Log In | Register
As a news junkie, I tend to read both sides of American politics. (Hold your friends close and your enemies closer.) This political silly season has been better than any since the 1800's when the candidates would use personal attacks and outright lies routinely. (That is if you like the entertainment value.) In the 1800's there was also no shortage of commentators on both sides each demonizing the other. Actually in this era, the printed word by far was the way in which most Americans were informed of who was running for what office, what others were saying about them, and what the candidates actually had to say. The latter being the least of what the public was informed of as routinely the journalists of the time would take poetic license as many do now. Without television and raido most Americans had no idea what the candidates actually said, how they said it, and many times even what they looked like.
In the election of 1800 it was printed that, Jefferson, the Federalists said, would bring the guillotine and French Jacobin terror to America. Adams, the Republicans responded, was intent on refastening the tyranny of the British monarch.
On October 15th, 1864 the Harpers Weekly published about Lincoln:The chief charge against the Administration, thundered in every key, is its despotism. It is incessantly asserted that personal liberty is destroyed, that original rights are annihilated, that we are all the cowering, shivering subjects of the bloody Emperor ABRAHAM, who brings us all to our knees by pointing to one of the innumerable bastiles which shadow the land ; all of us, except ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED VALLANDIGHAM, and JOHN HAMPDEN WOOD, and WILLIAM TELL GUNTHER, and PATRICK HENRY LONG, and GEORGE WASHINGTON SEYMOUR, who bravely withstand the tyrant for the sake of justice and human rights. But with these exceptions, we are all groaning under the most intolerable tyranny, from which there is no hope of deliverance but by intrusting the Government to the hands of these patriots."
"It is simply impossible to make them believe, after their experience of his patient fidelity to the Union, that he is a monstrous despot or a political gambler. The American people, we are very sure, are firmly persuaded that Mr. VALLANDIGHAM does not love the Union more than Mr. LINCOLN ; that Mr. WOOD is not truer to popular rights ; nor Governor SEYMOUR, whose "friends" are the riotous violators of the public peace and the mad assassins of the poor and defenseless, more faithful to the Constitution than the President of the United States. The conservative power and influence of pure and lofty personal character, in a time of great national peril, was never more signally illustrated than in the official career of ABRAHAM LINCOLN."
I am sure these sound familiar and there were many more vicious personal attacks on candidates of the time and against their families.
This election cycle as those of the past are dominated by journalists, comedians, and talk show hosts from which most public opinion is formed. For that reason I wish to start a movement to have three post Presidential debate debates. Each 30 minutes long with the following participants and based upon a specific national interest. I am aking all of our readers to send in questions they would like to see for these three debates so that we may select six for each post debate. I am also asking that we all begin a write in campaign to each of these shows requesting these debates. Lets see if given a chance to confront one another on these prime topics which ones would have the intestinal fortitude and confidence in themselves and their causes to accept.
1) Bill Maher vs Glenn Beck on Social and Domestic Issues
2) Stephen Colbert vs Rush Limbaugh on Economics
3) John Stewart vs Bill O'Reilly on Foriegn Affairs
Suggestions for these debates are welcome. Come on, you know you all want to see this.
T1Truth
It is easy and Free, Join Newsvine Now:
