Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MSNBC's Chris Jansing: 'Parallels' Between Lincoln and Reelected Obama are 'Fascinating'
NewsBusters ^

Posted on 11/12/2012 9:40:27 AM PST by chessplayer

MSNBC host Chris Jansing on Monday found the "parallels" between Abraham Lincoln and the newly reelected Barack Obama to be "fascinating." The anchor interviewed Gloria Reuben, liberal actress and co-star of the Steven Spielberg film. Jansing connected, "...You have a president who is newly elected, who faces a divided country and a divided Congress and a divided country."

Couldn't such a vague analogy be made for many presidents, including George W. Bush? Jansing introduced the Lincoln actress by pointing out, "You're a social activist. You've been very big in pro-choice. You've been a supporter of Barack Obama and the AIDS movement." She added, "You must find these parallels fascinating." It's unclear what how supporting abortion can be connected to Lincoln.

Reuben touted the comparison as "fascinating and really uncanny."

Reuben reiterated, "But the parallels are really unbelievable how timely this film is."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2012 9:40:31 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: chessplayer

It will probably end up more like Nixon’s second term.


3 posted on 11/12/2012 9:43:09 AM PST by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Another empty head in support of the empty chair. Wanting so desparatley to create a legend an icon to worship for so many empty lives with empty heads


4 posted on 11/12/2012 9:43:31 AM PST by ronnie raygun (bb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

both lousy Presidents - that’s the similarity - neither were, or are , our troops friends .


5 posted on 11/12/2012 9:43:52 AM PST by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Barf alert?


6 posted on 11/12/2012 9:44:46 AM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Parallel?

Holding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in comtempt and violating it to force an anti-Federalist (statist) agenda.


7 posted on 11/12/2012 9:45:28 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Bread and Circuses; Everyone to the Coliseum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
MSNBC's Chris Jansing: 'Parallels' Between Lincoln and Reelected Obama are 'Fascinating'

I was thinking more like a carpet bagger during reconstruction.

8 posted on 11/12/2012 9:45:47 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I see a much stronger parallel between Obama and James Buchanan. Buchanan was the most divisive president in the first two centuries of our history. Obama may top Buchanan. I’m hoping that objective historians will rank Obama higher than James Buchanan - a lofty goal that would require Obama to improve dramatically in the next four years.


9 posted on 11/12/2012 9:45:58 AM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse

Only similarities I see is both crapped all over the Constitution to pass their agenda.


10 posted on 11/12/2012 9:46:52 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Reuben touted the comparison as "fascinating and really uncanny."

I can see the amazing comparisons.. Both tall, ugly, with big ears, and neither of them think the Constitution is the settled law of the land.. Oh yeah, they both are responsible for causing a Civil War.. Fascinating indeed..

11 posted on 11/12/2012 9:48:06 AM PST by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Another empty head in support of the empty chair. Wanting so desparatley to create a legend an icon to worship for so many empty lives with empty heads. Missing in zero case is: honor, character, integrity, love of ones country and the understanding of it’s values, intelligence of the non manufactured type, love of the founding fathers and the constitution. we can go on, bottom line is Lincoln should not even be in the same sentence as Obama.


12 posted on 11/12/2012 9:48:38 AM PST by ronnie raygun (bb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

Liberals despise Lincoln, so I don’t get why they keep wanting to compare obama to him.


13 posted on 11/12/2012 9:48:44 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Makes sense to me in a warped kind of way.

The historical inaccuracy of that film is breathtakingly bad.

14 posted on 11/12/2012 9:48:51 AM PST by Clarence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: struggle

Not with the press with its lips Baracks a##...,


15 posted on 11/12/2012 9:49:17 AM PST by Kozak (The means of defence again.t foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home JM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Looks like the "First Black President" has to take a back seat to the First Half-Black President in terms of MSM Idolization & Worship.
16 posted on 11/12/2012 9:49:53 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Does this mean a new Civil War is about to start? Or perhaps White people are going to be emancipated.


17 posted on 11/12/2012 9:50:59 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Dumbass. Lincoln was Republican. Oboma is Marxist.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Oboma is manufacturing them.

The two have absolutely nothing in common.

18 posted on 11/12/2012 9:51:03 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

BTW, they both have/had homely, crazy wives.. carry on.. :)


19 posted on 11/12/2012 9:51:45 AM PST by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Put you all back in chains. Thank you mr vice president


20 posted on 11/12/2012 9:54:25 AM PST by shadeaud (We need to learn to know what our enemies are truly creating)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/horse.wav


21 posted on 11/12/2012 10:00:32 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Yes, I definitely can see the parallels!

1.Obama admitted on 3 separate occasions, once in writing on his own book, that he was born in Kenya. Lincoln was born in Kentucky which sounds like Kenya!

2. Obama had a white mother. So did Lincoln!

3. Obama lived in Illinois. So did Lincoln!

4. Both have the letter B in their name!

5. Both ate food!


22 posted on 11/12/2012 10:03:05 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Only similarities I see is both crapped all over the Constitution to pass their agenda.

The Constitution survived Lincoln, it will survive Obama.

23 posted on 11/12/2012 10:07:30 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ('Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

Make sure no one goes see her movie. Pretty soon the young stupic BO voters will not have the extra money for a movie that is, unless they can use their food stamps to get in.


24 posted on 11/12/2012 10:14:51 AM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
The idolatrous worship of Obama continue by the left. To the left Obama is their god!
25 posted on 11/12/2012 10:17:43 AM PST by Obadiah (Americans said, "Give us Barabbas!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
The Constitution survived Lincoln, it will survive Obama.

I don't think the country will last long enough to find out.
I think the economy we're seeing right now isn't real. I think it's already collapsed. The feds are printing $40 billion a month, so far, to keep us afloat. Eventually, no one is going to lend us more money to support the democrat base. We can't pay them back.
When their free handouts stop, the freeloaders are going to try to steal their "entitlements" by themselves. Their middle men, their politicians, won't be able to pull it off for them anymore. (They'll be on their planes and heading to their deserted , exotic Island retreats.)

26 posted on 11/12/2012 10:22:30 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“Liberals despise Lincoln, so I don’t get why they keep wanting to compare obama to him.”

A big lib icon has a movie coming out about Lincoln ... expect to hear more comparisons in the coming weeks.


27 posted on 11/12/2012 10:25:34 AM PST by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

So, I see Chris got her history lessons at Sears.

Geesh.


28 posted on 11/12/2012 10:35:57 AM PST by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Loves To Spend My $$$$$$$$$$$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Lincoln won reelection because the votes of half the nation weren’t counted. Obama won reelection because the votes of Republican voters weren’t counted.


29 posted on 11/12/2012 10:39:59 AM PST by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
There is one major difference. If someone shoots BHO in the head like Booth did Lincoln...odds are his deadly wound will be healed and then all the world will marvel.

If this happens (God forbid), odds are that person TOO will be a democrat.

30 posted on 11/12/2012 10:45:37 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Lincoln did not get even 40% of the popular vote in 1860.

If the Democratic vote had not split three ways, Lincoln might have lost.

 Party  Candidate  Percentage  Electoral Vote
 Republican  Lincoln  39.6%  180
 Democratic  Douglas  29.5%  72
 Southern Democrat  Breckenridge  18.2%  39
 Constitutional Union  Bell  12.6%  12
 Other  ----  0.1%  0

31 posted on 11/12/2012 10:52:19 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Lincoln did not get even 40% of the popular vote in 1860.

If the Democratic vote had not split three ways, Lincoln might have lost.

 Party  Candidate  Percentage  Electoral Vote
 Republican  Lincoln  39.6%  180
 Democratic  Douglas  29.5%  72
 Southern Democrat  Breckenridge  18.2%  39
 Constitutional Union  Bell  12.6%  12
 Other  ----  0.1%  0

32 posted on 11/12/2012 10:52:40 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

re: “MSNBC’s Chris Jansing: ‘Parallels’ Between Lincoln and Reelected Obama are ‘Fascinating’”

I think we should complete the connection and work to get all the red states to secede from the union.

Beyond both being from Illinois and this “country divided” thing, there is no comparison between Lincoln and Obama.

First, it was Lincoln’s commitment to block slavery from expanding into the territories that fueled the Southern leadership’s step into actual secession. Obama wants to expand abortion, same-sex marriage, debt, etc.

Lincoln opposed the split-up between the North and the South. Obama encourages class warfare and dividing the nation into as many groups as possible.

Lincoln did not oppose the 2nd amendment, he did not encourage the U. S. to abide by foreign law, he did not try to limit religious freedom, he did not try to force all Americans to purchase a particular product, and he did not take world tours and apologize for America’s actions or success.

Lincoln, whether you agree with him or not, carried the civil war to a conclusion with victory, while Obama is intentionally and systematically putting America at a military and political disadvantage and surrendering our initiative in both areas with all our enemies.

Lincoln’s motive for pursuing the war, right or wrong, was to save the union, while Obama seems to be intentionally trying to destroy it.

Lincoln visited the wounded soldiers on both sides (Union and Confederate) every day to express concern for them, their families, and their eventually healing. I doubt seriously that Obama has ever visited our wounded soldiers outside of an occasional photo-op.

Again, rightly or wrongly, Lincoln allowed his generals and soldiers to do whatever they needed to do to end the war as quickly as possible, while Obama demonstrates that he cares very little for our soldiers in the field with his outrageous ROE imposed on them, and cuts to our military infrastructure and preparedness.

I’m sure there are other vast differences between the two, but these came to mind very quickly.


33 posted on 11/12/2012 10:52:41 AM PST by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mak5

re: “Lincoln won reelection because the votes of half the nation weren’t counted.”

Uhh, the Southern states that had seceded from the Union did not participate in the election. No votes were taken in those states.


34 posted on 11/12/2012 10:55:55 AM PST by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
"...You have a president who is newly elected, who faces a divided country and a divided Congress and a divided country."

Yes, but does he face a divided country also? /redundancy

35 posted on 11/12/2012 10:57:55 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd

One more obvious difference between Lincoln and Obama is: the vast majority of the Union soldiers supported Lincoln’s re-election, while the majority of our military did NOT support Obama (those who got to vote, that is).


36 posted on 11/12/2012 10:59:04 AM PST by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Did I mention he also faces a divided country.... not to mention a divided country also.....as well as a divided country,....and let’s not forget the divided country,....


37 posted on 11/12/2012 10:59:52 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

This actress supports Eugenics, her president supports eugenics, yet he is somehow comparable to Lincoln? Phhhhttttt...

Morons selling shinola to morons.


38 posted on 11/12/2012 11:41:31 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Who knew that Mary Todd Lincoln ate Wago beef and went on long trips and vacations, while Mr. Lincoln played 18 holes. All at tax payers expense. S/ The only thing O has in common with Lincoln is that if he keeps up his crap, he just might get a civil war started.
39 posted on 11/12/2012 12:24:40 PM PST by JimC214
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Lincoln only lived for a month and ten days after his 2nd inauguration.


40 posted on 11/12/2012 12:39:54 PM PST by beelzepug ("Why bother creating wealth when you can just redistribute it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

One was a dictator. The other is a wannabe.


41 posted on 11/12/2012 12:45:36 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I don’t know where you’re getting your history from. Buchanan was not our most divisive president back when. States may have seceded during his term, but quite obviously it was because of Lincoln’s election, not him.


42 posted on 11/12/2012 12:48:59 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I don’t know where you’re getting your history from. Buchanan was not our most divisive president back when. States may have seceded during his term, but quite obviously it was because of Lincoln’s election, not him.

I agree, but Buchanan's inept handling of the secession caused it to be a much bigger war. His errors turned a fairly severe disagreement into a bloody war.

43 posted on 11/12/2012 12:54:58 PM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“Liberals despise Lincoln”

Since when? Along with FDR as long as I can remember he’s been the go-to Big Government guy. Libs absolutely love saying before the civil war it was “the United States are,” and after it was “the United States is.” Gives them the same thrill as we get in saying “molon labe.”


44 posted on 11/12/2012 12:55:18 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

“Dumbass. Lincoln was a Republican.”

Which means almost nothing, unless you want to pretend Democrats are the relative states’ rights party now. The names nay not have changed, but the parties have gone through a few mutations since 1865.


45 posted on 11/12/2012 1:00:38 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd

Duh, that’s the point.


46 posted on 11/12/2012 1:02:40 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I don’t agree Buchanan was inept. Maybe he didn’t do it on purpose, but he had the right idea, and we should’ve let them go peacefully. Some brilliant maneuver may have empowered him to bring the seceders back in peacefully, or somehow made the subsequent war mellower. I don’t know; anything’s possible. It’s just that you can’t call Buchanan the most divisive president of the first 200 years or even a failure just because he wasn’t a Machiavellian genius.

We operate under the delusion that Lincoln stepped in amidst a crisis, that events moved him, and somehow that secession was not only unconstitutional or whatever, but also a threat to the North and moreover that it was the North that was attacked, and Lincoln only kept it together. What a threadbare string of halftruths. Buchanan faced the exact same situation with other federal property as did Lincoln with Sumter, save the fireworks show. Yet somehow his administration avoided all out war. You can argue it only did so by puttees nh off the deciding day, but that’s begging the question. Why did Sumter lead to 600,000 deaths? Why was it there that the decision point lay? Because Lincoln deemed it so, I say, and no other reason.

The South blundered in firing on Sumter started. But what was the blunder? Not the one we read about in history books. It started A war. But that war could’ve started with any seizute of federal property. Washington was within its rights to fight for redress, to get the property back, to be compensated, and to punish tge South. However, Sumter did not suddenly make secession illegal. Nor did it justify the eventual war. No, that war was started by one man and one man alone: the same man who without just provocation blockaded Southern ports and the same man who unconstitutionally called for tens of thousands of troops, thus driving the rest of the to-be confederates out of the union.

This is a delicate point, and bears repeating. The civil war we know from history books was not inevitable given the circumstances facing Buchanan. It was if secession was to be reversed, you may say. But ut was Buchanan’s position that he was legally powerless to do anything about it, and I tend to agree. The only other way we get to a Lincoln war is if the South invades the North, which wasn’t going to happen. (At least not soon. I can’t speak for what a Confederacy might have done in subsequent years or decades.)

How us it, anyway, even accepting the history books’ history, that Buchanan gets all the blame and Lincoln all the credit? Lincoln’s solution to the crisis ended up in 600,000 deaths and untold millions in damage, anyway. I realize historians worship Power, but is action really THAT much preferable to inaction?


47 posted on 11/12/2012 1:30:39 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The Lincoln fairy tale sells books and movies to this day. It is so much reconstructed BS. Lincoln was a racist to the nth degree and was a war monger. Now we have a Roman Temple with him on the throne. Oh brother what utter BS.


48 posted on 11/12/2012 1:37:25 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I don’t agree Buchanan was inept. Maybe he didn’t do it on purpose, but he had the right idea, and we should’ve let them go peacefully. Some brilliant maneuver may have empowered him to bring the seceders back in peacefully, or somehow made the subsequent war mellower. I don’t know; anything’s possible. It’s just that you can’t call Buchanan the most divisive president of the first 200 years or even a failure just because he wasn’t a Machiavellian genius.

I would argue that Buchanan should have either (1) recognized the South's right to secede, eliminating the cause for war, or (2) immediately mobilized as large an army as necessary and suppressed the secession. His big error was taking a middle position, essentially that the South had no legal right to secede but that he had no legal power to stop them. As he put it, "the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain" was not as he saw it among the "enumerated powers granted to Congress". I consider taking that position for the period December 1860 to March 1861 to be a fatally flawed - fatal for over 600,000 Americans - and thus inept position. Either decisive position, whether in favor of secession or opposed, would have been infinitely better.

49 posted on 11/12/2012 2:06:03 PM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Here is a parallel between Lincoln and Obama...secession. States will be leaving the union I predict when Obamacare is being forced down the throats.


50 posted on 11/12/2012 2:24:48 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson