September 10, 2011

Is Lincoln-Obama like Revere-Palin?

Yes, this is the latest wingnut bullshit, that what Barack Obama said about Abraham Lincoln is as historically ignorant as what Sarah Palin said about Paul Revere, as a Human Events blog claims.

The reality? As I emailed back:
First, to equate this to Palin on Revere is ridiculous and you know it.

On the legislation issues, presidents can indeed “mobilize.” Lincoln did so, especially with follow-ups to the initial [railroad] act; history records his multiple conversations with Oakes Ames. Lincoln did push for the Morrill Act, too.

On the transcontinental railroad and its finances, it doesn’t get built – period – without the triple federal subsidy of direct payment, alternating land-grant sections, and federal backing for railroad bonds.

You, sir, are either historically clueless yourself, more of a hack than you’d like to admit, or a mix of both. (They’re not mutually exclusive.)

Oh, and I’m a Green Party voter, so I’m not saying this to defend Obama, but rather to challenge deliberate inaccuracies of people like you.
That said, wingnuts won't listen.

On this issue, contra the blogger's take on Boehner's reaction, wingnuts don't like to be reminded that the GOP is so far away from being the "Party of Lincoln" it would need a warp drive to get back to being that.

That said, the real takeaway is that this is yet more one reason why Obama as Preznit Kumbaya is deluded. And was, two-plus years ago.

No comments: