Skip to comments.Reuters: "Spielberg says "Lincoln" is no political football" (Mine: Republican's are pro-slavery?)
Posted on 10/10/2012 10:45:16 AM PDT by The G Man
To audience laughter, Spielberg said he had deliberately sought to avoid such entanglements by asking for a release date after the elections. "Lincoln" is due for limited release November 9 and timed for the Hollywood awards season.
"Don't let this political football play back and forth," the Oscar-winning director said he urged distributors, noting the "confusing" aspect in the film that shows how U.S. political parties back in Lincoln's time "traded political places over the last 150 years."
In contrast to today, the Republican party to which Lincoln belonged was founded by anti-slavery activists and Republicans were often tagged "radicals."
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Not only does he claim there is a party “reversal” today, but Spielberg plainly is delaying the movie until after the election so that people wouldn’t be reminded how evil democrats are and that republicans ended slavery.
Good analogy for the times. But Jim Crow laws were enforced by Democrats in the south.
Because everyone knows that Republicans are pro slavery today.
“traded political places over the last 150 years.”
Let’s see, the 1860 democrap wanted black people kept in chains, totally dependent on the people in the big house on the hill....
While the 2012 democrap wants to see black people kept in a welfare check chain, totally dependent on the people in the big house in Washington DC.
See the huge difference.
If blacks and hispanics ever start voting republican, the democrats will make both of those groups out to be evil. The democrats of today are just as despicable as always. Can you imagine what they would do to illegal immigrants if hispanics start voting against them?
And the civil war was NOT JUST about Slavery- it was about states rights
Imagine if the south tried to secede because the federal government tried to force them to do somethign else like.... oh,... i dunno... buy health insurance
In contrast to today? Did Democrats suddenly stop portraying Repubs as radicals? That's neeeews ta me!
And Lincoln's views are best summed up by Richard Weaver's analysis of his thought in his chapter on Lincoln in The Ethics of Rhetoric: Lincoln was a definitional thinker.
America is a constitutional republic founded on specific principles, and those principles needed to be identified and applied if the Union was to have a future.
I’m a proud republican I have no racism and I would like to spit in Steven Spielberg’s face for daring, as the stupid rich leftist punk he is, to tie republicans- who destroyed slavery- to slavery.
The movie looks pretty good he can shove it I’ll never spend a penny to see it. Let him use his own money to support the democrat party of slavery.
I know someone who has family who are close friends with Spielberg. You would puke to know how imperious these people are and how they take for granted that everyone around them is there to worship them.
What a jerk.
I stopped watching his crap movies years ago.
Tobacco companies used to be HUGE Republican donors
If they were DEMOCRAP donors we would all be hearing about the wonderful health benefits of “bathing your lungs in cleansing smoke- now in menthol too!”
and this guy is going to make a Bible movie? I expect it to be a pro-gay, pro-commie, unchristian movie.
I will be skipping this film as well as all future Spielberg films as a punishment for his support of Obama. That is all.
Spielberg is a spoiled rotten lucky SOB. He has worked with unlimited budgets since around 1979. This has never been granted to anyone else in film history, and it was well before he had done anything to justify it.
I’m not sure Spielberg said this. It isn’t in quotes. It could be the unbiased reporter.
Well, Spielberg’s quoted for the “reversal” part, but the rest could be the reporter.
Not that I’m trying to defend Spielberg!
Spielberg is either ignorant of history, both recent history and antebellum history, of just stupid.
In 1860, The Republicans were anti-slavery and pro-business. The Democrats (pro-slavery and anti business) played race hatred and class politics against the Republicans.
By the 1950s and 60s, the Democrats were still using their power in congress to filibuster civil rights laws and anti-lynching legislation. Every one of those Democrats were liberal FDR New Deal followers. They loved big government, hated private business, used race to gain votes, and didn't mind violating the law or using violence to get their way.
Today, the Democrats still play the anti-business class warfare game and they still play the race card at every opportunity --- they just deal from the other side of the race card deck these days. But the intent is the same, use race and class envy to flame hatred of Republicans.
Nothing much has changed since 1860.
I don’t know if it’s been “granted” to him. He was smart enough to leverage his position as a successful director into being a producer, which thus allows him to make his own budget decisions, and he continues to be successful, thus keeping his production company profitable, so it has whatever money he wants to spend next time around.
I saw that this morning and had a good laugh. These people are insane.
The Republican Party in the 1850's and 1860's were a coalition of free soil in the Midwest (which is part of the coalition still to this day today as many of the rural German immigrants adopted it), Northern Evangelicals as slavery was considered anti-Christian and they wanted to save souls, parts of the mountain south such as East Tennessee (which are still Republican to this day), Whigs, Temperance folks, and those opposed to Catholic immigration.
The democrats at that day were a coalition of Jacksonians wary of the federal government, Irish Catholics, plantation holders, and Swallowtails in New York.
Spielberg is a hack.
This Spieberg film is going nowhere, revenue wise!!! End of story!!!
Nobody in his family was here for all of that.
My family was at the center of it. Split us for 100 years. Even to this day, when we're still all re-discovering each other. But it's in our family history books, what we talk about, how we think. Lotta folks on both sides still PO'd about Reconstruction.
And what in God's name would he know about the Republican party? There were Republicans in the South who still fought with the Confederacy, only reluctantly, because it was their State's vote.
Those people - my family - form the nucleus of the modern Southern Republican party, not converted Blue Dogs.
A neo-Bolshevik now from Los Angeles, and he claims to know who is who, and why they thought and did what they did?
BS. Whatta laughable clown.
In 1863, Lincoln freed the slaves. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt bought them back.
One could be interpretatively charitable here and take the ‘switch’ as one from federal crusading to local goverment oriented. Would it be accurate to say that the parties switched places in the 1890s when the McKinley wing of the Republicans became heavily pro business and ‘hands off’ whereas the William Jennings Bryan wing of the Democrats urged heavy Federal intervention in various financial matters? Wilson and FDR followed in this vein.
The Republicans were consistent on this topic from start to finish.
As you know, many regard maintaining the Union and Reconstruction as Federal intervention.
I’ve grown weary of Spielberg’s leftist stupidity, so I won’t be seeing the movie.
Compared to who?
I would like my view of the historical Lincoln to not be distorted by Mr. Spielberg’s politics.
Compared to the greats, a group Spielberg considers himself to be a part of.
I seem to recall having this discussion with you a few years ago...
Ha, I don’t. Among his contemporaries he ranks pretty highly.
That is one of the most striking and original critiques on abortion I’ve ever come across.
I'm proud to be a radical.
The core issue is what does the Constitution say? And the Supremacy Clause is one of the less ambiguous passages of the document. It’s kind of odd to demand in 1859 that the federal government send federal agents into private homes in order to recover the putative stolen property of private citizens, and then in 1860 complain that federal agents are entering federal land to recover stolen federal property.