Smearing Presidential Candidates' Wives Historically Normal

Clockwise from top left: Heidi Cruz, Melania Trump, Mary Todd Lincoln and Dolley Madison.

Photo: Clockwise from top left: Getty Images; AP; Getty Images; Getty Images

[From article]
A super PAC supporting Ted Cruz kicked things off by tweeting an old photo of Donald Trump’s wife, during her modeling days, lying naked on a fur rug. Trump threatened to “spill the beans” on Cruz’s wife, Heidi, and retweeted an image mocking her appearance.
[. . .]
While a bit shocking, it isn’t really a new low for presidential races. Politics has always been a dirty business for male candidates’ wives, going all the way back to the country’s early days.
[. . .]
“It was terrible what these [earlier politicians] were doing to each other,” says Cormac O’Brien, author of “Secret Lives of the First Ladies.” “There was a tradition in politics for a long time of spreading half-truths and lies. People would be shocked by how bad it was.”
According to National First Ladies’ Library historian Carl Anthony, the first smear campaign aimed at a first lady came way back in 1808.
Federalist candidate Charles C. Pinckney “circulated the tale that the Democratic-Republican candidate James Madison had made wife Dolley Madison sexually available to the widowed incumbent President Thomas Jefferson for his endorsement, turning her into, well, a political whore,” Anthony wrote on his Web site.
[. . .]
Mary Todd Lincoln became a particularly polarizing figure due to her Southern roots. She was from slave-holding Kentucky, and her family fought for the Confederacy, leading those above the Mason-Dixon to question her loyalty and those below to call her a traitor.
[. . .]
Frances Cleveland, who married incumbent president Grover Cleveland in 1886, was the victim of rumors she was cheating on her husband after she appeared at the theater one night with a male escort. There were also whispers Grover beat her.
[. . .]
in 1896, opponents of William McKinley spread tales that there was something mentally off with his wife, Ida, and that she was insane and confined to an institution. In truth, she had epilepsy.
[. . .]
Considering our nation’s long, dirty political history, it’s no surprise that Cruz’s supporters and Trump consider wives fair game.
Of course, should Hillary Clinton win the election, First Hubby Bill is likely to get it worse than any first lady ever did.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/the-ugly-history-of-smearing-presidential-candidates-wives/

Smearing presidential candidates’ wives is totally normal
By Reed Tucker
New York Post
March 27, 2016 | 5:12am

Right Of Secession of States Opposed By Civil War President Abraham Lincoln

[From article]
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
[. . .]
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
[. . .]
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams071515.php3

Historical Ignorance


By Walter Williams
Published July 15, 2015

Lincoln's Secretary Of War, Edwin Stanton, Book Review

Book Review
Lincoln’s Autocrat: The Life of Edwin Stanton
by William Marvel
University of North Carolina Press
611 pp., $35

[From review]
Stanton rises from obscurity, works his way through law school, marries, fathers two children, and becomes active in local politics. He truly mourns his young wife when she dies in childbirth; almost 16 years go by before he remarries, this time to a 26-year-old heiress who provides emotional and financial support on his ultimate ascent to power. With a combination of infighting, intelligence, and toadying to the prominent, Stanton becomes the lead attorney in a number of high-profile cases. Among these is an early use of the “insanity defense” to secure a not-guilty verdict for Daniel Sickles (later General Sickles) who had killed his wife’s lover. In another trial, Stanton represents the inventor of the McCormick reaper in a patent suit. He wins handily, impressing an ambitious attorney who has watched the adroit legal tactics from his seat in the courtroom. That lawyer happened to be on his own climb from obscurity to ever-higher offices.
[. . .]
When Honest Abe became the sixteenth president, he decided to talk to Stanton about joining his cabinet. He didn’t have far to look. The previous president, James Buchanan, had already appointed Stanton as his attorney general. By then Stanton had settled in Washington, and shortly after the cannons fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln chose him to be his secretary of war. The results were a mixture of competence and repression. Stanton brought discipline and order to his department, cleaned out the hacks and scapegraces, and saw to it that federal troops were decently clothed and fed.
But he was also in favor of the suspension of habeas corpus and backed his boss in other extra-democratic moves.
[. . .]

President Ulysses S. Grant, who couldn’t abide the man, nevertheless nominated him for the Supreme Court. The Senate gave its approval by a vote of 46 to 11. But the new judge never had a chance to serve. Four days after he was confirmed, Edwin Stanton died of a coronary thrombosis, leaving his career and contradictions to the historians.

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/bc0623sk.html

STEFAN KANFER
A Semblance of Order
Some rare truths about a controversial Civil War figure
June 23, 2015

Abraham Lincoln and Politicians Overrode Supreme Court On Slavery

From article]
America is at a constitutional crossroads. The federal courts are threatening radically to revise the family law of all fifty states. There is no Constitutional justification for them to do so. If we don't stop them the American experiment will be at an end. We will lapse back into government by an insular aristocracy, exactly what we waged the Revolutionary War to escape.
Most observers now expect the Supreme Court to rule this year that the Constitution forbids states to define marriage as including only relationships between members of opposite sexes.
[. . .]
No homosexual partners can ever fulfill the mission of a marriage. Members of the same sex can't produce children together. They can, as leftists never tire of pointing out, adopt. Sometimes, in the absence of a better alternative, adoption by same-sex partners may be in the best interests of a particular child. But human beings crave close contact with both a mother and a father. No two men can ever give a child a mother. No two women can ever give a child a father. Some homosexual partners raise children, but they never do so in the circumstances society, for very good reason, prefers.
The argument that the law should treat heterosexual and homosexual relationships as equal is absurd.
[. . .]
Reading the Constitution to require that the law be blind to the distinction between something essential and something extraneous is inane.
Unfortunately, that inanity has gotten popular with our legal elite. A cadre of deranged jurists has decided that mothers don't matter, fathers don't matter, men and women are interchangeable and there is nothing special about marriage that states are entitled to recognize.
[. . .]
In fact, the GOP was founded to nullify a Supreme Court decision closely analogous to Windsor. The 1860 presidential campaign was principally about whether the federal government would continue following that decision. Abraham Lincoln's victory ensured that it wouldn't.
The case was Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which Chief Justice Taney proclaimed that the United States had no power to restrict slavery in federal territories. This was almost as absurd as Justice Kennedy's pronouncement in Windsor that the federal government lacks the power to define the terms in its own statutes.
[. . .]
Both Dred Scott and Windsor were foolish attempts to resolve contentious political issues by arbitrary judicial decree. When judges invade politics in that fashion it is up to the politicians to defend their turf. That's what happened with Dred Scott and slavery.
[. . .]
Republicans governed as they had promised. They defied the Supreme Court and banned slavery outright in all federal territories as the prelude to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment.
[. . .]
When the Court oversteps its bounds it is up to elected officials to smack it down and up to the people to demand that they do so.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/same_sex_marriage_and_emdredd_scottem.html

February 25, 2015
Same Sex Marriage and Dred Scott
By J. Peter Mulhern

Abraham Lincoln Warned About Lawlessness

[From article]
a thought-provoking anthology entitled What so Proudly We Hail: The American Soul in Story, Speech, and Song. It is a particularly timely item.
[. . .]
Obama incites people to lose their temper.
[. . .]
It certainly does not take much imagination to understand the seething anger that people experience because of this deliberate usurpation of the law by Obama. Righteous resentment is building.
[. . .]
Eric Holder is the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives; yet he still is in charge. He has not changed his extreme stance since his university days. As a student at Columbia, Holder supported radical groups and he continues to exhibit blatant racism in his actions. Holder a, "race baiter," is really a provocateur who is looking for an excuse to ratchet up punishments against those good men and women Lincoln spoke about.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/07/obama_and_a_warning_from_abraham_lincoln.html

July 4, 2014
Obama and a Warning from Abraham Lincoln
By Eileen F. Toplansky

Lincoln Not Opposed to Secession By Southern States

[From article]
Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2002/03/27/the_real_lincoln

The Real Lincoln
Walter E. Williams

Mar 27, 2002
TownHall.com

How Obama Differs From Lincoln, Eisenhower

http://freebeacon.com/admin-drafted-memo-to-shield-obama-if-obl-raid-failed/

ADMIN DRAFTED MEMO TO SHIELD OBAMA IF OBL RAID FAILED
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 7, 2012 12:45 pm

Obama Is No Lincoln

Obama says he sees himself as Lincoln. But he would never allow Lincoln into government today. Obama worships credentials and Lincoln had none. What Lincon had Obama lacks--common sense and integrity.

[From article]
"Lincoln had perhaps a year of formal schooling."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lincoln_liberty_uyuNt3W4xll7r6RIFygoeL

Lincoln & liberty
His vision of social mobility
New York Post
Last Updated: 4:53 AM, February 21, 2011
Posted: 10:12 PM, February 20, 2011

Obama Clueless on Governing

"Public sentiment is everything," Abraham Lincoln said. "With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/nothing_broken_dSrR043NIPuOkoUSFVZspI

Nothing's broken

The system's not the problem

New York Post

Last Updated: 7:01 AM, February 20, 2010

Posted: 12:39 AM, February 19, 2010

The ancient Israeli high court made it a practice, Justice Antonin Scalia notes, to invalidate death penalties if they were pronounced unanimously -- on the assumption that something must be wrong. The same rule of thumb should apply to the unanimous pontifications of the political class, which now insists as one that "the system is broken."<p> </p><br /> This line had been gaining traction even prior to the retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who said as he quit that "Congress is not operating as it should."<p> </p><br /> Everyone agrees -- a surefire sign that something is amiss.<p> </p><br /> Consider the recent record. In the fall of 2008, the US financial system stood on the verge of collapse. Then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson went to Congress with a $700 billion bailout package that was politically unpopular, ideologically uncongenial to both sides -- and sadly necessary.<p> </p><br /> It passed on strong bipartisan votes. Although the package was poorly conceived and quickly abused by the executive branch, it served its purpose. When President Barack Obama says he saved us from another Great Depression, what he means is that Congress passed a rescue months before he took office. If Congress did nothing else for the next four years, this would be a redeeming accomplishment.<p> </p><br /> But it did much more, for better or (almost certainly) worse. Within four weeks of Obama taking office, it passed a sprawling $787 billion stimulus bill. Next came a massive appropriations bill hiking spending by 8 percent. It expanded SCHIP subsidies for child health care another $35 billion.<p> </p><br /> "If we stopped today," Obama bragged in October, "this legislative session would have been one of the most productive in a generation." Just a few months ago, liberal pundits like Jacob Weisberg ("Obama's Brilliant First Year") and Robert Shrum ("For Obama, Success Is at Hand") were marveling at governance in the Age of Obama.<p> </p><br /> All these assessments were made against the backdrop of health-care reform's presumed inevitability. Once it faltered, James Madison's handiwork supposedly collapsed in a pitiful heap.<p> </p><br /> Of course, the Madisonian system is explicitly meant to frustrate an inflamed legislative majority bent on passing sweeping social legislation for which there's limited popular support. It's not that nothing can get done in Washington; it's that Obama wouldn't settle for what could get done. He turned his back on the best template for liberal action on health care through the years: salami-slice steps toward ever more government.<p> </p><br /> We've heard how it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. But prior to Scott Brown, Obama<p> </p><br />had60 votes. He couldn't forge a consensus within his own party because he never convinced his base to settle for anything less than the outer edge of the possible.<p> </p><br /> Here the example of Evan Bayh is telling. A former leader of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, he cravenly submitted to the left. The former hawk opposed the Iraq surge, and the reputed fiscal conservative took party-line votes in favor of the stimulus and ObamaCare. If he thought he'd be rewarded with national office, he was bitterly disappointed; if he thought his party's center would survive if no one besides Joe Lieberman fought for it, he was sorely mistaken.<p> </p><br /> Obama wouldn't tame the impatient left because he's part of it. After he won in 1964, Lyndon Johnson told his aides he'd won by 16 million votes and would lose a million votes' worth of support every month, so he had to act fast.<p> </p><br /> Obama made the same calculation, but on behalf of an agenda that wasn't popular. If people had been persuaded of its merits, Obama could have made Republicans pay the price for obstruction. "Public sentiment is everything," Abraham Lincoln said. "With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed."<p> </p><br /> If Obama tries to govern from the center, he'll find the system magically restored to health. Otherwise, it will look more miserably broken by the day.<p> </p><br /> comments.lowry@ nationalreview.com<p> </p><br />

Rich Lowry

Obama Missed That Class

"As much as Barack Obama professes his admiration for our 16th POTUS, Abraham Lincoln, B.O. still seems determined to disprove one of Honest Abe's most famous bromides:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
(Abraham Lincoln )" 


January 30, 2010

Americans finally starting to see through the president's prevarications

Ralph Alter
American Thinker

Obama and Lincoln


This is Abraham Lincoln's quote:

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into
freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving. The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the
Government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get
the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take
care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is surely
the end of any nation's future."

Abraham Lincoln

And Obama thinks he's like Lincoln ... Incredible.

…And wasn't it Margaret Thatcher that once said “The trouble with
socialism is that you eventually run out of somebody else's money.” (?)

Obama's Consumer Tech Experts

Obama's Consumer Tech Experts

Technology here is only consumer communications. High tech military weapons to discredit and to control critics is not discussed. Communication technology can give the appearance of access while shutting out ordinary citizens. Citizens can contribute public service without asking the White House, which like celebrities will use it for photo opportunities. Citizen input regarding quality of schools will NOT happen until teachers unions no longer exist. Unreliable Wikipedia entries are the standard for information? Ahem! Tech savvy wealthy professionals are politically naive to believe Honest Barack is not like the rest of the politicians. Honest Abe Lincoln was an ordinary man with acute political skills. Obama is a great speaker and a Harvard elitist. How much longer will his speaking ability hide his lack of decision-making ability and his lack of substance? What will Obama reveal about high tech military weapons used for surveillance, harassment, to discredit, to censor and to control citizen critics? During the campaign he excluded Fox News from his plane.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-06/how-obamas-new-tech-tsar-can-save-america/

How Obama's New Tech Tsar Can Save America
by Nicholas Ciarelli
Daily Beast

Cambridge Schools Fail, Politicians Apologize

Cambridge Schools Fail, Politicians Apologize

Does the poor performances of the Cambridge schools failing to teach Cambridge youth have anything to do with the overwhelming support for Barack Obama? Few Cambridge citizens have a well developed reasoning ability. They are vigorously diligent in their desire to conform. They are as easily fooled as the investors in Sub-prime mortgages were. Are we seeing life imitating art as in the film 'Face in the Crowd?' With well paid apologists (City Councilors and School Committee members) for the failure of the schools' performances supporting Obama, do we have in Cambridge the fooled leading the foolish? As Sweet Old Honest Abe Lincoln said, 'You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time.' Does the dumbing down of American public school students make it harder or easier to fool people?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x270972813/Guest-commentary-When-the-schools-fail-us-all

Guest commentary: When the schools fail us all
By Peter Schweich
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Oct 21, 2008, 11:12 AM EDT

Keep the Electoral College

Keep the Electoral College

[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle online July 21, 2008.]

One omitted argument for keeping the current electoral college system
is the way that many people vote. (Will Brownsberger, "No to National
Popular Vote bill,"
Cambridge Chronicle, Jul 14, 2008) Some vote for the party. Others for
the media image, e.g. "He's so handsome!" Some vote for the name.
Still others are clueless about the issues or the history of the candidates.
Many people show no skepticism about what politicians say even during
campaigns. Josef Goebbels revealed it is possible to repeat a falsehood
often enough and have it believed as truth. Abraham Lincoln allegedly
said "You can fool all of the people some of the time." In this case it is only
necessary to fool the voters. This alone is reason enough to maintain
the electoral college as a check against misguided voters. Just look
around you and see who are now elected over and over again and again.
It may explain why the voters have only a 9 percent approval rating
for the US Congress, about 5 points below the President's rating.

Brownsberger essay at

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x223008557/Brownsberger-No-to-National-Popular-Vote-bill


Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM