Trunkline 2012: Tuesday’s Top Tips and Tidbits from the Presidential Campaign Trail

Bookmark and Share  Tuesday’s election news summary takes a look at tonight’s presidential debater drinking game, the need for Candy Crowley to keep her trap shut in tonight’s debate, Condoleezza Rice’s entry in to the campaign trail just as foreign policy becomes a bigger issue,  the increasing importance of Wisconsin in the Electoral College, the tightening race in Pennsylvania, Ross Perot’s endorsement, the president’s dislike for people, and much more from the campaign trail;

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Wednesday’s Word On the Campaign Trail

Bookmark and Share  Today’s Trunkline 2012 election news wrap-up includes headlines about Paul Ryan’s call to actress Stacey dash, Romney’s benchmark lead over Obama, Fred Thompson’s assessment of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech, President Obama’s promise to be nasty, voters trusting Romney on the economy more than the President, an Obama staffer helping Obama voters to vote twice in the election, and much more….

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann, Lincoln Agree: Founders Opposed Slavery

George Stephanopolous probably thinks he’s a pretty smart guy.  At least he didn’t call Michelle Bachmann a flake.  But his attack on her facts about our founders just might backfire against his own credibility.

For most, it really is no secret that many of our founding fathers did oppose slavery.  Even the ones who owned slaves saw it as more of a necessary evil.  To borrow from Hillary Clinton, who said this about abortion, they believed it was “horrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal”.  They understood though, that if they tried to fight the revolutionary war and civil war at the same time, they would lose both.  Still, they did fight to end slavery, even if only laying the groundwork for it’s final elimination.

John McCormack, writing in the Weekly Standard, is now demonstrating that Abraham Lincoln believed the same thing as Michelle Bachmann about our founder’s work to end slavery.  He used that argument in his own speeches against slavery.

From the article:

“The Founders put slavery on the path to ultimate extinction, Abraham Lincoln said. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 threatened to bring about slavery’s resurgence by opening up new territories to slaveowning. In 1854, Lincoln made this argument in a series of speeches on behalf of candidates opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. “In these addresses Lincoln set forth the themes that he would carry into the presidency six years later,” writes Princeton’s James M. McPherson in the Battle Cry of Freedom. McPherson summarizes Lincoln’s argument:

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution, but referred only to “persons held to service.” “Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution,” said Lincoln, “just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.” The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

Here’s what Lincoln said of the Founding Fathers in his 1854 Peoria speech:

The argument of “Necessity” was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory—-the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade—-that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory—-this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries—-as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808—-the very first day the constitution would permit—-prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

In Lincoln’s famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution’s framers—George Washington—signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly….””

 

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Star Rises Just in Time for the 2012 Presidential Race

Bookmark and Share After President Obama delivers his annual State of the Union address, Republicans will respond in a speech that they have chosen Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan to deliver. Ryan was chosen due in large part to the emphasis that the GOP wants to place on the national economy and issues such as the growing federal budget, spending and the national debt, all issues which few elected officials are as qualified to address as Paul Ryan is.

In addition to being a fiscally responsible deficit hawk, Ryan is the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, a position that makes him one of the most powerful men in government today. For Republicans, choosing Paul Ryan to respond to the President’s address is a wise one. Ryan is passionate about economic issues, especially when it concerns, smaller government, less spending and paying off our debt. He is also a man who does more than just offer talking points and criticism. He is a man of action and idea. In 2010 he put forward his own economic roadmap for America, a plan which he stands behind and which the G.O.P. would also be wise to unite behind.

Giving Ryan the national spotlight by having him issue the response to the President, confirms that Ryan is not only qualified to address the fiscal issues that the G.O.P. wants to focus on, but that Ryan is also a figure that people can trust and whom can articulate the cause convincingly and effectively. These are qualities that one looks for in a President and Ryan’s possession of these qualities is one of the reason why he is included in White House 2012’s list of contenders.

It is why he has nearly 13,500 fans than one of Ryan’s fans created for Facebook on a Ryan For President Facebook page. In fact after Rep. Ryan went face to face with President Obama and sparred with him over Obamacare in 2010, many blogs and articles such as this one in Red State, touted the future presidency of Paul Ryan.

But the Congressman quickly tried to put such talk to rest. The Weekly Standard once reported that at a fundraiser in In July of 2010, when asked if there’s any chance he would run for president, he replied “No, no there isn’t,” and added “I want to be a normal person,”. He then went to say, “Other people can run for that thing.”and then, while pointing to one of his young children, said; “Other people can’t do this”.

In February of 2010, told a Wisconsin television program host, “I’ll give you as Shermanesque a quote as I can,” said Ryan. “I am not going to run for president. I’m just not going to do it. My head’s not that big, and my kids are too small.” He added I am young and am not going to be a career politician. The complete interview can be viewed here. Later that same week in a Real Clear Politics interview reasserted that position but he did state that he would not rule out a 2012 run for the United States Senate against Democrat incumbent Herb Kohl.

Such a run would probably be more realistic than a run for President by the 40 year old Congressman at the moment, but people still hold out hope for seeing him in the Oval Office and if not in the Oval Office, than at least on the ticket as Vice President. In fact, one website suggests such a thing with Chris Christie running at the top of the ticket and Ryan holding the number two slot.

But while hope and speculation about a Ryan run for the White House make their rounds, it is worth noting that a 2012 run for the senate or on the GOP presidential ticket, would cost him his critically influential role in Congress as the House Budget Committee chairman, a position that few are more up to than Ryan. As for who Paul Ryan does look towards when considering the presidency, the budget conscience Congressman points to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and says; “He would be a great president,” He told the Weekly Standard “He looks like your accountant, but that’s not so bad maybe.” That assessment is founded on Ryan’s focus on the budget and his faith in his own economic roadmap, a major consideration which led him to say; “Are there [other] people who right now know these issues, have the principles, have the courage of their convictions, and are willing and able to defend them? Nobody comes to my mind,” But he added that “any one of these guys” interested in running for president could get up to speed on the Road Map.

Presidential politics aside, for now, after announcing Ryan as the man who will give the GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union, Republicans should be pleased with the fact that our Party leadership is wise enough to acknowledge the fact that Congressman Ryan is the right man to take the lead on the budget and the economic issues facing us. And we should also be mindful that if Paul Ryan does indeed not participate in the 2012 presidential as a candidate himself, we should try to make sure that our ultimate nominee embraces Paul Ryan’s thinking and leadership on fiscal responsibility.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: