Good news: Obama invited to deliver new Gettysburg Address

posted at 6:02 pm on March 17, 2010 by Allahpundit

Considering that the event won’t happen until 2013 and that his approval rating sank beneath the waves at Gallup just this morning, this is an awfully optimistic case of planning ahead.

Although in fairness, it could be amazing. A weary yet resolute president, gifted with oratorical powers, climbs the dais and looks out over a crowd congregated on some of our nation’s most hallowed ground. Willing himself to rise to the occasion and hoping, somehow, to channel the greatness of the man who preceded him at the scene, he steels himself, opens his mouth and declares:

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the rules are.”

One town is already banking on President Obama’s re-election: Gettysburg, Pa. Looking ahead to July 2013, organizers of the 150th anniversary of the decisive three-day clash between Union and Confederate forces have extended an invitation for Obama to deliver his own Gettysburg address, we hear. “That would be really cool,” says Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau President Norris Flowers. “I expect that.”

When I posted the link to this on Twitter this morning, Jay Cost instantly replied, “What are the chances Obama will run longer than Lincoln’s 278 words?” To which I merrily retorted, “What are the chances that the speech will mostly be about him?” But I think it was Sarah Wells who said it best when she observed, “There’s something really important missing from Lincoln’s address and that’s Obama’s amazing life story.” So there’s that to look forward to, too.

Exit question: Is Gettysburg really the right setting for Hopenchange? I can think of a better one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t think you actually know what slavery is.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM

I’m sure you do. You don’t even know what grammar is.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

I don’t think you actually know what slavery is.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Your point?

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Always classier than you, Proud Hypocrite!

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:07 PM

I’m not sure about that. I don’t insult people’s families, and you do.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Your point?

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

It’s up there on top of his head.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:11 PM

I don’t think you actually know what slavery is.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Your point?

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

LOL

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM

It’s up there on top of his head.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:11 PM

I always thought he misspelled his name … should be Proud Rhino.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:13 PM

The desecration of hallowed ground continues.

davecatbone on March 17, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Give it up and go home, Proud Hypocrite. You and your side have lost this round. The bill may yet pass, but the good guys have scored three important victories today:
1. Obama looked like a complete idiot on TV today.
2. Yet another “this time for sure!” deadline has passed on the Hill, making Pelosi, Hoyer and Co. look like complete idiots.
3. Idaho was the first state to pass and sign requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. There will be others.

Your dam is cracking, and you don’t have enough fingers to stick in it.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM

LOL

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM

WTF?

(I assume we’re having three letter discussions).

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM

I always thought he misspelled his name … should be Proud Rhino.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:13 PM

But…proud of what, exactly. That’s the part that escapes me.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Really Rino … what is your point? You know, in relation to my comment? Do you have one or were you just making a statement.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:17 PM

I’m not sure about that. I don’t insult people’s families, and you do.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Oh, boo-hoo. “A few sandwiches shy of a picnic” is affectionate, compared to the hair-raising things critics of the Lincoln Administration said the time, and since Mrs. Lincoln has met her Maker long since and been joyfully reunited with her family, I hardly think I’ve offended her… or were you much more worried about any possible criticism of our Glorious Empress of the Five-Hundred-Dollar Sneakers? Again, I say, oh, boo-hoo.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I’m not sure about that. I don’t insult people’s families, and you do.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Your mama.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:19 PM

… said AT the time.

Purview is my fiend. ;-)

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Really Rino … what is your point? You know, in relation to my comment? Do you have one or were you just making a statement.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:17 PM

My point is, if you seriously think Obama is going to reinstitute slavery, then I don’t think you actually know what slavery is. If you’re just making stuff up, well, I guess that wouldn’t be the first time that happened.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM

But…proud of what, exactly. That’s the part that escapes me.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Yeah, good question. Maybe Rino can answer that for us.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM

My point is, if you seriously think Obama is going to reinstitute slavery, then I don’t think you actually know what slavery is. If you’re just making stuff up, well, I guess that wouldn’t be the first time that happened.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Did you read what I wrote? Secondly, did you comprehend it? There are different forms of slavery. Just use your noggin, it’ll come to you.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:18 PM

They’re the spouses. They married their husbands before it was at all clear that they were going to be president or that they were going to be in the public eye. Neither of them sought out fame, but instead had it thrust upon them.

So that makes it OK for you to insult them?

LOL @ “Well other people did it worse.” That’s terrific. As long as you can find someone who behaves worse than you, I guess that means you behave well! Fantastic, Mary. Some set of morals you got there.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

I don’t think you actually know what slavery is.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Slavery is not being allowed to consent to your working conditions or to keep the fruits of your own labor.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Well, both Lincoln and Obama have a lot in common.

They both destroyed the Constitution. They both were tyrannical. They were willing to shed blood for their political ambitions. Southerners for Lincoln, babies for Obama.

Oh and both couldn’t care less about blacks…

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Well, both Lincoln and Obama have a lot in common.

They both destroyed the Constitution. They both were tyrannical. They were willing to shed blood for their political ambitions. Southerners for Lincoln, babies for Obama.

Oh and both couldn’t care less about blacks…

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Terrific.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Did you read what I wrote? Secondly, did you comprehend it? There are different forms of slavery. Just use your noggin, it’ll come to you.

darwin on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

He’ll get it in a few years if this crap sandwich passes. When he realizes he’s working more than half of his year to pay for other people’s “entitlements” — you know, the European Way — it’ll come to him.

Maybe.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM

They both destroyed the Constitution. They both were tyrannical. They were willing to shed blood for their political ambitions. Southerners for Lincoln, babies for Obama.

Oh and both couldn’t care less about blacks…

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Your take. My take is that Abe Lincoln was a far better Constitutional scholar than every person in the South Carolina state legislature, or any of the myriad of so-called “States Righters” who went on to fight and, later, to bemoan, the “Lost Cause”.

And as for Lincoln not caring about blacks — if he truly didn’t care, he would have been a Democrat.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Terrific.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Actually, Some Pig.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM

A weary yet resolute president, gifted with oratorical powers, climbs the dais and looks out over a crowd congregated on some of our nation’s most hallowed ground. Willing himself to rise to the occasion and hoping, somehow, to channel the greatness of the man who preceded him at the scene, he steels himself, opens his mouth and declares:

This would have been my version of this paragraph….

An arrogant, elitist president, gifted with a working teleprompter, climbs the dais, and looks down his nose at the crowd, standing on ground where a battle took place, to free the slaves, of which his family once owned. Knowing he was far better a president, and human being than his predecessors could ever hope to be…he opens his mouth and declares……you may address me as His Royal Highness!

capejasmine on March 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM

that makes it OK for you to insult them?

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

If you think that “a few sandwiches shy of a picnic” is an insult, you’ve never been insulted. We must not be trying hard enough.

Hey, guys, Proud Hypocrite here wants to see some insulting going on! Who’s got game?

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I stand corrected.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:31 PM

He’ll get it in a few years …

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Pretty sure Proud Hypocrite is a she.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Hey, guys, Proud Hypocrite here wants to see some insulting going on! Who’s got game?

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Too easy.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Will no one take the hook?

“What are the chances Obama will run longer than Lincoln’s 278 words?”

 
3000%

rogerb on March 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM

My point is, if you seriously think Obama is going to reinstitute slavery, then I don’t think you actually know what slavery is.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Right. “Slavery” is where the master feels some duty of stewardship to care for his subject population.

What Obama promotes is tyranny. As in, “Bring me back $x or else.”
No care for how many of us fail.

They’re the spouses. They married their husbands before it was at all clear that they were going to be president or that they were going to be in the public eye. Neither of them sought out fame, but instead had it thrust upon them.

Right, their husbands said unto them, “Woman, I am the man; I have decided. Pack your bags, we’re moving to Washington. And you WILL be happy about it.”

Chris_Balsz on March 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM

LOL @ “Well other people did it worse.” That’s terrific. As long as you can find someone who behaves worse than you, I guess that means you behave well!

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Which, incidentally, is exactly the argument the Dems are using to plead the morality of “deeming”. “Wah wah wah, the Republicans did it, too!” So if I’m immoral, they’re even more so. I “insulted” (oh noes!) one public figure; they’re setting out to destroy the lives and livelihood of millions.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Pretty sure Proud Hypocrite is a she.

Mary in LA on March 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Whatever the case, I’m sure that Rino’s dunce cap is too tight for the best practices of health care for his/her brain.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM

3000%

rogerb on March 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Bada Bing!!

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Your take. My take is that Abe Lincoln was a far better Constitutional scholar than every person in the South Carolina state legislature, or any of the myriad of so-called “States Righters” who went on to fight and, later, to bemoan, the “Lost Cause”.

And as for Lincoln not caring about blacks — if he truly didn’t care, he would have been a Democrat.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM

So you are saying that he was a better Constitutional scholar than Timothy Pickering?

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and secession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Your take. My take is that Abe Lincoln was a far better Constitutional scholar than every person in the South Carolina state legislature, or any of the myriad of so-called “States Righters” who went on to fight and, later, to bemoan, the “Lost Cause”.

So you are saying that he was a better Constitutional scholar than Timothy Pickering?

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and secession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

And as for Lincoln not caring about blacks — if he truly didn’t care, he would have been a Democrat.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Well, contrary to your “view” the fact is that as a lawyer, he never represented a slave for a legal battle in IL. He did represent a slave owner using the Fugitive Slave Act to return a slave to the South.

His words about blacks were not kind, he never adopted a black child, like Jefferson Davis did. He refused to free any slaves that he could have freed and freed slaves he had no ability to free.

His policies also helped spark the NYC riots in which blacks were hung and beat all over NYC. His only concern was getting the Irish to the front lines, not protecting blacks in the city.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Your take. My take is that Abe Lincoln was a far better Constitutional scholar than every person in the South Carolina state legislature, or any of the myriad of so-called “States Righters” who went on to fight and, later, to bemoan, the “Lost Cause”.

So you are saying that he was a better Constitutional scholar than Timothy Pickering?

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and $ecession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

And as for Lincoln not caring about blacks — if he truly didn’t care, he would have been a Democrat.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Well, contrary to your “view” the fact is that as a lawyer, he never represented a slave for a legal battle in IL. He did represent a slave owner using the Fugitive Slave Act to return a slave to the South.

His words about blacks were not kind, he never adopted a black child, like Jefferson Davis did. He refused to free any slaves that he could have freed and freed slaves he had no ability to free.

His policies also helped spark the NYC riots in which blacks were hung and beat all over NYC. His only concern was getting the Irish to the front lines, not protecting blacks in the city.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Is this video supposed to play? Nada here.

Log on March 17, 2010 at 7:55 PM

It’s utter crap that when Lincoln is in the thread, $ecession is a “banned” word.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:55 PM

I’m not a hunnert percent, but i bleave that seesession ain’t welcome talk around here lately some reasonnuther.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:03 PM

They should replace Obama’s greek columns with porta-johns:
The aroma will match the rhetoric.

Cybergeezer on March 17, 2010 at 8:58 PM

I’m not a hunnert percent, but i bleave that seesession ain’t welcome talk around here lately some reasonnuther.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 8:03 PM

I’m not advocating it (yet), I’m defending it as Constitutional.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Next he’ll stand on Michelle’s @ss and give the new age Sermon on the Mount.

Alden Pyle on March 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I guess we should hope his career tracks a bit differently…..Bueller? Bueller?….

Alden Pyle on March 17, 2010 at 10:05 PM

There’s something really important missing from Lincoln’s address and that’s Obama’s amazing life story.”

Yes, where else but in America could a kid raised as anti-American socialist/communist grow up to become the president? Warms my heart.

PattyJ on March 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM

I guess we should hope his career tracks a bit differently…..Bueller? Bueller?….

Alden Pyle on March 17, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Didja hafta say “tracks” right after the previous observation?

Ewwww.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Y’all’s justa buncha racists. Why, Ojesus has saved our economy… created jobs… built our esteem overseas… helped strengthen our education system… MMMM mmmm mmmm…

…I quit. He’s a bad joke.

I, for one, am not laughing.

hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 10:35 PM

“This video is private.”

Tzetzes on March 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Will no one take the hook?

“What are the chances Obama will run longer than Lincoln’s 278 words?”

3000%
rogerb on March 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM

The real question is whether the words “I”,”Me” and “Myself” will occur 278 times.

OBQuiet on March 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM

So you are saying that he was a better Constitutional scholar than Timothy Pickering?

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and secession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

I have no idea why anybody who thought all secessionists were wrong, should flip when confronted with yet another secessionist.

Chris_Balsz on March 18, 2010 at 12:19 AM

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and $ecession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

The Constitution doesn’t allow for state-departing. It don’t matter if what state-departer you pile on the heap. They’re all wrong.

Chris_Balsz on March 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM

The Constitution doesn’t allow for state-departing. It don’t matter if what state-departer you pile on the heap. They’re all wrong.

Chris_Balsz on March 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM

You are wrong. Let me quote the part that allows $ecession:

[quote]Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]

So is the power to keep the States in the Union in the Constitution? No.

Is the power to $ecede prohibited to the States? No.

Therefore, the power to $ecede is reserved (read granted) to the States.

Checkmate. Brush up on your Constitution, because that was Pickering’s argument. Seeing how he was the Secretary of State for George Washington and John Adams, I’ll put his interpretation over Lincoln’s and yours.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 1:20 AM

So you are saying that he was a better Constitutional scholar than Timothy Pickering?

In case you didn’t click the link, Pickering was the leading advocate for State’s Rights and secession in the NE states. Heck, he lead the Hartford Convention, had the War not ended, they would have pulled the trigger. What is ironic, is that he was a major Federalist who resisted Federal tyranny.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Why ruin the joke by telling me what’s behind Door #2? Maybe because Pickering, artful Constitutional scholar that he was, went into the ashcan of history, next to Roger Taney?

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Well, contrary to your “view” the fact is that as a lawyer, he never represented a slave for a legal battle in IL. He did represent a slave owner using the Fugitive Slave Act to return a slave to the South.

Amusingly, Lincoln lost that case. Hmm?

And here is a case in which Lincoln represented a slave girl in IL (thus meeting both of your restrictions) and successfully argued for her freedom. You should have mentioned “male slave” and then you might have had me.

His words about blacks were not kind,

Citation?

he never adopted a black child, like Jefferson Davis did.

Red herring. Jefferson Davis is certainly not viewed as the man who freed the slaves.

He refused to free any slaves that he could have freed and freed slaves he had no ability to free.

He could not free any slaves in the North, because he was constrained by the Constitution of the United States in effect from the time he was born until the day he died — that same Constitution that made him powerless to do anything about slaves until the chicken-little South Carolinans decided to do their insurrection thing. As for those in the South touched by the Emancipation Proclamation, he made use of their property status under the Constitution to give them their freedom — since one legal use of his power was to deny war materiel to our enemies.

His policies also helped spark the NYC riots in which blacks were hung and beat all over NYC. His only concern was getting the Irish to the front lines, not protecting blacks in the city.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Tail wags dog there, methinks. By that thinking, President Bush was responsible for the LA Riots.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:11 AM

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 1:20 AM

What guarantees said protections of the Constitution to the People? The Constitution. What happens should a State attempt to secede? A: The Constitutional guaranteed rights of commerce between the States (and the consequent advantage given to the People) are nullified.

You forget the precedent which lead to the Constitution — the much weaker Articles of Confederation, which weakness directly led to Shay’s Rebellion.

The States could secede under the Articles — none of your quoted Articles give a right to secession under the Constitution, any more than they give any State the right to ignore by nullification any single article of the Constitution.

Your reasoning is specious.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:18 AM

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Your reasoning is specious.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:32 AM

And here is a case in which Lincoln represented a slave girl in IL (thus meeting both of your restrictions) and successfully argued for her freedom. You should have mentioned “male slave” and then you might have had me.

Strictly speaking, he claimed that the owner had no evidence she was his slave. So technically, he didn’t represent any slave in defense of the Fugitive Slave Act.

On Race:

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.” -1858

And there are more if you just look.

Red herring. Jefferson Davis is certainly not viewed as the man who freed the slaves.

1. It’s not, because Lincoln is embraced as a friend of blacks and Davis as the man who hated blacks. Rather, Jefferson’s person servant stuck with him through life as a son.

2. Jefferson provided France and England a full plan for systematic emancipation in 1864.

3. Even while a Senator, he was working with a number of landed gentry on ways to emancipate without having the economic harm to both owners and slaves as occurred in England’s emancipation.

He could not free any slaves in the North, because he was constrained by the Constitution of the United States in effect from the time he was born until the day he died — that same Constitution that made him powerless to do anything about slaves until the chicken-little South Carolinans decided to do their insurrection thing

Ah, but they didn’t partake in any insurrection. They enacted the 10th Amendment and used the power granted to the State to leave.

Even then, you are making the case the war wasn’t about slavery, but about tyranny of keeping people who wanted to govern themselves under federal centralized rule.

That still doesn’t explain why he didn’t draft them into the Army only to free them. That was a power that he could have exercised, but chose not to. That was a Constitutional option. The Emancipation was not Constitutional, but drafting slaves into the Army in order to get them their freedom was Constitutional, just as drafting Irish was.

As for those in the South touched by the Emancipation Proclamation, he made use of their property status under the Constitution to give them their freedom — since one legal use of his power was to deny war materiel to our enemies.

WoW! So you are saying Lincoln considered them nothing more than property? Guess he wasn’t that humanitarian….

Tail wags dog there, methinks. By that thinking, President Bush was responsible for the LA Riots.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:11 AM

No, the respects aren’t the same. The draft wasn’t the issue. The issue was the Emancipation. The people of NYC did not want to fight for blacks. It was the specific act that Lincoln did that caused those riots.

There was no act that Bush did that resulted in the riots.

Ah, but the United States would have ceased to exist.

No, it still existed. The South was not the cause of a Constitutional suicide. The United States still existed in form for those states that chose to stay. Even many Southern States chose to stay, until Lincoln demanded they raise an army and go attack their brothers in other states. Ask yourself, why did Virginia and I think 6 other states wait to leave until AFTER Sumter, and only when Lincoln called for an attack on States that were trying to be peaceful.

That’s where we differ — I, as Lincoln, count the United States as being all those states in the Union. Any attempt to leave the Union breaks the Union, and denies the citizens in the faction breaking away the protection of the laws of the Union.

Sorry, but Union doesn’t trump the X Amendment giving the right to $ecede to the States by not giving the specific power to the Federal Government.

Again, the Union was designed to be far stronger than a Confederation, and the Constitution shows it. Once in, you cannot leave.

Not in the even that the individual states felt their rights being trampled. Otherwise, the War for Independence would be immoral, because British rule was binding. $ecession was legally allowed.

The South presented a military threat to the Union. It had fired upon the Union, had occupied its military installations. War was inevitable. With war comes government growth. Each war we have fought has been fought by taxing the citizens; each war requires supplies, transport, and men, and none of those three are free.

1. The South didn’t present the North a threat. They repeated requested their land to be returned, since they were no longer bound by the Federal Government, the Federal Government was nothing more than a squatter. Therefore, when asked to leave, legally and morally they needed to leave.

If the threat was so dangerous, why was there no attempt by the South to invade the North after Sumter. They had the momentum, but they chose not to use it. Why? Because they didn’t intend to attack.

Even at Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he stated that he would be willing to have the Corwin Amendment pass, granting eternal slavery to the states, if they just return. The South’s response was to ask him to leave them alone. Ironically, Lincoln, the man who “hated” slavery was willing to keep blacks enslaved just so he could continue to get tariffs, after all, why write governors asking them to support the amendment?

Lincoln also refused the many diplomats that came to offer a peaceful exodus, including taking their share of the national debt.

If you are going to say that War allows violations of the Constitution and the rights of the people to continue to be diminished, you need to hold your head in shame. It means that you do not hold faithful the Constitution.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:26 AM

And here is a case in which Lincoln represented a slave girl in IL (thus meeting both of your restrictions) and successfully argued for her freedom. You should have mentioned “male slave” and then you might have had me.

Strictly speaking, he claimed that the owner had no evidence she was his slave. So technically, he didn’t represent any slave in defense of the Fugitive Slave Act.

On Race:

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.” -1858

And there are more if you just look.

Red herring. Jefferson Davis is certainly not viewed as the man who freed the slaves.

1. It’s not, because Lincoln is embraced as a friend of blacks and Davis as the man who hated blacks. Rather, Jefferson’s person servant stuck with him through life as a son.

2. Jefferson provided France and England a full plan for systematic emancipation in 1864.

3. Even while a Senator, he was working with a number of landed gentry on ways to emancipate without having the economic harm to both owners and slaves as occurred in England’s emancipation.

He could not free any slaves in the North, because he was constrained by the Constitution of the United States in effect from the time he was born until the day he died — that same Constitution that made him powerless to do anything about slaves until the chicken-little South Carolinans decided to do their insurrection thing

Ah, but they didn’t partake in any insurrection. They enacted the 10th Amendment and used the power granted to the State to leave.

Even then, you are making the case the war wasn’t about slavery, but about tyranny of keeping people who wanted to govern themselves under federal centralized rule.

That still doesn’t explain why he didn’t draft them into the Army only to free them. That was a power that he could have exercised, but chose not to. That was a Constitutional option. The Emancipation was not Constitutional, but drafting slaves into the Army in order to get them their freedom was Constitutional, just as drafting Irish was.

As for those in the South touched by the Emancipation Proclamation, he made use of their property status under the Constitution to give them their freedom — since one legal use of his power was to deny war materiel to our enemies.

WoW! So you are saying Lincoln considered them nothing more than property? Guess he wasn’t that humanitarian….

Tail wags dog there, methinks. By that thinking, President Bush was responsible for the LA Riots.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:11 AM

No, the respects aren’t the same. The draft wasn’t the issue. The issue was the Emancipation. The people of NYC did not want to fight for blacks. It was the specific act that Lincoln did that caused those riots.

There was no act that Bush did that resulted in the riots.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:27 AM

And here is a case in which Lincoln represented a slave girl in IL (thus meeting both of your restrictions) and successfully argued for her freedom. You should have mentioned “male slave” and then you might have had me.

Strictly speaking, he claimed that the owner had no evidence she was his slave. So technically, he didn’t represent any slave in defense of the Fugitive Slave Act.

On Race:

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of N*groes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.” -1858

And there are more if you just look.

Red herring. Jefferson Davis is certainly not viewed as the man who freed the slaves.

1. It’s not, because Lincoln is embraced as a friend of blacks and Davis as the man who hated blacks. Rather, Jefferson’s person servant stuck with him through life as a son.

2. Jefferson provided France and England a full plan for systematic emancipation in 1864.

3. Even while a Senator, he was working with a number of landed gentry on ways to emancipate without having the economic harm to both owners and slaves as occurred in England’s emancipation.

He could not free any slaves in the North, because he was constrained by the Constitution of the United States in effect from the time he was born until the day he died — that same Constitution that made him powerless to do anything about slaves until the chicken-little South Carolinans decided to do their insurrection thing

Ah, but they didn’t partake in any insurrection. They enacted the 10th Amendment and used the power granted to the State to leave.

Even then, you are making the case the war wasn’t about slavery, but about tyranny of keeping people who wanted to govern themselves under federal centralized rule.

That still doesn’t explain why he didn’t draft them into the Army only to free them. That was a power that he could have exercised, but chose not to. That was a Constitutional option. The Emancipation was not Constitutional, but drafting slaves into the Army in order to get them their freedom was Constitutional, just as drafting Irish was.

As for those in the South touched by the Emancipation Proclamation, he made use of their property status under the Constitution to give them their freedom — since one legal use of his power was to deny war materiel to our enemies.

WoW! So you are saying Lincoln considered them nothing more than property? Guess he wasn’t that humanitarian….

Tail wags dog there, methinks. By that thinking, President Bush was responsible for the LA Riots.

The Lost Cause is still lost, guy. Give it up.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 2:11 AM

No, the respects aren’t the same. The draft wasn’t the issue. The issue was the Emancipation. The people of NYC did not want to fight for blacks. It was the specific act that Lincoln did that caused those riots.

There was no act that Bush did that resulted in the riots.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:28 AM

Ah, but the United States would have ceased to exist.

No, it still existed. The South was not the cause of a Constitutional suicide. The United States still existed in form for those states that chose to stay. Even many Southern States chose to stay, until Lincoln demanded they raise an army and go attack their brothers in other states. Ask yourself, why did Virginia and I think 6 other states wait to leave until AFTER Sumter, and only when Lincoln called for an attack on States that were trying to be peaceful.

That’s where we differ — I, as Lincoln, count the United States as being all those states in the Union. Any attempt to leave the Union breaks the Union, and denies the citizens in the faction breaking away the protection of the laws of the Union.

Sorry, but Union doesn’t trump the X Amendment giving the right to $ecede to the States by not giving the specific power to the Federal Government.

Again, the Union was designed to be far stronger than a Confederation, and the Constitution shows it. Once in, you cannot leave.

Not in the even that the individual states felt their rights being trampled. Otherwise, the War for Independence would be immoral, because British rule was binding. $ecession was legally allowed.

The South presented a military threat to the Union. It had fired upon the Union, had occupied its military installations. War was inevitable. With war comes government growth. Each war we have fought has been fought by taxing the citizens; each war requires supplies, transport, and men, and none of those three are free.

1. The South didn’t present the North a threat. They repeated requested their land to be returned, since they were no longer bound by the Federal Government, the Federal Government was nothing more than a squatter. Therefore, when asked to leave, legally and morally they needed to leave.

If the threat was so dangerous, why was there no attempt by the South to invade the North after Sumter. They had the momentum, but they chose not to use it. Why? Because they didn’t intend to attack.

Even at Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, he stated that he would be willing to have the Corwin Amendment pass, granting eternal slavery to the states, if they just return. The South’s response was to ask him to leave them alone. Ironically, Lincoln, the man who “hated” slavery was willing to keep blacks enslaved just so he could continue to get tariffs, after all, why write governors asking them to support the amendment?

Lincoln also refused the many diplomats that came to offer a peaceful exodus, including taking their share of the national debt.

If you are going to say that War allows violations of the Constitution and the rights of the people to continue to be diminished, you need to hold your head in shame. It means that you do not hold faithful the Constitution.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:29 AM

Oops, forgot to put in the #2.

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:29 AM

HOPEFULLY, Obama won’t be president by then. If he is WILL SOMEONE REMIND HIM THAT LINCOLN SPOKE FOR ONLY TWO MINUTES?- GarandFan on March 17, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Obama is incapable of giving a two minute speech

SC.Charlie on March 18, 2010 at 5:56 AM

Obama will be a private citizen in 2013.

zoyclem on March 18, 2010 at 7:34 AM

Obama will be a private citizen in 2013.

zoyclem on March 18, 2010

But of what country?

Extrafishy on March 18, 2010 at 8:26 AM

This will redeem some of your credibility.

Schadenfreude on March 17, 2010 at 6:22 PM

When did she have credibility?

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:02 AM

and will probably resonate with a lot of Americans.

crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Would that be the 70% of Americans who want congress to dump this bill and start over?

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:04 AM

It just boggles my mind that someone like crr6 can be for a bill that destroys our current health care system, forces people to buy expensive policies under penalty of fine or jail and has the government dictating what they’ll pay for.
darwin on March 17, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Like most liberals, crr6 is in favor of any bill that causes other people’s money to be spent on her.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM

I’m not sure about that. I don’t insult people’s families, and you do.

Proud Rino on March 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Every time you post, you insult everyone related to you.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Your take. My take is that Abe Lincoln was a far better Constitutional scholar than every person in the South Carolina state legislature, or any of the myriad of so-called “States Righters” who went on to fight and, later, to bemoan, the “Lost Cause”.

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM

You mean the people who recognized that the states had every right to leave if they wanted to, except that the north had more guns and thus was able to force them to rejoin the union.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:13 AM

It’s utter crap that when Lincoln is in the thread, $ecession is a “banned” word.

Tim Burton on March 17, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Beyond that, it’s a banned concept. Yesterday AllahTyrant sent me an e-mail declaring that if I ever put up another post that favorable towards that concept, I will be banned.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Probably should have replaced the banned word with all ‘#’s or something. AllahTyrant also told me that if I ever use a mispelling to get around this sites filters, I would be banned. Yet he allows others to do it all the time.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Obama’s Gettysburg Manifesto

“Almost 150 years ago, a great war was fought to free the slaves in the South. Many of the Southern slave owners thought their paternalistic “benevolence” justified the enslavement of one human being by another. My Health Care plan is different. It won’t result in healthcare rationing like you see in England and Canada. Nor will it result in the lives of every U.S. citizen dependant on the paternalistic “benevolence” of Governement Healtcare bureaucrats. You can trust me on this.”

olesparkie on March 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM

The Constitution doesn’t allow for state-departing. It don’t matter if what state-departer you pile on the heap. They’re all wrong.

Chris_Balsz on March 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM

The constitution didn’t need to allow for it.
It didn’t ban it. Anything not reserved to the federal govt by the constitution is granted to the states. And that includes the power to leave. Do you really think that the people who just fought a war to leave England, would demand that the union they created must be permanent?

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Pickering, artful Constitutional scholar that he was, went into the ashcan of history, next to Roger Taney?

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 1:51 AM

ah yes, the side with the most guns is always right mode of argument.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:28 AM

You mean the people who recognized that the states had every right to leave if they wanted to, except that the north had more guns and thus was able to force them to rejoin the union.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:13 AM

ah yes, the side with the most guns is always right mode of argument.

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Why, how many guns did Roger Taney use?

Point of the above comment: You are being deliberately obtuse. Armaments or the lack thereof do not determine whether you are right or wrong, but often determine whether your ideas will prevail over the other guy’s.

Of course, if you are right and have the most firepower, that’s always really cool.

The other point, which I made quite strongly to you in the January argument we had on this identical topic, is as follows:

Ah, but the United States would have ceased to exist.

That’s where we differ — I, as Lincoln, count the United States as being all those states in the Union. Any attempt to leave the Union breaks the Union, and denies the citizens in the faction breaking away the protection of the laws of the Union.

Again, the Union was designed to be far stronger than a Confederation, and the Constitution shows it. Once in, you cannot leave.

The South presented a military threat to the Union. It had fired upon the Union, had occupied its military installations. War was inevitable.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Tim Burton on March 18, 2010 at 3:29 AM

Ah — repitition — the sign that we are fighting the good fight against HotAir’s really bad bad word suppression software.

To put it simply:
a) the South is part of the United States of America
b) any attempt to sever, by military means, any portion of the territory of the United States of America, is invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, depending upon who is performing the military acts.
c) the Constitution provides to the United States of America the specific right to defend its territorial integrity — its sovereignty.
d) various agents of the South, not limited to but including state officials, violated their oaths the the United States by attempting to remove their lands from the purview of the Constitution.
e) The United States responded with equivalent or greater force and reasserted its sovereignty.

You would characterize the Federal Government as squatting. I would characterize them has holding sovereignty. Note how Virginia got back its portion of the District of Columbia — it did not march a military force in and take it, but requested from and received from the United States the return of said land. It was obvious from the beginning that land given by a State to the United States belonged to the Federal Government in perpetuity — or at least until the US no longer needed the land and returned it to the State (or to people within the State — note how closed military bases are treated).

The 10th Amendment covers many things, but its intent is to form the pattern of lawmaking within the United States — not how the United States defends against a threat to its sovereignty, which defense is specifically enabled by the rest of the Constitution. Your appeal to the 10th as a justification for rebellion is specious on its face.

You then use said specious argument to attack the legitimacy of the Emancipation Proclamation. Regardless of the legitimacy of the war (putting aside our differences in that matter), the United States was at war, and has every right to use every capability in its arsenal, including political capabilities, to seek advantage over its enemy. The Proclamation was entirely Constitutional, in that it officially denied, to those fighting the United States, the assurance that their slaves would remain slaves once the United States forces were victorious in any area. It treated the slaves like the objects they Constitutionally were at that point in history, and did so in such a masterful way that it struck fear into the hearts of the slaveholders of the South and vastly increased hope in the hearts of the slaves themselves. Lincoln’s choice of time to issue the Proclamation (after a major Union victory) was also masterful — it amplified the force of the words many times.

Your so-called pro-slavery sentiments on the part of Lincoln are weak to say the least. Lincoln knew his weakness with respect to slavery lie in the Constitution — a document with legalized that concept. He was not the author of the Constitution — as President he was its enforcer. You and I are in full agreement on this — Lincoln would have been powerless to remove slavery absent some external event — which the South Carolinans provided within weeks of his office-taking.

The South Carolinans of the era would be the first group to disagree with your premise that Lincoln did not have the welfare and freedom of the slaves in mind:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

One wonders what events in 1852 jarred the memory of the South Carolinans, or what event which they viewed as directly antagonistic to their state’s rights motivated their departure — a reading of the rest of the document is instructive.

Again, the Lost Cause remains lost. Your side lost, and my side won.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Again, the Lost Cause remains lost. Your side lost, and my side won. – unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM

The side that my ancestors fought for lost. Two issues were not resolved at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The slavery issue and whether or not a state could leave the Union. Those two issues sadly, with a great loss of life, were resolved by the War Between the States.

SC.Charlie on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

This man is nothing like Lincoln, and that is the thing with BHO. He is always perceived to be something, because he has no substance of his own. He should get into acting after he gets beat in 2012, he is a natural.

la.rt.wngr on March 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The side that my ancestors fought for lost. Two issues were not resolved at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The slavery issue and whether or not a state could leave the Union. Those two issues sadly, with a great loss of life, were resolved by the War Between the States.

SC.Charlie on March 18, 2010 at 11:36

Jefferson himself answered the question of states rights in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

historian on March 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Howsabout Waterloo Address?

Akzed on March 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM

The side that my ancestors fought for lost. Two issues were not resolved at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The slavery issue and whether or not a state could leave the Union. Those two issues sadly, with a great loss of life, were resolved by the War Between the States.

SC.Charlie on March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Both were indeed decided. Slavery was to be permitted in perpetuity, but the importation of new slaves from outside the United States could, if desired by the Congress, be subject to sunset laws after 1808. The phrase “a more perfect Union” in the Preamble certainly gives the intent of the Founding Fathers in replacing the much weaker (from a federalist standpoint) Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. What is not present in the Constitution is the phraseology present in Article II of the Articles which asserted the innate sovereignty and independence of the individual States comprising the confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The corresponding Tenth Amendment in the Constitution is much weaker — unlike Article II of the Articles of Confederation, it does not provide any form of check upon actions Congress may take in restricting the sovereignty and independence of the individual States as provided in Article I of the Constitution.

Note that Shay’s Rebellion was a principal motivator behind creation of the Constitution and the strong Federal Government, due to (a) the rather weak response by the Confederation to the Rebellion and (b) the mistreatment of veterans [some of whom served through the entire War without pay] by Massachusetts which lie behind the Rebellion.

I also have ancestors who participated in that War, as well as the Revolutionary War. My ancestors in the Revolutionary War were on the wrong side; one was hung as a British spy, and others fled to Nova Scotia in Canada in the second diaspora of Loyalists after the conclusion of the War of 1812. In the Civil War, one was detained three times as a spy by various Confederate authorities, but managed to lie his way out of the situation each time by successfully claiming that his cover (an importer of goods embargoed by the Union) explained his activities.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM

The constitution didn’t need to allow for it.
It didn’t ban it. Anything not reserved to the federal govt by the constitution is granted to the states. And that includes the power to leave. Do you really think that the people who just fought a war to leave England, would demand that the union they created must be permanent?

MarkTheGreat on March 18, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Yes. As a government, it made provision for its operation, and amendment. You will never find a government document that specifies the procedure for its dissolution. The destruction of a government is, of necessity, improvised.

Jefferson himself answered the question of states rights in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

historian on March 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM

And I declare myself Emperor of Mars.

Chris_Balsz on March 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Exit question: Is Gettysburg really the right setting for Hopenchange? I can think of a better one.

It is not an appropriate setting. Obama is not comparable to Lincoln.

These threads about Lincoln are the perfect brain food.

One can ascertain, based on their comments, what side some posters would have fought for had they lived during those times.

It is rather ironic to see those that view themselves as defenders of the Constitution maintain they have a right to leave the very entity to which the Constitution applies. They must believe that they get to keep the protections afforded by the Constitution after departing.

Those that propose States should leave the Union have not learned anything from our history, nor have they thought about all the unintended consequences of such an action as it relates to the world we live in today.

One honors the Constitution by pulling the lever of the voting machine. One dishonors the Constitution by claiming to defend it out of one side of their mouth, while the other side of their mouth talks incessantly about a right to leave its’ protections behind.

rukiddingme on March 18, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Jefferson himself answered the question of states rights in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

historian on March 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM

You are merely restating the argument. The Constitution does indeed indicate the type of relationship between the Federal Government and the States as envisioned by Jefferson, but Jefferson’s equation leaves out the third party, which are the People. Furthermore, Jefferson never says that he views the power to leave the United States as a power delegated to a State.

That third party comes back to haunt in the 10th Amendment.

It is well known that slavery was anathema to many Fathers, but it still wound up in the Constitution. Strong Federalism was anathema to the anti-Federalists, but it still wound up in the Constitution.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 1:48 PM

One can ascertain, based on their comments, what side some posters would have fought for had they lived during those times.

rukiddingme on March 18, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I also believe this. We have many libertarians here who are of the nullification ilk.

I can say that I find this invitation for Obama to speak to be premature at the least, and a bit angering — it’s an endorsement not of his office but of him personally. That said, if he were President-elect in December 2012, the lack of an invitation to him to speak at Gettysburg would anger me equally. It’s the office that matters, not the man or woman who fills it.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM

That said, if he were President-elect in December 2012, the lack of an invitation to him to speak at Gettysburg would anger me equally. It’s the office that matters, not the man or woman who fills it.

unclesmrgol on March 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Agreed. One should always show respect for the position, even if one does not respect the person holding the position.

rukiddingme on March 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2