Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush the Yalie elitist: "I can relate to the rail-splitter from out West"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:02 AM
Original message
Bush the Yalie elitist: "I can relate to the rail-splitter from out West"
:eyes:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/national/20bush.html?

"His very election as president was regarded as a cause for war," said Mr. Bush, recalling the threats against Lincoln as he left the Springfield train station. "And as he sent legions of men to death and sacrifice, Lincoln's own burden began to show in a lined and tired face."

"In a small way, I can relate to the rail-splitter from out West because he had a way of speaking that was not always appreciated by the newspapers back East," Mr. Bush said to laughter before a crowd of thousands who jammed into the downtown of the Illinois capital. "A New York Times story on his first inaugural address reported that Mr. Lincoln was lucky 'it was not the constitution of the English language and the laws of English grammar that he was called upon to support.' "

With a pause, Mr. Bush added, "I think that fellow is still writing for The Times." (In fact, while the quotation is correct, the article, published March 9, 1861, appeared to be quoting a critique of Mr. Lincoln's address that was published in The National Anti-Slavery Standard.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Um, George? Lincoln was eloquent. He treasured his education.
He didn't mangle the English language. He truly identified with the common man.

Mr. Bush, you're no President Abraham Lincoln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. If anything demonstrates Bush's lack of comprehension
of anything substantive, this does. Comparing his ignunt, inarticulate self with Lincoln is.... not even Lincoln could find the right words to express the insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. Out West?
Kentucky? Illinois?

Has that dumbass ever looked at a map? Even by 1860 I seriously doubt those states were considered "out west"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Actually, they were ...

But it's really weird that Shrub is using the terms in such a way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bkcc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. I hate the way Bush* talks like he's the "common man".
He pulled this shit during the election too, with his quaint little colloquialisms and overdone Southern drawl. (Remember when he referred to "Missoura"??)

The only thing I hate more is the fact that so many people fall for this bullshit.

He's a spoiled, white rich kid from Connecticut who likes to play cowboy, you idiots!!

</rant>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. "he sent legions of men to death and sacrifice ..."
Oh, I see. 'tis a noble thing you do, bush, sending legions of men (and women) to death and sacrifice.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Civil War, weren't the soldiers dedicated advocates for their respective sides? Did Lincoln lie and deceive and distort to get the troops to fight?

Nope. Didn't think so. And Lincoln didn't screen his crowds either. IIRC, he was terrific at handling hecklers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stirk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. Oh yes- I see the relation as well.
Edited on Wed Apr-20-05 11:21 AM by Stirk
Lincoln was an intelligent man with few advantages, while Bush is a proud idiot who had every advantage. They're practically twins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Now that you pointed it out
I see the similarity too!

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. Perhaps Shrub should READ Lincoln's first inaugural...
http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/inaugural/16_lincoln_1.html

And then have the Gettysburg Address shoved up his ass to be close to his brain.

In a time of extraordinary stress, with slavery such a huge issue and the South about to secede, just what would Shrub's speech have been like?

Every day, this guy just proves once again that he has no business being anywhere near the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
9. Is bush** so insecure that he feels the need compare himself
with past Leaders who were truly Great Leaders, when it's obvious to most that bush** just doesn't match up with the comparisons he is trying desperately to make? Just heard on Al Franken's show that the Chimp's approval rating is down from 49% to 44%. His approval rating on the economy starts from 38%, down to 34% Georgie, seems you suck! How on Earth did you get re-sElected? Steal it again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone Pawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. Mr. Bush: The following is what you compare your mangling of English to.
   It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted...Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you...  I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

-----------

Mr. Bush. That is a man confronted with a severe national crisis, who is handling it eloquently. Compare to:

"We'll smoke 'em out!"

One is a great man. The other is a half-ass cowboy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxrandb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I Truly Believe that *'s Response to the Above Speech Would Be
"HEH, HEH, HEH.....He said Intercourse"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tracer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. ... and Lincoln wrote it himself!
Any sentence longer than 4 words would be a struggle for the Dimwit-in-Charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. At least Lincoln got smart & educated "on his own"
Lincoln didn't have a "legacy" gimme from a Poppy in Yale - and even then W pretty much blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. At least Lincoln educated himself into intelligence
Lincoln didn't have a "legacy" gimme from a Poppy in Yale - and even then W pretty much blew it.

Oh, and didn't the "old rail-splitter" serve in the military when it wasn't just sitting around, drinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark Bayh 2008 Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. The ultimate insult - virtually no Bush state supported Lincoln
Edited on Wed Apr-20-05 12:47 PM by Clark Bayh 2008
Look it up. Only Ohio & Indiana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. I hope the Times calls him on that
Edited on Wed Apr-20-05 12:52 PM by The White Tree
With a pause, Mr. Bush added, "I think that fellow is still writing for The Times." (In fact, while the quotation is correct, the article, published March 9, 1861, appeared to be quoting a critique of Mr. Lincoln's address that was published in The National Anti-Slavery Standard.)(On Edit - Ooops, didn't look at the link and realize the article was from the times and they did.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
17. Cocaine and/or Meth rails
perhaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC