I dunno. I’ve met Laesch on a number of occasions and considered him a fine candidate. He was on the Al Franken Show when Al was in town over the summer and did very well.
He was also at one of our Meetups and again did very well. We all say things we regret. I wouldn’t condemn Laesch based on this one recording.
There were lots of reasons listed even at the time why Lincoln freed the slaves including economic reasons and political reasons not related to the well being of the slaves as such. I think that everyone who is familiar with the politics of the times knows this. So what’s the big deal here?
On the other hand, unless you have some other truly relevant stuff, it looks to me like you are contrasting corrupt Bush supporting Congressional rule bending sexual predator hiding Hastert to Laesch and saying that Laesch isn’t a good candidate because you don’t like his attitude about Abraham Lincoln?
This seems like a pretty small straw for a man the size of Hastert to be trying to cling to. Of course, maybe Hastert (and you) see the water as being even deeper than the rest of us do…
You mean Lincoln might not have been acting altruistically, and instead had economic and military reasons for signing the Emancipation Proclamation?
Say it aint so.
There is a legitimate debate about this. Many historians argue that Lincoln freed the slaves because he needed to cripple the South economically; altruism was simply the cover used to sell it to the public and the abolitionist movement.
Laesch is expressing an historical opinion straight out of American History 101, he’s just saying it a way that makes him sound like a total idiot.
p.s. I guess I’m coming a bit late to this conversation on Laesch, so I don’t know if there are other things he’s said that make him “unsuitable.” I know Hastert’s a freakin’ criminal and a traitor, however, so Laesch would be at least a minor step in the right direction.
Hear, hear, Archpundit. Felonizing priests, endorsing torture and extraordinary rendition, protecting sex predators, tossing our soldiers’ lives away, letting OBL go scott free, giving the president dictatorial power, and putting our national treasury at the mercy of the Chinese is so much better than having the wrong attitude on Lincoln’s reasons for emancipating the slaves!
I mean, who cares if Laesch wants to end the war, hold the president accountable, restore fiscal discipline, work for universal healthcare and bring back a made-in-America economy. What *really* matters is that he disagrees with you on why Lincoln eliminated slavery.
Strangely, no one who actually read the blog would think I support Hastert. However, I do think that throwing good money at a bad candidate is a bad idea.
This of course isn’t the only time Laesch has said or done something stupid, it’s just the convenient one.
The point isn’t to support Hastert, it’s to support GOOD Democratic candidates.
Oddly, Laesch has gotten Lincoln’s lack of altruism confused with Lincoln’s actual racism. Lincoln was no angel, but not for the reason Laesch suggests.
Lincoln did not believe – or at least never expressed the belief – that whites and blacks were equal. He was, in all manner of his day, a racist.
But it is unquestionable that Lincoln thought slavery was, in fact, a moral wrong, even if he thought blacks were inferior.
There was very little competition between midwestern farmers at the time and southern plantation farmers mostly reliant on tobacco and cotton crops. As a corn farmer, you simply don’t compete with the cotton farmer and don’t care what means of production he is using. (Even if there was a raging debate at the time concerning free labor vs. slave labor).
I don’t know that this will make me not vote for him
I don’t understand ArchPundit to be saying you shouldn’t vote for him. Saying he’s a weak candidate is different from saying that he’s worse than Hastert (which takes some doing). And as Krugman says, if you don’t want the Bush regime to be able to continue doing everything it’s been doing without oversight by Congress, you should vote for damned near anyone who has the D next to his/her name.
Frederick, have you read Laesch’s platform? Aside from silly blather on his scholarly opinion regarding Lincoln, Laesch has some excellent ideas regarding getting us the heck out of Iraq (his experience in Navy intel is a big asset here), he takes voting system security seriously, has specific recommendations regarding establishing a national healthcare plan, and is committed to serious changes in our energy policy that will move us concretely towards energy independence while creating new jobs. These are all solid progressive platform items, and he has specific, concrete ideas regarding each of them.
Now, we can talk about whether the specifics of what he proposes is a good idea or not, and I’d welcome actual discussion along those lines. But the idea that anyone should reject all his ideas, his experience and his commitment to service and stop supporting him with our dollars, time and effort because he differs with someone on Lincoln’s motivation for ending slavery is really just ridiculous.
October 18th, 2006 at
I have high speed and can’t get the file–can you tell us more about it?
October 18th, 2006 at
The gist of it is, “Lincoln didn’t do it for the slaves … he did it for the poor white farmers who couldn’t compete with Big Plantation.”
Whether or not this is true, it’s one of those things that you probably just shouldn’t say.
October 18th, 2006 at
Archpundit, I will never doubt you again. Well, maybe I will. But that’s the icing on the cake. I can’t donate to Laesch again.
October 18th, 2006 at
I dunno. I’ve met Laesch on a number of occasions and considered him a fine candidate. He was on the Al Franken Show when Al was in town over the summer and did very well.
He was also at one of our Meetups and again did very well. We all say things we regret. I wouldn’t condemn Laesch based on this one recording.
October 19th, 2006 at
There were lots of reasons listed even at the time why Lincoln freed the slaves including economic reasons and political reasons not related to the well being of the slaves as such. I think that everyone who is familiar with the politics of the times knows this. So what’s the big deal here?
On the other hand, unless you have some other truly relevant stuff, it looks to me like you are contrasting corrupt Bush supporting Congressional rule bending sexual predator hiding Hastert to Laesch and saying that Laesch isn’t a good candidate because you don’t like his attitude about Abraham Lincoln?
This seems like a pretty small straw for a man the size of Hastert to be trying to cling to. Of course, maybe Hastert (and you) see the water as being even deeper than the rest of us do…
October 19th, 2006 at
You mean Lincoln might not have been acting altruistically, and instead had economic and military reasons for signing the Emancipation Proclamation?
Say it aint so.
There is a legitimate debate about this. Many historians argue that Lincoln freed the slaves because he needed to cripple the South economically; altruism was simply the cover used to sell it to the public and the abolitionist movement.
Laesch is expressing an historical opinion straight out of American History 101, he’s just saying it a way that makes him sound like a total idiot.
p.s. I guess I’m coming a bit late to this conversation on Laesch, so I don’t know if there are other things he’s said that make him “unsuitable.” I know Hastert’s a freakin’ criminal and a traitor, however, so Laesch would be at least a minor step in the right direction.
October 19th, 2006 at
Hear, hear, Archpundit. Felonizing priests, endorsing torture and extraordinary rendition, protecting sex predators, tossing our soldiers’ lives away, letting OBL go scott free, giving the president dictatorial power, and putting our national treasury at the mercy of the Chinese is so much better than having the wrong attitude on Lincoln’s reasons for emancipating the slaves!
I mean, who cares if Laesch wants to end the war, hold the president accountable, restore fiscal discipline, work for universal healthcare and bring back a made-in-America economy. What *really* matters is that he disagrees with you on why Lincoln eliminated slavery.
October 19th, 2006 at
Strangely, no one who actually read the blog would think I support Hastert. However, I do think that throwing good money at a bad candidate is a bad idea.
This of course isn’t the only time Laesch has said or done something stupid, it’s just the convenient one.
The point isn’t to support Hastert, it’s to support GOOD Democratic candidates.
October 19th, 2006 at
Arch, thanks for posting. I appreciate having something tangible.
I don’t know that this will make me not vote for him, but nevertheless, I appreciate you putting up the proof instead of just anaomous accusations.
Keep the posts going…you’ve made Atrios again, a credit to you, can’t wait to see the news.
October 19th, 2006 at
Oddly, Laesch has gotten Lincoln’s lack of altruism confused with Lincoln’s actual racism. Lincoln was no angel, but not for the reason Laesch suggests.
Lincoln did not believe – or at least never expressed the belief – that whites and blacks were equal. He was, in all manner of his day, a racist.
But it is unquestionable that Lincoln thought slavery was, in fact, a moral wrong, even if he thought blacks were inferior.
There was very little competition between midwestern farmers at the time and southern plantation farmers mostly reliant on tobacco and cotton crops. As a corn farmer, you simply don’t compete with the cotton farmer and don’t care what means of production he is using. (Even if there was a raging debate at the time concerning free labor vs. slave labor).
October 19th, 2006 at
I don’t know that this will make me not vote for him
I don’t understand ArchPundit to be saying you shouldn’t vote for him. Saying he’s a weak candidate is different from saying that he’s worse than Hastert (which takes some doing). And as Krugman says, if you don’t want the Bush regime to be able to continue doing everything it’s been doing without oversight by Congress, you should vote for damned near anyone who has the D next to his/her name.
October 20th, 2006 at
Frederick, have you read Laesch’s platform? Aside from silly blather on his scholarly opinion regarding Lincoln, Laesch has some excellent ideas regarding getting us the heck out of Iraq (his experience in Navy intel is a big asset here), he takes voting system security seriously, has specific recommendations regarding establishing a national healthcare plan, and is committed to serious changes in our energy policy that will move us concretely towards energy independence while creating new jobs. These are all solid progressive platform items, and he has specific, concrete ideas regarding each of them.
Now, we can talk about whether the specifics of what he proposes is a good idea or not, and I’d welcome actual discussion along those lines. But the idea that anyone should reject all his ideas, his experience and his commitment to service and stop supporting him with our dollars, time and effort because he differs with someone on Lincoln’s motivation for ending slavery is really just ridiculous.