English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've been noticing for weeks now, in a lot of interviews, etc... the Republics are mentioning Abraham Lincoln.

In case some are not aware, the party of Lincoln as it is sometimes called, is nothing like the R party today... not far to the right.

Is there a motivation behind this to shift the party left and more centered?

2007-02-18 13:22:25 · 24 answers · asked by BeachBum 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Example, President spent 5 minutes of his interview last Monday on CSPAN talking about Lincoln.

2007-02-18 13:39:17 · update #1

24 answers

Yes it would seem that the motivation would be attach themselves or align themselves with a president..all be it a former one....who was honored.

This is funny because the current and past part are soo vastly diffrent.

Radical Republicans wanted to give the freed slaves reperations...can you imagine what repulbican talking heads would say.
Not only that the main stay of the Right is the south who hated the repulbicans for sending troops in to maintain rule of law and order...or rather enforce order on the treasonous southerners
rebels.

To compare the party of then to now is ignorant....

but

2007-02-19 19:52:43 · answer #1 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 1 1

Several motivations occur to me. A shift to the center always happens in the Presidential race, but usually not until after the primaries. True to form, the leading Republican candidates are all too moderate, and are busy attempting to reposition themselves to the right on issues such as gun control and abortion. So perhaps the rest of the party machine is trying to lean toward the center early, meet them halfway, soothe the real red meat, Christian right base.

It could also be the usual attempt to court the black vote, since nothing else in their policies and platform would appeal to the majority of black voters, except reminding them that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

But I also wonder if it isn't a bit more heartfelt, almost something like a confession. Unlike Lincoln, this President has been rather certain that God was an American. Perhaps, given the utter disaster that is his foreign policy, he's having second thoughts. I hear in their evocation of Lincoln, echoes of his Second Inaugural Address:

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

Realizing that hubris always invokes nemesis, perhaps they are attempting to embrace the humility that was more often characteristic of Lincoln than the current iteration of his party? I don't doubt that they love our country as much as we do, just that they have a radically different vision of what America means. Perhaps, I naively hope, this is an attempt to realize that "this terrible war" was "the woe due to those by whom the offense [of arrogant social engineering foreign policy] came" and a move "to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

I'd prefer to think that, but the skeptic within urges me to adopt a rather more cautious optimism.

2007-02-23 19:59:47 · answer #2 · answered by DJ Cosmolicious 3 · 0 1

February is Black History Month. It may just be obligatory. The parties have flip flopped. The party of Lincoln is now the party of tokenism. Black Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. Republicans love to talk about Condi Rice and other high profile black Republicans, but you only need to remember how shoddily Colin Powell was treated by this administration to understand that color doesn't matter if you don't stick to the party line. I would not use the words " Uncle Tom", but you have to be pretty buttoned down and ready for Fox news to play a prominent role in this party as a Black American. The Republican party is closer to being the party of George Wallace and Archie Bunker than the party of Lincoln. (Although Wallace did change his views towards the end of his life). Republicans are pandering to Black voters. This will end after February and Black History Month is over. The real base of the party is white and lives in gated communities. By the way, we are a republic. I would prefer a more grassroots approach to politics; a country where every vote counts. It does not in the U.S. The electoral system only helps those with the most money.

2007-02-22 20:57:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Grasping at straws, perhaps? There is much discussion and excitement about the Democrats right now, with their recent claim of power and the candidates set for a run for Presidency. And then look at the Republican party...what do they have to get excited about? Neither of their frontrunning candidates, McCain or Guiliani, have the kind of personnas that are inciting interest or intrigue. And the President is less than inspiring. So what the heck...invoke the spirit of Honest Abe...see where that gets them.

2007-02-19 08:01:58 · answer #4 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 1 1

Lincoln would probably not have anything to do with our current pResident. Interesting point. Outside of a retired B Movie actor, the Republicans really have not had a president to be proud of, and not a decent one since Eisenhower.

2007-02-18 13:45:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Way to go. The current republic party makes Barry Goldwater look like a moderate.

Keep using the term "republic" until they quit using the term "democrat party". Couldn't believe it when Bush used it in the state of the Union address.

2007-02-22 11:46:32 · answer #6 · answered by alfie 2 · 0 1

No, Beach Bum, it is not to move to the center, Lincoln was the last decent repuglican, oh and Eisenhower. The repuglican party is not the same one that Lincoln helped to found in Jackson, Michigan, it has completely drifted off course.

2007-02-20 23:02:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The only ones I've seen or heard of any mention of Lincoln is the new little inexperienced wonder boy Obama who has sat back and is now saying everything a liberal wants to hear like its new or something. Lincoln was a Republican. How can a liberal intelligently speak to that?

2007-02-18 13:27:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Seems to me the only one I have seen using President Lincoln lately is the inexperienced Osama Obama.

2007-02-24 04:43:33 · answer #9 · answered by earl justice 3 · 0 0

The original Republican Party was equivalent to the Democratic Party of today!

Lincoln was actually a Whig and seved in Congress as one!

2007-02-18 13:40:50 · answer #10 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers