PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe

[Trajan]

uh huh. you guys wanted to play this silly game, suck it up ace.

 

[paperview]

If President Obama is to be faulted for anything over this it should be his foolishness in thinking that referencing the name of Abraham Lincoln and HIS Republican party would in any way resonate with the gang of mutants who currently carry that banner.

No shit huh?

He throws them a bone and they freak out he said the same damn thing the GOP, the pubbie politicians, and what historians say...

Mutants is most definitely the word for them.

 

[paperview]

i'm sure you realize that wasn't your only post on the subject, and that had i made that bet with anyone i'd be munching on some krispy kremes right now.

This site's simple search function beyond your ability to grasp?

If you're so sure, go prove it.

Otherwise, stfu cuz you look like a sniveling whiner.

i was trying to be nice, was going to let him walk it back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin-2.html#post3725386

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin.html#post3727626

That's a big old ouch right there for the trojan.

Look at him defend Palin with "experts"

"Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account" (yeah, Sarah, really, we know...Revere was out to warn the British. lol)

And trojan has the gall to go ballistic when I present Pulitzer prize winning historians, and about 20 other sources from the GOP (some going back to the 1880's) that state the same thing Obama did -- including the National GOP Headquarters!

 

[paperview]

I hope they find a cure for your condition.

I don't think football can remedy it.

i'll bet dollars to donuts we can find Trajan posts defending Palin's erroneous account of Paul Revere's ride - an account that was far more incorrect than labeling Lincoln as a founder of the Republican party.

and if you; a) had any sense, b) any balls, you would have done the research first, it took me about a minute to do so for you.....here is the sum total of what I had to say on that below. Unlike some, I try to be consistent....dumb shit, so stop projecting.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/3719520-post110.html

No, that wasn't the "sum total."

Looks like you lied.

Oh well.

Liars lie.

 

[paperview]

For those who missed my post earlier:

* I am a Lincoln/Kemp Republican. It’s 150 years ago in Chicago this year that Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, accepted the Republican nomination for President of the United States. — Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

* Immigration was a core belief of a founder of the Republican party, Abraham Lincoln. — Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)

* Though Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party, to liberals and advocates of civil rights Lincoln was in that pantheon along with FDR as one of the heroes of liberalism and American democracy. — James Pierson on National Review

* George W. Bush is not a Goldwater Republican — he’s a Lincoln Republican. Like the founder of the Republican party, Bush doesn’t mind spending money on his priorities, and he doesn’t mind doing some of this spending with borrowed money. — Jerry Bowyer, National Review

*Abe Lincoln was the founder of the Republican party - Suns of Liberty Tea Party group

* It is a pleasure for me to address you upon the day when this club and our countrymen of all faiths throughout the land are paying tribute to the memory of Abraham Lincoln. We tonight also pay tribute to him as founder of the Republican Party and the inspirer of its ideals. — President Herbert Hoover (R)

* It was — it was, in fact, the founder of our party, Abraham Lincoln, who reminded us that a government that can do everything for us is the government that can take everything from us. — Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) 2008 RNC Speech

* I do so humbly -- in the presence of the monuments of America's great presidents -- especially Abraham Lincoln -- the founder of the Republican Party -- whose deep commitment to equality and opportunity I share. Arlen Specter (R)

* Remember the words of the legendary founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, who admonished that "we get the government that we deserve". -Columbiana County (Ohio) Republican Party

* "Lincoln being a former Whig and then becoming a Republican and then the first Republican president ever elected, we look at him as the founder of the Republican Party," he said. -Harris County (Texas) GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill

* "Abraham Lincoln, the founder of our Republican Party..." -Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

* In a very important sense Mr. Lincoln may be regarded as the founder of the Republican Party." XLIII MR. LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE.
A SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THE LA SALLE CLUB, CHICAGO, FEBRUARY 12, 1889

* "Abraham Lincoln, who was the founder of the Republican Party..."Abraham Lincoln and Constitutional Government, Volumes 1-2 By Bartow Adolphus Ulrich, 1916

* Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic party and Lincoln, looked back to as the founder of the Republican party, and yet the founder of the Republican party declared he had no political principle that he did not get from the founder of the Democratic party." -Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the state of Illinois convened January 6, 1920, Volume 1

* Lincoln, the real founder of the Republican Party. - Robert A. Taft

* He had served in the 1840s in the Congress as a Whig, and he was a co-founder of the new Republican Party, "Source: Abraham Lincoln: Great American Historians on Our Sixteenth President" Quote by one of the country's foremost scholars on Abraham Lincoln, Harold Holzer.

* "As much as any man in the country, he was a founder of the Republican party. ..." Don E. Fehrenbacher, a Pulitzer Prize-winning authority on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, a documentary portrait through his speeches and writings, 1964

And how many of those "quotes" got altered by PBS?

By the way, there is a "sense" in which (as Taft suggested) it might even be fair to say that Lincoln was the "true founder" of the Republican Party.

Time has not made you smarter, has it labbie?

 

[Trajan]

This site's simple search function beyond your ability to grasp?

If you're so sure, go prove it.

Otherwise, stfu cuz you look like a sniveling whiner.

i was trying to be nice, was going to let him walk it back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin-2.html#post3725386

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin.html#post3727626

That's a big old ouch right there for the trojan.

Look at him defend Palin with "experts"

"Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account" (yeah, Sarah, really, we know...Revere was out to warn the British. lol)

And trojan has the gall to go ballistic when I present Pulitzer prize winning historians, and about 20 other sources from the GOP (some going back to the 1880's) that state the same thing Obama did -- including the National GOP Headquarters!

still dropping acid

 

[paperview]

i was trying to be nice, was going to let him walk it back.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin-2.html#post3725386

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/170346-will-the-obama-fluffer-brigade-apologize-to-palin.html#post3727626

That's a big old ouch right there for the trojan.

Look at him defend Palin with "experts"

"Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account" (yeah, Sarah, really, we know...Revere was out to warn the British. lol)

And trojan has the gall to go ballistic when I present Pulitzer prize winning historians, and about 20 other sources from the GOP (some going back to the 1880's) that state the same thing Obama did -- including the National GOP Headquarters!

still dropping acid

I don't do drugs.

Obviously you are projecting.

 

[paperview]

Must suck to get caught in lies like that. Maybe that's why you lash out.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

 

[Trajan]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

heresy!!!!

 

[paperview]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

I think you need some more history lessons.
You can start here: 1856 - Abraham Lincoln

 

[paperview]

Why do we need people who have dedicated their whole lives to the study of Lincoln and write book after book after book after book on him, win Pulitzer prizes on their work...when we have booger eatin' internet bloggers posting from their basement who know better?

 

[Foxfyre]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

I think you need some more history lessons.
You can start here: 1856 - Abraham Lincoln

Sorry, I don't see anything in the version you linked that is any different from what I posted. However, I didn't learn American History on the Internet.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

heresy!!!!

The frustrating thing is 1) The abject ignorance of so many Americans of the most basic American History. 2) The blatant partisanship expressed by the media in the way they handle a gaffe like that. True Obama should have known better but he probably didn't get much American History in Indonesia when most school kids are learning the stories of the Presidents. So, while Obama's staff should have fact checked more carefully, I wouldn't have a problem with it - EXCEPT -

The big yawn from the media re this when if it had been George W. Bush or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin who had said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? We would have been pounded with that for a week and USMB would be full of threads ridiculing them just as they did, and continue to do, over Palin's Paul Revere statement.

I despair that we will ever have a grown up American society.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

I think you need some more history lessons.
You can start here: 1856 - Abraham Lincoln

Sorry, I don't see anything in the version you linked that is any different from what I posted. However, I didn't learn American History on the Internet.

Nor did I.

I've only been making a fine living at it for several decades.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

heresy!!!!

The frustrating thing is 1) The abject ignorance of so many Americans of the most basic American History. 2) The blatant partisanship expressed by the media in the way they handle a gaffe like that. True Obama should have known better but he probably didn't get much American History in Indonesia when most school kids are learning the stories of the Presidents. So, while Obama's staff should have fact checked more carefully, I wouldn't have a problem with it - EXCEPT -

The big yawn from the media re this when if it had been George W. Bush or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin who had said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? We would have been pounded with that for a week and USMB would be full of threads ridiculing them just as they did, and continue to do, over Palin's Paul Revere statement.

I despair that we will ever have a grown up American society.

What a ridiculous commentary.

There are quotes up the ying yang from republicans, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning authors, as well as the GOP National Main Lincoln page who say the same thing.

If your thing is that he wasn't there (as I remarked in the requote below), at the absolute embryonic stage --Fine, have at it. It really makes the pretzels you guys are tuning yourselves into to prove Lincoln wasn't THERE, at the birthing -- well, ya's just look pretty funny.

requote:
------
Lincoln most certainly was one of the strongest forces - and the phrase, oft heard by republicans, is it is "the Party of Lincoln." It was his Presidential election that gave them their first Executive branch power, after all.

Was he "the Founder?" Technically no. In my years of dealing with issue, I have found no exact named Founder. There were more than one, of course, and indeed, several historical reports, from Ripon Iowa (Alan Bovay, is named as one) to New Hampshire (Amos Tuck, is another), along with others, have claimed they were Founders. But who remembers them?
In fact, who even remembers John C. Fremont for his role?

Like the modern day Tea party that grew angry with the direction of the country, placing a single name on a powerful movement is not quite as simple as some claim. Ripon is generally considered where the name first originated, but historians agree the movement was arumble all about.

It cannot be claimed Lincoln was at the tip of the spear of the nascent Republican party in 1854, but very shorty thereafter, he certainly grabbed hold of the national sword.

But, if The Party of Lincoln wants to disown Lincoln for the major part he played in bringing the party to it's ultimate power, that's Ok with me.
=============
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4124643-post47.html

 

[Foxfyre]

heresy!!!!

The frustrating thing is 1) The abject ignorance of so many Americans of the most basic American History. 2) The blatant partisanship expressed by the media in the way they handle a gaffe like that. True Obama should have known better but he probably didn't get much American History in Indonesia when most school kids are learning the stories of the Presidents. So, while Obama's staff should have fact checked more carefully, I wouldn't have a problem with it - EXCEPT -

The big yawn from the media re this when if it had been George W. Bush or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin who had said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? We would have been pounded with that for a week and USMB would be full of threads ridiculing them just as they did, and continue to do, over Palin's Paul Revere statement.

I despair that we will ever have a grown up American society.

What a ridiculous commentary.

There are quotes up the ying yang from republicans, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning authors, as well as the GOP National Main Lincoln page who say the same thing.

If your thing is that he wasn't there (as I remarked in the requote below), at the absolute embryonic stage --Fine, have at it. It really makes the pretzels you guys are tuning yourselves into to prove Lincoln wasn't THERE, at the birthing -- well, ya's just look pretty funny.

requote:
------
Lincoln most certainly was one of the strongest forces - and the phrase, oft heard by republicans, is it is "the Party of Lincoln." It was his Presidential election that gave them their first Executive branch power, after all.

Was he "the Founder?" Technically no. In my years of dealing with issue, I have found no exact named Founder. There were more than one, of course, and indeed, several historical reports, from Ripon Iowa (Alan Bovay, is named as one) to New Hampshire (Amos Tuck, is another), along with others, have claimed they were Founders. But who remembers them?
In fact, who even remembers John C. Fremont for his role?

Like the modern day Tea party that grew angry with the direction of the country, placing a single name on a powerful movement is not quite as simple as some claim. Ripon is generally considered where the name first originated, but historians agree the movement was arumble all about.

It cannot be claimed Lincoln was at the tip of the spear of the nascent Republican party in 1854, but very shorty thereafter, he certainly grabbed hold of the national sword.

But, if The Party of Lincoln wants to disown Lincoln for the major part he played in bringing the party to it's ultimate power, that's Ok with me.
=============
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4124643-post47.html

Nobody has said he has played no part in bringing the Republican Party to power. All any of us are saying is that he was NOT there at the beginning and he did NOT have a part in the initial organization of the Republican Party. He was NOT the Founder of the Republican Party.

I still think there is something in the water radical liberals drink that causes a serious reading comprehension dysfunction and then provokes them to rewrite what anybody says into what the liberal WANTS them to have said so they can attack it.

You make a living with history you say? Have done so for a long time now?

Then how do you square what you're saying here with the first lines of the piece you linked for me?:

In 1854, Mr. Lincoln avoided meeting with the organizers of the new Republican Party. In 1856, Mr. Lincoln was maneuvered into taking a leadership role by his law partner, William H. Herndon. Herndon wrote in his biography of Mr. Lincoln: "Finding himself drifting about with the disorganized elements that floated together after the angry political waters had subsided, it became apparent to Lincoln that if he expected to figure as a leader he must take a stand himself.
1856 - Abraham Lincoln

You will note that there is the same two-year gap in Lincoln's involvement cited there as there was in what I posted.

I also posted that Lincoln became the leader of the Republican Party in 1860. And was its successful Candidate for President beginning in 1861. That certainly does not suggest he played no role in the Republican Party or did not have a part in bringng it to power.

Do you teach? If so, do you teach your students that carelessly?

 

[Trajan]

Lincoln was a dedicated Whig when he successfully ran for Congress and during two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the Senate. The Whig party, due to slavery and anti-slavery factions, began to fall apart in the early 1850's, and a new Republican Party, without any help from Lincoln, was formed in 1854 by the merger of several smaller anti-slavery political groups. With his own Party effectively dismantled, Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and by 1860 had maneuvered himself to be party leader which put him as the favorite to be the Republican nominee for President which he won. His term of office began March, 1861.

He did not found or have much if anything to do with the organization of the Republican Party.

heresy!!!!

The frustrating thing is 1) The abject ignorance of so many Americans of the most basic American History. 2) The blatant partisanship expressed by the media in the way they handle a gaffe like that. True Obama should have known better but he probably didn't get much American History in Indonesia when most school kids are learning the stories of the Presidents. So, while Obama's staff should have fact checked more carefully, I wouldn't have a problem with it - EXCEPT -

The big yawn from the media re this when if it had been George W. Bush or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin who had said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? We would have been pounded with that for a week and USMB would be full of threads ridiculing them just as they did, and continue to do, over Palin's Paul Revere statement.

I despair that we will ever have a grown up American society.

the very same press sec. for Obama today, in 2008 took Huckabee to task for the very same language, yet here we have vivid self willed ignorance on display, they don't really want to discuss that.

you see the great equalizer is palin, non office holder and political gadfly saying some stupid blurb at a rally and conflate that with a speech in a joint session of congress....... for thee, not for me

 

[paperview]

The frustrating thing is 1) The abject ignorance of so many Americans of the most basic American History. 2) The blatant partisanship expressed by the media in the way they handle a gaffe like that. True Obama should have known better but he probably didn't get much American History in Indonesia when most school kids are learning the stories of the Presidents. So, while Obama's staff should have fact checked more carefully, I wouldn't have a problem with it - EXCEPT -

The big yawn from the media re this when if it had been George W. Bush or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin who had said Lincoln founded the Republican Party? We would have been pounded with that for a week and USMB would be full of threads ridiculing them just as they did, and continue to do, over Palin's Paul Revere statement.

I despair that we will ever have a grown up American society.

What a ridiculous commentary.

There are quotes up the ying yang from republicans, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning authors, as well as the GOP National Main Lincoln page who say the same thing.

If your thing is that he wasn't there (as I remarked in the requote below), at the absolute embryonic stage --Fine, have at it. It really makes the pretzels you guys are tuning yourselves into to prove Lincoln wasn't THERE, at the birthing -- well, ya's just look pretty funny.

requote:
------
Lincoln most certainly was one of the strongest forces - and the phrase, oft heard by republicans, is it is "the Party of Lincoln." It was his Presidential election that gave them their first Executive branch power, after all.

Was he "the Founder?" Technically no. In my years of dealing with issue, I have found no exact named Founder. There were more than one, of course, and indeed, several historical reports, from Ripon Iowa (Alan Bovay, is named as one) to New Hampshire (Amos Tuck, is another), along with others, have claimed they were Founders. But who remembers them?
In fact, who even remembers John C. Fremont for his role?

Like the modern day Tea party that grew angry with the direction of the country, placing a single name on a powerful movement is not quite as simple as some claim. Ripon is generally considered where the name first originated, but historians agree the movement was arumble all about.

It cannot be claimed Lincoln was at the tip of the spear of the nascent Republican party in 1854, but very shorty thereafter, he certainly grabbed hold of the national sword.

But, if The Party of Lincoln wants to disown Lincoln for the major part he played in bringing the party to it's ultimate power, that's Ok with me.
=============
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4124643-post47.html

Nobody has said he has played no part in bringing the Republican Party to power. All any of us are saying is that he was NOT there at the beginning and he did NOT have a part in the initial organization of the Republican Party. He was NOT the Founder of the Republican Party.

I still think there is something in the water radical liberals drink that causes a serious reading comprehension dysfunction and then provokes them to rewrite what anybody says into what the liberal WANTS them to have said so they can attack it.

You make a living with history you say? Have done so for a long time now?

Then how do you square what you're saying here with the first lines of the piece you linked for me?:

In 1854, Mr. Lincoln avoided meeting with the organizers of the new Republican Party. In 1856, Mr. Lincoln was maneuvered into taking a leadership role by his law partner, William H. Herndon. Herndon wrote in his biography of Mr. Lincoln: "Finding himself drifting about with the disorganized elements that floated together after the angry political waters had subsided, it became apparent to Lincoln that if he expected to figure as a leader he must take a stand himself.
1856 - Abraham Lincoln

You will note that there is the same two-year gap in Lincoln's involvement cited there as there was in what I posted.

I also posted that Lincoln became the leader of the Republican Party in 1860. And was its successful Candidate for President beginning in 1861. That certainly does not suggest he played no role in the Republican Party or did not have a part in bringng it to power.

Do you teach? If so, do you teach your students that carelessly?

No, I do not teach. I deal with original historical works.

The National Archives and Library of Congress, as well as countless Historical Societies contain works I have provided them. They have on more than one occasion consulted me.

I have held in my hand numerous ORIGINAL Lincoln documents and letters. (gather that in your thoughts for a moment, what it must be like to hold actual items held once by Abraham Lincoln himself...)

I suggest you read further in that piece. Not my first pick, but an illustrative one, nonetheless. I note you disregard his part in the co-founding of the Illinois Republican Party. Why is that?

If you really want to go down this road of technical nuance, have a ball. I think, at the end of the day - it is you guys who end up looking like douchebags for making such a big effing deal about it all.

Oh: Have you contacted the National GOP, and the Pulitzer prize winning historians yet, so they can correct their error?

 

[Trajan]

What a ridiculous commentary.

There are quotes up the ying yang from republicans, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning authors, as well as the GOP National Main Lincoln page who say the same thing.

If your thing is that he wasn't there (as I remarked in the requote below), at the absolute embryonic stage --Fine, have at it. It really makes the pretzels you guys are tuning yourselves into to prove Lincoln wasn't THERE, at the birthing -- well, ya's just look pretty funny.

requote:
------
Lincoln most certainly was one of the strongest forces - and the phrase, oft heard by republicans, is it is "the Party of Lincoln." It was his Presidential election that gave them their first Executive branch power, after all.

Was he "the Founder?" Technically no. In my years of dealing with issue, I have found no exact named Founder. There were more than one, of course, and indeed, several historical reports, from Ripon Iowa (Alan Bovay, is named as one) to New Hampshire (Amos Tuck, is another), along with others, have claimed they were Founders. But who remembers them?
In fact, who even remembers John C. Fremont for his role?

Like the modern day Tea party that grew angry with the direction of the country, placing a single name on a powerful movement is not quite as simple as some claim. Ripon is generally considered where the name first originated, but historians agree the movement was arumble all about.

It cannot be claimed Lincoln was at the tip of the spear of the nascent Republican party in 1854, but very shorty thereafter, he certainly grabbed hold of the national sword.

But, if The Party of Lincoln wants to disown Lincoln for the major part he played in bringing the party to it's ultimate power, that's Ok with me.
=============
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4124643-post47.html

Nobody has said he has played no part in bringing the Republican Party to power. All any of us are saying is that he was NOT there at the beginning and he did NOT have a part in the initial organization of the Republican Party. He was NOT the Founder of the Republican Party.

I still think there is something in the water radical liberals drink that causes a serious reading comprehension dysfunction and then provokes them to rewrite what anybody says into what the liberal WANTS them to have said so they can attack it.

You make a living with history you say? Have done so for a long time now?

Then how do you square what you're saying here with the first lines of the piece you linked for me?:

In 1854, Mr. Lincoln avoided meeting with the organizers of the new Republican Party. In 1856, Mr. Lincoln was maneuvered into taking a leadership role by his law partner, William H. Herndon. Herndon wrote in his biography of Mr. Lincoln: "Finding himself drifting about with the disorganized elements that floated together after the angry political waters had subsided, it became apparent to Lincoln that if he expected to figure as a leader he must take a stand himself.
1856 - Abraham Lincoln

You will note that there is the same two-year gap in Lincoln's involvement cited there as there was in what I posted.

I also posted that Lincoln became the leader of the Republican Party in 1860. And was its successful Candidate for President beginning in 1861. That certainly does not suggest he played no role in the Republican Party or did not have a part in bringng it to power.

Do you teach? If so, do you teach your students that carelessly?

No, I do not teach. I deal with original historical works.

The National Archives and Library of Congress, as well as countless Historical Societies contain works I have provided them. They have on more than one occasion consulted me.

I have held in my hand numerous ORIGINAL Lincoln documents and letters. (gather that in your thoughts for a moment, what it must be like to hold actual items held once by Abraham Lincoln himself...)

I suggest you read further in that piece. Not my first pick, but an illustrative one, nonetheless. I note you disregard his part in the co-founding of the Illinois Republican Party. Why is that?

If you really want to go down this road of technical nuance, have a ball. I think, at the end of the day - it is you guys who end up looking like douchebags for making such a big effing deal about it all.

Oh: Have you contacted the National GOP, and the Pulitzer prize winning historians yet, so they can correct their error?

Since you have demonstrated quite clearly you're lack of ability to read and comprehend the written word even as YOU ascribe them here, whats the point?

I used quotes you yourself posted here to answer YOUR own critique of a post of mine ala the absence of "The" Founder , you then ignore the post entirely and re- post the whole litany again as if that means something.
You, yourself ignore your own links and postings ala “was he the founder technically no”, then throw out some stupidity ala The Party of Lincoln wants to disown Lincoln ..Whatever.

I will make this easy for you;

a) Carney was wrong in 2008 to critique Huckabee for saying that Lincoln was the founder of the rep.
Yes or no?

b) The media has provided the same attention now, they did then to that particular blurb and other such questionable and arcane inanities ala Palins Revere comment as they have for this one?
Yes or no?