Skip to comments.MSNBC's Chris Jansing: 'Parallels' Between Lincoln and Reelected Obama are 'Fascinating'
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."
It will probably end up more like Nixon’s second term.
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
both lousy Presidents - that’s the similarity - neither were, or are , our troops friends .
Holding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in comtempt and violating it to force an anti-Federalist (statist) agenda.
I was thinking more like a carpet bagger during reconstruction.
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.
Only similarities I see is both crapped all over the Constitution to pass their agenda.
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..
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.
Liberals despise Lincoln, so I don’t get why they keep wanting to compare obama to him.
The historical inaccuracy of that film is breathtakingly bad.
Not with the press with its lips Baracks a##...,
Does this mean a new Civil War is about to start? Or perhaps White people are going to be emancipated.
Lincoln freed the slaves. Oboma is manufacturing them.
The two have absolutely nothing in common.
BTW, they both have/had homely, crazy wives.. carry on.. :)
Put you all back in chains. Thank you mr vice president
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!
The Constitution survived Lincoln, it will survive Obama.
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.
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.)
“Liberals despise Lincoln, so I dont 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.
So, I see Chris got her history lessons at Sears.
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.
If this happens (God forbid), odds are that person TOO will be a democrat.
If the Democratic vote had not split three ways, Lincoln might have lost.
If the Democratic vote had not split three ways, Lincoln might have lost.
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.
re: “Lincoln won reelection because the votes of half the nation werent counted.”
Uhh, the Southern states that had seceded from the Union did not participate in the election. No votes were taken in those states.
Yes, but does he face a divided country also? /redundancy
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).
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,....
This actress supports Eugenics, her president supports eugenics, yet he is somehow comparable to Lincoln? Phhhhttttt...
Morons selling shinola to morons.
Lincoln only lived for a month and ten days after his 2nd inauguration.
One was a dictator. The other is a wannabe.
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.
“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.”
“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.
Duh, that’s the point.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.