Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I thought this was talking about Obama.
Timeliness: You're doing it wrong.
Perhaps that veil of oblivion is still available for some more recent remarks....
Blogger The Godfather said... I thought this was talking about Obama.-----------------------------Me too.
I thought this was talking about Obama.More like Obama talking about Lincoln's remarks! The President has chosen to ignore the 150th anniversary! He is sending the Interior Secretary! Maybe he doesn't want to miss Sportscenter on the 19th!
"I thought this was talking about Obama."That's what I tried to make happen.Glad to know it worked.See? Not everything is about Obama.
Quote: "Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship... as was common in the profession at the time..."I laughed out loud at this.Because partisanship is such a rarity in the news media today.In other news, really sad that the President can't be bothered to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg in any way at all.
Kind of strange he isn't going to try and further reinforce the "Lincoln was a Democrat" meme that's creeping up in revisionist history.
So they could dig up a 150 year old editorial, yet the president still can't figure out where he put his college transcript?
@Althouse -- happy to have been of assistance in making your point.
Neither the orator nor the jester surprised or deceived us.It's about Bob Dylan!* * *My guess is that the Patriot & Union was a Copperhead outfit circa 1863. The certainly played the chickenhawk card with gusto. This could have been written about George W Bush with almost no edits at all. Everett, Lincoln, Seward -> Powell, Bush, Cheney.
jacksonjay, he's letting the civil war, fought to end slavery, be dismissed.
150 years late, a Confederate dollar short.
Because partisanship is such a rarity in the news media today.In the days before the Gilded-Age emergence of circulation-and-advertising-driven "objective" newspapers, papers were explicitly and blatantly partisan, creatures of their respective parties, and often, factions and personalities within the parties. I read an ACW blogger who insists that modern (or at least "Centennial") historiography is indistinguishable from the contents of Civil-War-contemporary Republican editorial pages, for instance. He, on the other hand, can sometimes sound like a writer for a Democratic (or War Democratic) paper.Anyways, the days of the circulation-and-advertising-funded newspaper are almost at a close, so that we're reverting to the partisan mean, with editorial direction driven by ideology and party interest rather than nominal "objectivity" (no matter how much that supposed objectivity of the Golden Age was historically informed by Marxian "ideology" or public-choice "interests").
Post a Comment