A friend of mine recently selected Abraham Lincoln as the worst American president in that Top 5 category on Facebook.  That’s a selection that would be jarring to the majority of Americans.

As we near the first 100 days of the current president from Illinois (which 100 days The Onion is humorously documenting), the comparison of Obama to Lincoln, which has been made many times, might need to be met not only with a dose of reality about the consequences of current policy, but with a more sobering look at Lincoln himself.

Front Porch Republic has a well-balanced article on Lincoln that would be a good intro to the not-so-shiny perspective on Lincoln.  An excerpt:

The Northern victory, which Lincoln secured by resorting to total war against southern civilians, unleashed a devastating assault on a Jeffersonian version of agrarianism that connected happiness and human well being to real communities and real places. Liberty, as defined in terms of “improvement” and “mobility,” has resulted in a rootless cosmopolitanism that has produced millions of people who claim to “love humankind,” but who do not live in one place long enough to know, let alone “love,” their neighbor. Moreover, the national infrastructure built to connect people and unify the nation economically and culturally has come at the expense of the environment. The result of a “Whig” economy has produced an ever-expanding commercialism that tempts people with products to fulfill their every desire, all in the very American quest to “pursue happiness.” Such consumer capitalism makes it all the more difficult for Americans to practice virtues of self-restraint. (emphasis added)

On a related note, all this talk of secession lately brought about an interesting and accurate response from Ron Paul:

Why no one listens when he says stuff like this, I don’t understand.

Bob Barr managed to piss off Ron Paul.  And you do not piss off Ron Paul.  

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

The man knows what he’s talking about.

Glenn Beck keeps growing on me.

Remember that “comeback” I was talking about for this blog?  Here it comes, and politics will drive it.  Coming down the final stretch, I figure it’s time to start blogging politics again.  Lots of stories lately, and here are the brief summaries:

Obama’s Acceptance Speech:  I’m not voting for Obama, and I didn’t think this was his best speech.  But his shots at McCain were bang on.  I’m not sure about the complaints that Obama didn’t mention enough policy.  He did what every candidate does at this stage of the game: he gave a broad overview of the policies.  But there’s no time in an acceptance speech to deal with particulars, counterarguments, and rebuttals.  Of course the speech raised questions.  It was one speech.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that I think he’s less big-government and more personal-responsibility oriented than 90% of the Democrats I’ve heard, he’s still too big-government for me.

McCain’s VP Pick – Sarah Palin:  It’s a brilliant pick, and I’m mad about it.  I like Sarah Palin, and having read more about her today, I wish she was representing the next generation of Republicans, and not attaching herself to the Bush-McCain neocons.  I think, though, that I’ll be slightly less disappointed about a McCain win with the Palin pick.  Slightly.  There’s always the possibility that Palin is nothing more than a two-month political move, and that McCain will brush her quickly to the sidelines if elected.

Rally for the Republic:  I wish I could be there.  Despite the fact that I’m 99% sure I’ll be voting for Bob Barr, I can’t seem to get enthused about him like I was about Ron Paul.  Paul had an energy about him that Barr doesn’t have.  If you’re libertarian-minded and haven’t joined the Campaign for Liberty yet, do so now, so they can reach their 100,000 goal by September 2!

I’ve been fairly disconnected from all things Ron Paul lately, but the American Conservative Magazine reports some interesting news:

Apparently, Ron Paul’s plan to stick with the presidential race for the purpose of gathering support and changing GOP policy is working at the grassroots level.

I post this for no other reason than that it’s a case study in bad reporting, empty rhetoric, and overall douchebaggery (am I allowed to say that?).

It takes either deliberate ignorance or complete idiocy to get this much wrong in one small report on Ron Paul:

Having failed to gain any traction in his Presidential bid except among a lose cadre of fringe anti-war allegedly libertarian voters

The new definition of “no traction” is apparently record-breaking fundraising, second place in a few states, and the strongest showing of any libertarian-minded candidate in recent decades.

he has had to suspend his campaign two days after appearing at CPAC.

No he didn’t. That’s just false reporting.

You know, having spent the past year bashing Jews, Republicans, the military, and the United States, it’s great to see Ron Paul forced to flee the field.

Don’t think. I’ll think for you. Any argument over what American stance towards Jews is the best for Israel itself means you’re actually against Israel.

As to the other two groups: anyone who can’t find reasons to “bash” Republicans after the last 8 years is a moron. Active military members have donated more to Paul’s campaign than all the other Republican candidates combined.

I’m planning a major essay on the fallout from the Ron Paul campaign in which I’ll take a overarching look at all the issues involved (support, media coverage, the campaign tactics, newsletter debacle, future of libertarianism, etc.) and what it means for conservatism. I’ll try to make some sense in doing so.

This Sunday is Tea Party 07, the next mass donation day for Ron Paul. In light of this, I’ll be blogging Ron Paul all week (this will also give my Reformed friends a nice break from my bashing of our theology).  I’ve already started with a couple questions about Ron Paul and 9/11, and a list of Festivus grievances against evangelical Huckabee supporters.

The exciting thing about this upcoming Tea Party is that we’re already, as of this post, over $11.3 million for the fourth quarter, making us less than $700,000 away from the stated fourth quarter goal. My guess is, as Ron Paul has done nothing but gain momentum since the “Money Bomb,” Ron Paul will be breaking his own record of one-day internet money-raising, and we’re going to see a huge amount of money available to the Ron Paul campaign for the early primaries. As I’ve said before, I think this is even more significant than it already sounds – Paul does not keep the bloated campaign staff the other candidates hire, which means more money for ads. (By the look of some of the ads, he’s not spending as much on them as the other candidates, either, and I guess we’ll see whether or not polished ads make a difference in less than a month).

Consider supporting Ron Paul on December 16, Tea Party ‘07. If this day is as successful as we hope, Ron Paul will get a new round of media attention (along with that crazy blimp!) just weeks before Iowa.