June 19, 2011 AD
An Unelectable President
"Here is what we
in the unbelievable media believe:
He's a great guy,
A loving husband and father of 50 years,
A successful businessman,
A moral man,
An intelligent man,
Served his country with honor,
Unequalled defender of the Constitution,
Defender of America,
Defender of Christianity,
Elected to the House 12 times,
in a Texas district bigger
than the entire State of Massachusetts,
But we are not going to cover his campaign
HE'S JUST NOT ELECTABLE."
Given this common refrain in the mass-media-Scribe world then perhaps we should take a hard look at the unelectability of one of our former elected Presidents.
In a country ran by blue-bloods, a redneck country bumpkin from the wilderness had zero chances of being elected President of the United States. Abraham Lincoln was simply born unelectable.
[Abraham Lincoln was] reared in a poor family on the western frontier in Hardin County, Kentucky.
In a country built on entreprenuership, a failed businessman in a thriving economy was unelectable.
In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. Although the economy was booming in the region, the business struggled and Lincoln eventually sold his share.
The very definition of "unelectable" is a man who fails to win an election.
That March (1832) he began his political career with his first campaign for the Illinois General Assembly. He had attained local popularity and could draw crowds as a natural raconteur in New Salem, though he lacked an education, powerful friends, and money, which may be why he lost.
Lincoln continued his campaign for the August 6 election for the Illinois General Assembly. Lincoln finished eighth out of thirteen candidates (the top four were elected)
[Lincoln] failed in two attempts at a seat in the United States Senate.
A man who counts on votes from the other party to win his election is usually considered unelectable.
His second campaign in 1834 was successful. He won election to the state legislature; though he ran as a Whig, many Democrats favored him over a more powerful Whig opponent.
Lincoln was a fraud lawyer, with no real training, so he was certainly not an esteemed Constitutional professor from Harvard as our current President was, so what made Lincoln believe that he was knowleable enough about the nation's laws to be electable to the highest office of the land?
He then decided [After his first win in 1834] to become a lawyer and began teaching himself law by reading Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and other law books. Of his learning method, Lincoln stated: "I studied with nobody".
Lincoln got a crony job as a lawyer through a relative of his wife
(How UNMANLY can you get in an era of REAL Men!!).
Admitted to the bar in 1836, he moved to Springfield, Illinois, and began to practice law under John T. Stuart, Mary Todd's cousin.
Lincoln was indeed a politician -- he played both sides -- but then again, the South saw right through his politicin' . So how does this make him electable?
He was known for his "free soil" stance of opposing both slavery and abolitionism. He first articulated this in 1837, saying, "Institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy, but the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils."
Only two terms? Not enough time to be nominated into powerful committees to affect real change for America. How does being a rookie representative out of hundreds make one electable to the presidency?
In 1846, Lincoln was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served one two-year term.
Lincoln's claim to fame in the House was a bill for the fedral government to "buy slaves," and for the federal government to run down and imprison run-away slaves? This made him electable?
Lincoln, in collaboration with abolitionist Congressman Joshua R. Giddings, wrote a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia with compensation for the owners, enforcement to capture fugitive slaves, and a popular vote on the matter.
Abraham Lincoln was a panty-waste girly-man who was against the Great Mexican-American War. How could a pacifist to a country who attacked America become the Commander in Chief? Obviously unelectable, even in the eyes of his own constituents in his congressional district. (While opposed to fighting Mexican bandits, Abraham Lincoln would not be opposed to fighting his own fellow honorable white southerner neighbors in a war where more Americans were killed than in all American wars put together, as history proves.)
Lincoln also spoke out against the Mexican–American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory—that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood". The war had begun with a Mexican slaughter of American soldiers in territory disputed by Mexico and the US; Polk insisted that Mexican soldiers had "invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil". Lincoln demanded that Polk show Congress the exact spot on which blood had been shed and prove that the spot was on American soil. Congress never enacted the resolution or even debated it, the national papers ignored it, and it resulted in a loss of political support for Lincoln in his district. One Illinois newspaper derisively nicknamed him "spotty Lincoln".
Lincoln did not believe in State's rights. Even if morally right, the means to correct the immorality would make him unelectable, since immorality just follows the power from the States where it used to reside and who are losing it, right up into the federal government where it would eventually reside after Lincoln; making the immorality that takes over the federal government far worst than any State immorality ever was! (Unless you believe the federal Roe v Wade slaugher of babies across the entire land in every State to be a moral improvement over only half the States allowing ownership of people which allowed them to force the owned people to work during the cotton growing season)
Lincoln returned to politics to oppose the pro-slavery Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854); this law repealed the slavery-restricting Missouri Compromise (1820). Senior Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois had incorporated popular sovereignty into the Act. Douglas' provision, which Lincoln opposed, specified the people have the right to determine locally whether to allow slavery in their territory rather than have such a decision imposed on them by the national Congress.
Haven't we heard often that a President has to, above all else, have charisma to be elected? Just being intelligent and moral does not make one electable. Didn't they know that? Lincoln's total lack of charisma would have made him unelectable.
On February 27, 1860, New York party leaders invited Lincoln to give a speech at Cooper Union to a group of powerful Republicans. Despite his inelegant appearance—many in the audience thought him awkward and even ugly—Lincoln demonstrated an intellectual leadership that brought him into the front ranks of the party and into contention for the Republican presidential nomination.
The powers in this country do not decide who becomes President, the people decide that, right? Hence, Abraham Lincoln was not electable, since he didn't even try to run for his Presidential election.
As Douglas and the other candidates went through with their campaigns, Lincoln was the only one of them who gave no speeches. Instead, he monitored the campaign closely and relied on the enthusiasm of the Republican Party. The party did the leg work that produced majorities across the North, and produced an abundance of campaign posters, leaflets, and newspaper editorials.
The Republican Party had never won before -- the Republican Party was unelectable -- therefore, their candidate was by definition unelectable.
He was the first Republican president,
Abraham Lincoln was a divider, not a unifier. America is a land of tolerance, inclusiveness and unity -- a melting pot. A polarizing figure, who did not have the will of the people. A man like Lincoln, was unelectable.
[Abraham Lincoln won] entirely on the strength of his support in the North; no ballots were cast for him in ten of the fifteen Southern slave states, and he won only two of 996 counties in all the Southern states.
Last year, so-called unelectable Ron Paul was one vote shy of winning the Republican Leadership Conference. This year, Ron Paul decively beat all other contenders and won a far greater percentage than Rommney did just last year.
|2010 Vote ||  ||2011 Vote|
|Dr. Paul loses by 1 Vote|| ||Dr. Paul wins by 230 Votes!|
|Rommney ||24% |
|  ||Paul ||40% |
|Paul ||24% |
|  ||Huntsman ||25% |
|Newt ||18% ||  ||Bachmann ||12% |
|Palin ||4% ||  ||Cain ||7% |
|Huckabee ||4% ||  ||Romney ||5% |
|  Pawlenty   ||3% ||  ||Gingrich ||4% |
|Pence ||3% ||  ||Palin ||3% |
|Santorum ||2% ||  ||Santorum ||2% |
|Johnson ||1% ||  ||  Pawlenty   ||1% |
Obviously, with Ron Paul being proven right so many times while the Jewish media-Scribes were always saying he was wrong, is having an affect. The truth is getting out.
Despite Ron Paul being declared "unelectable" by the same, the people are beginning to march to a different drummer.
|Media-Scribe Stand||Ron Pauls's Stand||Winner ? |
|War on Drugs ||For ||Against ||Ron Paul|
|War on Terror |
|For ||Against ||Ron Paul|
|War on the Middle East ||For ||Against ||Ron Paul|
|War on the Economy ||For ||Against ||Ron Paul|
|War on the Fed ||Against ||For ||Ron Paul|
|War on unelectablility ||For ||Against ||Hopefully - Ron Paul|
NBC's Mark Murray
Romney wins SRLC straw poll by 1 vote
Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News
Paul wins RLC straw poll; Romney fades to fifth
Article located at: