NPR personage Garrison Keillor loans his public-radio voice – hailed by liberals at Slate as "a breathy baritone that seems precision-engineered to narrate a documentary about glaciers" – to a feature called "The Writer’s Almanac," which usually features a poem and and some literary and historical notes of the day. On Thursday, Keillor recounted how Democrats once regretted demands for an early withdrawal and ended up looking like the party of surrender:
It was on this day in 1864 that Abraham Lincoln was elected to his second term as president of the United States, one of the few elections in world history to be held in the middle of a civil war. Lincoln might have tried to cancel or postpone the election until the war was over, but he said, "If the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
The Confederate Army had recently gotten so close to Washington, D.C., that Lincoln himself was able to watch a battle, standing on top of a parapet with field glasses. On July 30, 4,000 Union soldiers were killed in a disastrous attempt to invade Petersburg, Virginia. The army needed 500,000 more soldiers, Lincoln would probably have to call for another draft, and the war debt was becoming unsustainable. On August 23, Lincoln wrote a memo to his cabinet that said, "This morning, and for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected."
The Democratic Party was running on a platform of ending the war. But this turned out to be a huge mistake when news arrived in early September that the Union Army had captured Atlanta and Mobile. Suddenly, the Democratic Party looked like the party of surrender when Union forces were winning the war. Lincoln carried every state except New Jersey, Delaware, and Kentucky.
Hat tip to Glenn Wall, who added "I listened to it and could detect no trace of irony in Keillor's voice. Hilarious!"
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Funny how...
November 9, 2007 - 11:48 ET by tater...history can sometimes repeat itself.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Those who don't....
November 9, 2007 - 12:00 ET by Justin538remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
What blows my mind, is that the democrats remember the past, and are probably thinking "Things will go differently this time..."
For anyone who has studied
November 9, 2007 - 12:29 ET by Free ThinkerFor anyone who has studied Lincoln the parallels between Lincoln's presidency and Bush's presidency are uncanny. I think when all is said and done history will make the favorable comparison of President Bush to Lincoln. Both Presidents were unpopular at the time, both were faced with unpopular wars thrust upon the nation by others, both recognized the long term implications of losing those wars and each had the convictions to resist what was politically expedient based on popular opinion for the good of the long term future of our country.
Adults vs. Whinney Brats
November 9, 2007 - 13:03 ET by ThisnThatIn other words, Lincoln and Bush are adults; and they have a household (House or Reps, Senate) of whinney, privleged brats who have been sent home from school because they failed the most basic classes:
They've even failed Recess -- especially evident last summer when they were expecting to ride a groundswell of protests against the war as they entered the Gen Patraeous reporting period.
Continuing the analogy, these brats need to be spanked and grounded. President Bush can't do it -- but we sure can. We need to get these scoundrals out of our house -- sent to bed with no supper, no TV, no MSM microphones.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
How True!
November 9, 2007 - 20:10 ET by timzankthisnthat....That is a great analogy, well done!!
Bush et al. chose to invade
November 9, 2007 - 13:08 ET by JasonCBush et al. chose to invade Iraq. You can make many an argument that it was the right thing to do, but not that it was done out of utter necessity.
When a nation invades another, and requires months of debate, opposition, and marketing in order to do so, it is very hard to say that the was was thrust upon that nation's leader.
If you aren't talking about Iraq, but simply the amorphous GWOT, that may be another story, but I fail to see how it is comparable to the Civil War.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, 1) Bush et
November 9, 2007 - 13:44 ET by futbolisgreat1JasonC,
1) Bush et al? Remember that Congress, which included the majority of Democrats GAVE President Bush authorization to attack Iraq.
2) Using your soverign nation argument, then we should have never invaded Germany during WWII, right?
3) Stop living in a post 9/11 world my friend. It was well known through out the world that Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorist. EVERYONE in the world believed he had WMDs. Yes, the Iraq War was thurst upon President Bush.
4) Liberals like you claim to love international law, right? Well, then you do know that under international law Gulf War I never finished, no peace treaty was ever signed. In fact, Hussein was in violation of all the points in the cease fire agreement. Thus, President Bush never needed Congress to authorize the Iraq War since Hussein had broken the cease agreement.
I have never understood why Liberals are so willing to blame the Iraq War on Bush instead of the real enemy, Saddam Hussein.
According to the laws yes
November 9, 2007 - 16:56 ET by Dan The Man 2According to the laws yes congress must declare war or authorize force even if it is a continuance of an earlier conflict. They must also be apprised every 60 days during such conflicts. They do control the purse strings so they must be kept in the loop and somewhat satisfied.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I am speaking of the GWOT as
November 9, 2007 - 16:09 ET by Free ThinkerI am speaking of the GWOT as you might call it but the flaw in your argument is that you are trying to seperate Iraq from the larger war. Iraq is a battlefield and an important one. If you still don't get this, I don't think we can have a reasonable debate. You could make your argument about any war - the US chose engage at Iwo Jima in World War 2. The Union chose to fight at Antietem. You are confusing battlefields with wars. There is no logic to your argument.
Absolutely on target.....
November 9, 2007 - 21:10 ET by doug1950FreeThinker,
You are right on target. Irag and the War on Terror are not mutually exclusive. Like WWII we were fighting several enemies on numerous fronts. The Dems and liberals want to believe that war is like the movies and its all over in a couple of hours, very clean without any casulties or mess. GWB has said from day one this was going to be a long and perhaps costly war but one we could not, must not lose or give up on. The Dems have been wasting valuable time and resources playing "gotcha" at every turn instead of doing what is right for the nation. The young men and women over there KNOW what is at stake and they understand the situation. Better than the prima donnas in Congress. Good post!
Et Al?
November 9, 2007 - 16:17 ET by Del DolemonteThe lady who wants to be our nest President justified her vote in favor of the Iraq War by stating in no uncertain terms that she had based her decision not just on what Bush and his intel people told her, but what her husband's intel people told her.
And last time I checked, we were the ones attacked on 9/11. And since Clinton and his Justice Department were the ones that concluded (in 1998) that Saddam and bin Laden were in bed together, your analogy that war wasn't thrust upon Bush is weak, if not stillborn.
Don't Forget
November 9, 2007 - 16:13 ET by Del DolemonteAbe Lincoln's detractors called him "the Illinois Baboon". Bush's detractors call him "Chimpy".
Unfortunately, this time around 99% of those "historians" who will be writing the history books in the near term suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. A truly unbiased historical judgement of Bush will have to wait to be written by historians who haven't even been born yet.
Democrats started that war
November 9, 2007 - 13:03 ET by ahusserDemocrats started that war by seceding from the Union. Northern Democrats (Copperheads) tried to derail the war effort through traitorous acts and put forth the Lincoln hating buffoon Gen. McClellan as their candidate. They haven't changed their spots.
Civil War
November 9, 2007 - 13:23 ET by iveseenitallRight. The Union, under Lincoln, went to war against those who seceded. It was done in order to preseve the union for future generations. If Lincoln had acted like our current Democrats, he wouldn't have done it. Maybe he would have continued "negotiations" or, like Clinton with the terrorists, done nothing at all. President Bush did the right thing and history will prove it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The unintended consequence
November 9, 2007 - 13:26 ET by fosstenThe unintended consequence of Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy was the strengthening of the federal government's power over the states. This has had lasting residual negative effects on states' rights and contributed to the swollen, bloated nature of the big FED that we suffer under to this day.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
The Gettysburg Address
November 9, 2007 - 13:37 ET by iveseenitallRe-read the Gettysburg Address. It's short and to the point. ( BTW,States' rights could never be upheld if there were no union to uphold them. Anarchy doesn't work. )
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The editor of the Chicago
November 9, 2007 - 16:14 ET by EvilRoyThe editor of the Chicago Times wrote this editoral regarding the Gettysburg Address:
"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States".
I don't know who the editor was or how long the Chicage Times published but it is ironic that in 1863 someone would take such a position on what is arguably the greatest polictical speech ever written.
Interesting, Ev
November 9, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Scout FinchThis editor sounds just like every liberal editor today at the NYT and WaPo. Especially the part about how "intelligent foreigners" sniff at not recognizing this rugged, unpolished, but virtouos president.
The elitist put-me-down
November 9, 2007 - 19:18 ET by ThisnThatThis seems to be the only way the so-called elitists can gain traction -- by putting everyone else down. "I'm educated -- you're not. Just be glad when I want to wipe my boots on you". They fail to realize that all they have, maybe, is book-learning, not smarts. And certainly not common sense. Give me someone with common sense every day, rather than these snobs in the MSM, the democratic party, and Universities. In fact, I had a pysics professor who was constantly disgusted with his students' (including mine) inability to put theory to practice. He admonished us all -- "Go earn a living for a couple years, then come to the University to learn". The picture of Hillary Clinton admonishing her invited guest during her graduation still disgusts me no end.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Most of the bloat was
November 9, 2007 - 19:57 ET by ahusserMost of the bloat was initiated under the Democratic deity, the socialist wannabee FDR. You name it, from personal income taxes (withholding?) , social security and many many alphabet agencies, it was started under him. Not Lincoln or the Union.
No Irony...hmmm
November 9, 2007 - 13:32 ET by sixlbs9ozReally interesting that Keillor would not recognize the irony, or that he is simply coming to the realization that his party has greatly failed in its fatalistic predictions of the Iraq War (cf. Harry Reid's comments earlier this year about the Iraq War being lost).
Keillor's frequency-modulated alter ego on Prairie Home Companion, Guy Noir, Private Eye, described himself curling up into a ball and moaning in pain and despair after the 2004 election. Keillor is an unabashed Bush-basher. One of the voice actors on PHC, Tim Russell, is frequently called upon to play Bush (which he's quite good at). But of course, Bush is portrayed as an inflexible, obtuse, grammar-challenged character. He's played for laughs.
It would be nice for Keillor to see that the lemmings he has followed--MoveOn.org and the Kos Kids, I would presume--have been suffering from BDS, and their anti-war stance is an incapacitating blindness that doesn't allow them to see that rooting for our failure is indeed unpatriotic. There. I questioned their patriotism.