Does the article Barack Obama Plays the Teddy Roosevelt Card a Little Late prove that I was wrong in my assessment of Ideal President Obama Replacement?

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Teddy Roosevelt article.

When in doubt, wheel on Teddy Roosevelt. It’s article one in every Democratic president’s playbook. Roosevelt was president from 1901 to 1909. He was manly; he ranched in North Dakota and explored the Amazon. He was a rabid imperialist, charging up San Juan Hill and sending the Great White Fleet round the world. And he loved the wilderness — so long as it was suitably cleansed of Indians. “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians,” he wrote in “The Winning of the West,” “but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”
.
.
.
Obama and his campaign advisers are obviously betting that there won’t be any excessive snickering at the sight of a president who is blithely denying that, during the worst economic crisis in 70 years, his economic team — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Chief Economic Adviser Lawrence Summers — wasn’t determined to “return to the same practices that got us into this mess” and impede any serious economic reform of the institutions and practices that prompted the great crash of 2008.

You probably know what that last paragraph is trying to say. I have counted the number of negatives in that paragraph and I think the number comes out right to express what they wanted to express.

After reading what I wrote, I counted them again – snickering at – denying – wasn’t determined. Yep, I think that is right. See what you get when you count them.

I received some talking point to help rebut the phony ad against Elizabeth Warren.

I have been involved in a discussion over whether or not Abraham Lincoln had ideas that could be classified as socialist.  The other side of the discussion has denied that Abraham Lincoln ever said some of the quotes that I attributed to him.

I decided to see what the web had to say about  Abraham Lincoln  – First Annual Message December 3, 1861.  I leave it up to you to figure out if the American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara would post false information.

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class–neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families–wives, sons, and daughters–work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

I found this web ad hidden away on Elizabeth Warren’s web site:

Help make this ad go viral. The 1% have the money, but the 99% have the people.