidity isn't? Tommy DiLorenzo's a carrier of that malady.
Try to read beyond Harry Jaffa and Claremont, if you read.
DiLorenzo isn't getting "beyond" Jaffa. Really, pick up David Donald or any reputable historian or biographer and you'll see just how threadbare and worthless DiLorenzo's books really are.
Btw, do you have something in particular that DiLorenzo wrote that is actually wrong - as opposed to your thinking that whatever Lincoln did was really swell while DiLorenzo (and others) don’t agree?
The classic example was DiLorenzo saying "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it."
That's simply not true. It's wholly false.
Go here for more mistakes or errors in DiLorenzo's work. To be fair they aren't all fabrications. Some are honest differences of interpretation, but DiLorenzo's unreliability is manifest.
Go here for a review by a professor sympathetic to DiLorenzo's thesis in a magazine that's likewise friendly to him. It's quite a scathing review of his The Real Lincoln. Somebody will doubtless say that if the reviewer agrees with DiLorenzo's argument, it doesn't matter, but really, if Tommy can't get a good review from his own friends, is it any wonder so many other people can't abide him?
Don't you bother to read your links? It was a former congressman, not a sitting one. Burnside had him arrested, not Lincoln. And when he got to the confederate lines the first thing they did was ship his sorry butt out of town on the first available blockade runner.
The more interesting Southron fairy tales you mean.
Well duh. Any serious student of Lincoln or the rebellion knows that Sandburg's work is worthless as serious biography. Almost as worthless as DiLorenzo's books are.
And you have a serious case of Lincolnloathing. A malady peculiar to Southron supporters where they see Lincoln responsible for everything up to and including a rainy day. It's marked by misquotes, quotes out of context, out-and-out falsehoods, and excessive faith in the accuracy of Southron websites. Fortunately while it's often amusing, it's seldom fatal.
Do you really think that recognizing that there are valid criticisms of Lincoln amounts to “Lincolnloathing”? I’m sure that there are some whom think that there was nothing good about him, but I’m not in that camp.
Oh, come on. DiLorenzo’s points are generally accurate. You might get farther by pointing out, as is true, that DiLorenzo only discusses the negative side of Lincoln.
When the accusations are exaggerated or out and out false, yes. Whey you condemn Lincoln and give the rebel leadership a free pass for the same actions, yes. When you try and judge Lincoln by todays standards of racism, yes. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he is also far from the monster that Southron myth has made him out to be.
I’m sure that there are some whom think that there was nothing good about him, but I’m not in that camp.
Of course you're not.
When did I condemn Lincoln and give the Confederate leadership a free pass for doing the same thing? If the Confederate leadership did the same thing (e.g. inflating their currency or suspending habeas corpus), does that make it any less wrong? This is exactly the problem with Lincolnoloters. Any criticism of Lincoln generates something approaching hysteria. By the way, the issue of Lincoln’s racism never came up in my posts. If you are going to claim to be the keeper of accurate history, you might start with responding to what I actually wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.