You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
NYT goes over the edge
2004-11-08
Via LGF:
A LITTLE more than a month before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln stood at the east portico of the Capitol and delivered his second inaugural address. It was a brief speech with a distinctly religious message: he twice cited biblical verses, and made a dozen references to God, most strikingly in assessing the opposing sides in the Civil War. ... The address was roundly criticized in some newspapers for overstepping the bounds separating church and state. But Lincoln was using God to debunk government-by-God.

Now, with George W. Bush's re-election, God and a newly triumphant Republican president are once again in the headlines. And there are signs that the present national divide, between the narrow but solid Republican majority and a Democratic party seemingly trapped in second place, may be hardening into a pattern that will persist for years to come. Democrats, especially, are left to wonder: What will it take to break the pattern - an act of God?....
Posted by:anonymous2u

#17  Blowback's started.

The "author" of this article's sent an email out that's not what I meant.

LGF got one.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2004-11-08 10:44:15 PM  

#16  CS, I agree completely, but I don't think W will force it. I think you may have defined the universe of VP contenders, unless one of them gets the top of the ticket. A Giuliani Rice ticket would be unbeatable. Each nominee from the two big blue states.

I was hoping Condi would run for Governess of Caliphornia in 06 to prep for 12 in case Hillary wins in 08. She needs the real world executive experience. But she is definite top of ticket material. The Rs have so much and the Dems so little. Maybe a faction of the GOP could arrange a hostile takeover of the D party.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 9:02:42 PM  

#15  Mrs. Davis, I like your choices but I think the Republicans can (and should) make a strategic and tactical statement with Watts or Rice. They are both youthful and counter the styreotypical Republican. Can you imagine the DNC running an attack ad against Watts? Or questioning the intelligence of Dr. Rice? I would really like to see one of these on the ticket in 2008 or in a Seanate race in 2006/08.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2004-11-08 8:50:29 PM  

#14  Bush is into democracy, stability and rule following. Look at the turnover in his cabinet. He doesn't see himself as a king-maker. He'll be happy to let the party members make the decision through the primaries. He knows this will give the party the most strength and the nominee the most party support. He'll finish his term with an open field for the next nominee whomever that shall be.

Besides that you didn't mention Giuliani. Or J. Fred Thompson. Or Dick Cheney. Or George Pataki. Or John Mc Cain. Or Colin Powell. A candidate rich environment to run against Hillary or...
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 6:21:33 PM  

#13  I like Cheney and have the utmost respect for him. But I would LOVE to hear the LLL attacks (and they would) if Bush selected her to become Vice President. A pet conspiracy of mine is that Cheney will leave office after two years and Bush will select a Vice that will in turn run for President. That is why I would like it if he picked Condi, but I would also like to see JC Watts on that short list as well. Am I purposesly putting forth Black candidates? Yes because either one of these people is way better than ANYBODY on the left side, they are both conservative, and they would cement the conservative hold on power for the forseeable future. Either one would take the Presidential election by 60% or more. Ok ranters shoot holes in this theory for me.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2004-11-08 6:11:17 PM  

#12  If either President Bush or Vice President Cheney leaves office, the next vice president of the United States will be Condoleeza Rice.
Posted by: Mike   2004-11-08 5:58:26 PM  

#11  And who would Cheney appoint VCB once he was Chimpy Bushitler? Richard Perle?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 5:06:47 PM  

#10  In 2,000 years, there will be a trivia question about how "Chimpy Bushitler" became the title for the world's most powerful politicians. Kinda like Caesar/Tsar/Kaiser...
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-11-08 5:02:32 PM  

#9  Don,

It's actually worse than that. The NYT goofs don't even know the Constitution. In the event (God forbid) that Mr. Bush should pass while he was in office, the presidency doesn't revert over to the opposition party. It goes over to our dear Mr. Cheney, who would immediately become the new Chimpy Bushitler.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-11-08 4:13:18 PM  

#8  As Lincoln was the last casualty of the first American Civil War [figuratively], will Bush be the first casualty of the second American Civil War? Does the wacked left really believe that such an act wouldn't put the center-right more into power and remove even more of the left's power and influence?
Posted by: Don   2004-11-08 4:01:19 PM  

#7  Robert: Exactly! Given that the NYT's editorialist probably has no belief in the concepts of "sin," "penance," or "expiation," I'm not surprised he doesn't get it.

IMNTBHO, Lincoln was the greatest of all the Great Communicators.
Posted by: Mike   2004-11-08 3:35:48 PM  

#6  Doh! that double-post was me. Apparently the rantburg cookie won't stick at work.
Posted by: Dishman   2004-11-08 3:27:20 PM  

#5  Robert, are you suggesting that a writer at the NYT would make stuff up? Why, the current generation of Sulzburgers were told, "Integrity, integrity, integrity" by the will that left them control.
Posted by: Crinemble Elmaimble9725   2004-11-08 3:26:39 PM  

#4  Robert, are you suggesting that a writer at the NYT would make stuff up? Why, the current generation of Sulzburgers were told, "Integrity, integrity, integrity" by the will that left them control.
Posted by: Crinemble Elmaimble9725   2004-11-08 3:26:38 PM  

#3  Nice littel quatrain in there, too:
"Fondly do we hope,
fervently do we pray,
that this mighty scourge of war
may speedily pass away."
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-08 3:07:52 PM  

#2  That's odd, Mike. The idiot writing for the NYT claims that Lincoln meant to "debunk government-by-God", but the way I read Lincoln, he's saying that the events of the Civil War were His way of making us pay for the sin of slavery.

It's almost as if the NYTs writer hadn't even bothered to read Lincoln's speech, but instead used a second- or even third-hand account of it.

Or maybe he lied about it, trusting that his readers would never actually look up the original words, so his rewriting of history would become accepted fact.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-11-08 2:58:52 PM  

#1  The editorialist might actually try reading Lincoln's Second Inaugural:

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. . . . One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 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. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

If that's not the clearest statement of the doctrines of penance and expiation outside of the Baltimore Catechism, i don't know what is.
Posted by: Mike   2004-11-08 2:50:41 PM  

00:00