George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln

[Major Robert Dump]

I have one grandma who had family die in Andersonville who hates Bush and hates the south and loves Lincoln and is a Democrat

And one grandma from Georgia who hates Lincoln and REALLY hates Sherman and loves Bush and wont eat at McDonalds because black people touch her food and is a Democrat

Makes for interesting Thanksgivings

[yesdachi]

I have one grandma who had family die in Andersonville who hates Bush and hates the south and loves Lincoln and is a Democrat

And one grandma from Georgia who hates Lincoln and REALLY hates Sherman and loves Bush and wont eat at McDonalds because black people touch her food and is a Democrat

Makes for interesting Thanksgivings

I would pay to sit at that dinner table!

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, that's easy to say, because you can never be called on it. But I am struggling to think of anything for which he will be fondly remembered. Massive budget deficits? Expanding the size of the government? Initiating constitutional crisis? Undermining human rights? Dividing the nation? Starting elective wars?

What's going to make us forget about all that?

And what would Lincoln have been fondly remembered for in 1865? America was not in a good place at that point. Only a bit later people realized how bad things could have been had his policies not been implemented.

Remember, most people, northern and southern, did not think freeing the africans was monumental or a good idea. It was only tolerated in the north as it was seen as a weapon against the south. They had no love for blacks either.

Today - if opinion polls are correct - most people dont think trying to bring democracy to the mideast is worth it. However, if we stay the course and in 20 years that region is completely transformed for the better - who will get the credit?

Also Bush has done things for the economy and other aspects of the nation that have the potential to be very positive in the long run.

[Hurin_Rules]

And what would Lincoln have been fondly remembered for in 1865?

Winning the war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Winning the war.

Good Line.

One important difference:

Grant and Lee, at Appomatox, crafted a surrender that sent Lee's troops home. There were a number of Lee's staff who wanted them to stage an endless guerilla war from the mountains. Without that dignified adherence to a surrender document, the temporary bitterness of the Reconstruction would have become an entrenched divisiveness rivaling Ireland or Israel/Palestine.

Obviously, no equivalent for that exists in Iraq.

[Hurin_Rules]

Good Line.

One important difference:

Grant and Lee, at Appomatox, crafted a surrender that sent Lee's troops home. There were a number of Lee's staff who wanted them to stage an endless guerilla war from the mountains. Without that dignified adherence to a surrender document, the temporary bitterness of the Reconstruction would have become an entrenched divisiveness rivaling Ireland or Israel/Palestine.

Obviously, no equivalent for that exists in Iraq.

None of which refutes my central point.

Lincoln was and will always be remembered for winning the war. Freeing the slaves was more controversial at the time, to be sure. But he did have that one great victory, keeping the country together.

Bush has nothing remotely comparable.

[rotorgun]

Another point to consider in comparing President Bush with President Lincoln is that the War of the Rebellion was forced upon Lincoln. The war in Iraq, despite what some may feel, was an elective war. Afghanistan was, and is, the real central theater, being home to the Taliban, and nieghbor to Pakistan, probable hiding place of the Al Queida leadership. Therefore, I feel no sympathy for our dear President and his "War on Terror." I will say, in defense of President Bush, that he has allowed his Generals a little more leway than Lincoln did. Then again, Lincoln was saddled with some very incompetent fellows for quite some time.

[Kralizec]

Remember, most people, northern and southern, did not think freeing the africans was monumental or a good idea.

The blacks themselves? They no doubt approved back then, and still do now. The Iraqi's don't seem to like how their liberation is turning out, and how they'll think about it in 2 or 3 decades is still guesswork. I concede that if Iraq turns out allright, he should get due credit.

[Lemur]

However, if we stay the course and in 20 years that region is completely transformed for the better - who will get the credit?

Why is it that people who call themselves conservatives -- who supposedly distrust government power and expect all good and efficient things to come out of the marketplace -- suddenly become can-do big-government activists when it comes to nation-building in the mideast? Where does this transformation of ideology and character come from?

I don't trust the government to screw in a lightbulb without incompetence and graft. Why would I expect the same damn government to be whizzo at building democracies in hostile environments?

[Divinus Arma]

Why is it that people who call themselves conservatives -- who supposedly distrust government power and expect all good and efficient things to come out of the marketplace -- suddenly become can-do big-government activists when it comes to nation-building in the mideast? Where does this transformaation of ideology and character come from?

How can the Democratic party pretend to speak for Baptist Blacks and Catholic Mexicans while supporting abortion and gay rights?

The Democratic party is a fragmented collection of various competing groups that independantly have little power by themselves. They are united only in their lust for free goodies from the more succesful citizens.

Conversely, the Republican Party is united in principle, we just sometimes disagree on how exactly to implement policy. In this specific situation, the intent of Democracy export is greater stability and prosperity in a specific region. This results in a reduced costs overall to the United States through trade opportunities and a refocus of capital defense investment away from the region and into new regions. If the world was democratic and free, there would be less government investure into federal aid, national defense, and state department projects. Whether this strategy for policy implementation is effective or ethical is debatable.

[Lemur]

Thanks for the reply, DA; I appreciate your clarification. As for the Democrats, I sort of expect them to be a mess of conflicting agendas. (And in fact, it is their unyielding support of the Teachers' Union that guarantees I will never register as a Democrat.)

I guess the larger lesson of the last few years is that it's much easier to be tight and coherent when you aren't governing. Power allows all of ths splinters in your base to go flying about.

[Divinus Arma]

I guess the larger lesson of the last few years is that it's much easier to be tight and coherent when you aren't governing. Power allows all of ths splinters in your base to go flying about.

There is only one issue that is splintering the Republican Party at present.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Edit: In fact, I would say that this issue, more than any other, would be enough to keep GOPers home this season and next. The big Gov Spending of the current congess and administration is bad, but this topic is the one that'll get folks to drop registration. And that includes me. If this amnesty bill passes, I'm done with the GOP. I will be an American unrepresented.

[Major Robert Dump]

The Democratic party is a fragmented collection of various competing groups that independantly have little power by themselves. They are united only in their lust for free goodies from the more succesful citizens

Unfortunately for many liberals that line of thinking is spot on



Conversely, the Republican Party is united in principle, we just sometimes disagree on how exactly to implement policy. In this specific situation, the intent of Democracy export is greater stability and prosperity in a specific region. This results in a reduced costs overall to the United States through trade opportunities and a refocus of capital defense investment away from the region and into new regions. If the world was democratic and free, there would be less government investure into federal aid, national defense, and state department projects. Whether this strategy for policy implementation is effective or ethical is debatable.

Funny you bring that up right after taking a swipe at liberals. I thought the professional military was supposed to be used to defend the nation and help others, not be a tool for defense investors, who, incidentally, are often the same people who decide what uses to put the military to. What a convenient marriage. I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact I think its true, and I think it's sad, and I think its unethical and pathetic, and it actually benefits these people to be in prolonged conflicts. Oddly enough, this reasoning isn't something thats widely advertised by the Republicans or the Democrats, probably because it wouldn't wash with the general public, and more of them just might become liberals and want free goodies from the people who use national assets to further their own personal gain. The parties throw up smoke screens so we argue over stupid crap, hoping we ignore the larger plan and agendas of the political elite while arguing over issues of the lowest common denominator.