The Left’s Lincoln

Ben Shapiro is a Senior Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. He is the author of the new book "The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration" (Threshold Editions).


Steven Spielberg announced a couple of years ago that he wanted to make a movie based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. And he quickly signed up the world’s finest actor, Daniel Day Lewis, to inhabit the role of Lincoln.

Then he made a mistake. He hired Munich screenwriter and radical gay leftist Tony Kushner to write the script.

It was all downhill from there.

This week, Spielberg spoke out about his movie. And, as it turns out, we’re going to get a view of American history that looks distinctly Democratic. When asked about the fact that Lincoln was a Republican – the first Republican president, in fact – Spielberg answered, “I just said, please don’t release this until the election is over. I didn’t want it to be this political football going back and forth. Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”

Well, actually, it’s not a whole other story. Because it’s not even close to a true story. The Republican and Democratic Parties never “traded political places.” Racism is still the preserve of the Democratic Party, which utilizes skin color as a political tool; color-blindness is still the preserve of the Republican Party. There is a reason that Senator Robert Byrd (WV), a one-time member of the KKK was considered the Democratic conscience of the Senate until his death in 2010. There’s a reason segregationists like George Wallace were Democrats. The Democratic Party never flip-flopped with the Republican Party. It just hid its racism beneath a veneer of reverse racism.

But this is how Hollywood – and Spielberg in particular — does history.

A film like Saving Private Ryan puts an antiwar gloss on the most pro-human rights war in the history of humanity. When the character Sgt. Horvath explains, “Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess,” that’s a pathetic statement given that this conflict was about defeating the worst threat to humanity and humane values ever unleashed.

A films like Amistad, which revolves around a slave revolt aboard a Spanish ship and the subsequent trial in the United States — portray white abolitionists as selfish folks out for themselves. As Gary Rosen pointed out in Commentary, “Lewis Tappan was the prime defender of the Africans from start to finish,” but he’s played as a “closet racist”; Roger Baldwin had “abolitionist sympathies,” but is portrayed as a money grubbing lawyer. The point, says Rosen: “the denigration of Christianity, especially of the white, Protestant variety.

In The Color Purple, Spielberg portrays Africa as a grand sort of multicultural place, while the United States is steeped in darkness. In Munich, the real bad guys are terrorist hunters rather than terrorists – and Israel is so scarred by terrorist hunting that Israelis must move to the United States and abandon their country for absolution.

In the Spielberg world, America is the target; only “progressive” forces, reflecting the pacifist, multicultural tendencies of the filmmaker, can cure America of its ills. In order to achieve this rewriting of American history, Spielberg, ironically enough, ignores the gory, ugly, beautiful tapestry of the history of the United States page by page – a true story that would bring to light unique and fascinating elements of human nature.

In other words, Spielberg’s history is too one dimensional as well as too leftist. It is the story of “progress” toward today’s Democratic Party. John Quincy Adams from Amistad would be a Clinton voter; Lincoln would be a fan of Obama; by the end of Munich the protagonist would want to sign up for a tour with the Gaza Flotilla.

It is sad that there are so many great American stories worth telling – including Lincoln’s – and that they are perverted by those on the left more interested in a political agenda than in simply letting the truth speak for itself.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "It is sad that there are so many great American stories worth telling – including Lincoln’s – and that they are perverted by those on the left more interested in a political agenda than in simply letting the truth speak for itself."

    The Communists did infiltrate Hollywood culturally, and this influence never waned since.

  • HermitLion

    Just like the Soviets before them, the American leftists steal leaders and public figures, in order to warp them in their twisted image.

  • tagalog

    There's one sure way to register our disapproval of Spielberg's artistic vision: don't go to his movies.

    Republicans and Democrats haven't changed places at all: Republicans still want America to live according to its values and Democrats still want to sway with the prevailing winds. That's always been the case. Just look at the Republican and the Democrat election platforms for 1864.

    I like American history and I like studying the Civil War period and the evolution of the debate over slavery, but I don't have to see Spielberg's movie to have a good understanding of that time.

    When it comes to Saving Private Ryan, the first half-hour is a stunning piece of work; the rest of the movie is a fairly stock World War II movie, right down to the all-American Hollywood stereotypes in the squad.

    • Questions

      I found nothing stereotyped about "Saving Private Ryan" or last year's "War Horse." Both were stunning achievements. While I occasionally have doubts about Spielberg's politics, his movies always show a master filmmaker in full command of his craft.

    • meyou

      I think the last Stevie movie I saw was "The Three Little Pigs". It was pretty good, except the plot was so deep and twisted it was kinda hard to follow.

      • Blondie's Nemesis

        I think I saw that movie too! The ending with the T-Rex was very sad.. But it did give new meaning to the term "Pig Out". :-(

        • Blondie's Nemesis

          Of course, the wolf didn't fare all that well with the T-Rex either. Hence the term "To Wolf Down".

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Shapiro can't even make factual sense out of Madonna's career. Certainly, the farther back in history he reaches, the more skewed and imaginary his views become. I would not trust him to expound upon the development of the Democrat and Republican Parties since Lincoln. I would not trust him to be a be able to interpret a Spielberg movie better than Spielberg can make a Spielberg movie. Mr. Shapiro's sentence where he tries to swerve crazily from Reconstruction Era racism to Affirmative Action is one of those farty-shofar sounds signalling that something really dumb is about to happen, something less menacing than an Ewok attack. He should probably be interpreting Lucas.

    • Advocatus

      Ah, right on cue, our favorite airhead shows up in the comments section. Good thing, though, Flippo, is that you're such a great child prodigy.

      "Mr. Shapiro's sentence where he tries to swerve crazily from Reconstruction Era racism to Affirmative Action is one of those farty-shofar sounds signalling that something really dumb is about to happen, something less menacing than an Ewok attack. He should probably be interpreting Lucas."

      Thataboy. Your mommy will be proud of you. Now, don't forget to brush your teeth before bed.

    • Zionista

      the loser shmomuslim weighs in with his nonsense.

    • Omar

      You make no sense at all, Schlomotion. Why do you keep writing annoying posts?

      • Ghostwriter

        Because he's an imbecile and has nothing better to do with his time.

    • Tanstaafl jw

      I wonder if Flipside laughs like Biden while he writes?

  • https://www.facebook.com/ark.wwoodfo William Woodford

    If Lincoln’s party was not the progressive party of its day, why is it that Marxists fleeing the failed 1948 European revolutions joined it? Mr. Shapiro also needs to address the fact that both Daniel J. Flynn’s “A Conservative History of the American Left” and Michael Kazin’s “American Dreamers” say that the Abolitionists were leftists, easily explaining why the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison denounced and burned the Constitution before a cheering crowd in Framingham, Mass. on July 4, 1854.

    • tagalog

      Neither President Lincoln nor the Republican Party in general was much of a fan of the abolitionists; Lincoln saw abolitionists as making the fight to abolish slavery unnecessarily difficult. In his less charitable moments, he blamed abolitionists for precipitating the Civil War.

      Also, given the Republican attitude toward preserving and saving the Union, I doubt that burning the Constitution is something they would have approved of. Additionally, progressives believe in the perfection of the human race; neither our Founding Fathers nor the Republican Party, nor Abraham Lincoln believed anything like that.

      • Omar

        The Republican Party was founded on the principles of abolitionism. Obviously, when Lincoln had a coalition of free and slave states (there were about 4 or 5 slave states among the Union forces) during the Civil War, compromises and tacks are going to be necessary in order to win the war. Without them, the Union would have lost and slavery would have persisted beyond the Civil War. Check out this link: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?…

        • tagalog

          No it wasn't; it was an outgrowth of the Free Soil movement, whose purpose was to keep slavery from expanding into the territories and hence into the new states. Its purpose was not abolition of slavery, but to restrict slavery from spreading, with an eye toward slavery
          -hopefully- withering away. Just read Lincoln's speeches in which he clearly stated repeatedly that he as President would not push Congress on abolishing slavery if not pushing on that issue would keep the Union intact. He expressly said that he would agree to the slaveholding states keeping the institution of slavery if it would mean that the United States would not be threatened by secession. Alan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union, is quite good on explaining that point.

          • Omar

            Check out James McPherson's book, Abraham Lincoln and the Second Revolution, which said that when Licoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he also freed himself from having to compromise with his opponents. Quit repeating the left-wing myth that only radical left-wingers supported people's rights. The reality is that classical liberals supported people's rights. Radical left-wingers only like to take credit for everything, even if they didn't do anything.

          • tagalog

            I think Lincoln probably felt free from compromising with his opponents when he sent the Army of the Potomac into Virginia, well before the Emancipation Proclamation.

            The name of the book is "Abraham Lincoln and the Second AMERICAN Revolution." You might find it interesting to learn that the "The Second American Revolution" is one of the names Southerners had for the War Between the States, rather than calling it the Civil War. They also called it The War of Northern Aggression.

          • Fritz

            From what I have seen, read, and heard from historians and historical documentaries, even if the South had succeeded at independence slavery would not have survived much longer then a few years thanks to the industrial revolution. In effect the Confederacy did so in a defacto manner late in the war, they started accepting slaves as recruits in the Confederate in exchange for their emancipation at the end of the war.

    • PAthena

      Woodford's dates are wrong. There were no Marxists in 1848 (Woodford makes the mistake of typing 1948) , except for Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Communist Manifesto having only been written in 1847-48. There was no Republican Party in the United States until 1854, when it was founded as an anti-slavery party. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln.

  • clarespark

    There have been many attempts to represent Lincoln as a moderate whose assassination prevented a national healing. I wrote about that fantasy here, noting that FDR-affiliated social psychologists tried to make Lincoln a New Dealer and impose national unity. See http://clarespark.com/2011/09/29/the-abraham-linc…. "The Abraham Lincoln Conundrum." This is a very shocking set of revelations taken from the Harvard University Archives, but hidden by the complicity of Democrat and Leftist scholars and media types, such as Spielberg.

  • bkopicz

    Another list of examples of the left’s twisting and inversion of history to feed the masses. The left has never learnt from history only made it up

  • guest

    Spielberg transforming himself into an intellectual film maker ranks up there with closeting Rock Hudson in the list of Hollywood lies. Not too long ago he just did high quality blockbusters people wanted to see like Jaws, Gremlins and Indiana Jones.

    I thought he turned it around with Super 8 and Real Steel, but this recently he looks like he's just mailing it in and slapping an art label on weak boring movies. Ugh. Work with what you got.

    • Questions

      "War Horse" and "The Adventures of Tin Tin? Nothing weak or boring about them. BTW, Spielberg produced "Super 8" — J.J. Abrams directed it.

  • Western Spirit

    My great, I don't know how many greats, grandfather changed parties to vote for Lincoln. I bet he didn't know Lincoln was a secret Democrat and he didn't have to bother.

    These lies remind me of the Soviet Union claiming they had invented everything. I guess totalitarian mindsets think alike and claim the best as their own to bolster their self image. Spielberg should think that one over.

    • Asher

      My great great grandfather was an officer in the Union army during the civil war, he left Virginia and signed up to fight for Lincoln, the rail splitter, one of Americas most favorite Presidents, and to fight against slavery. It was one of the bloodiest most ferocious battles in history, but Lincoln inspired men and bravery…he was a strong leader and President, and definitely was not liberal or liberal minded. It was a long war which did try the patience of men, but they stood strong for a man they believed in… Makes us sick that these Leftists continually lie to accomplish their goals…

  • Tychicus

    Typical Leftist Revisionist History Movie.
    Nice to see others listed here as well.
    The whole twisting of history to rewrite it for the left reminds me of Redford's movie about Mary Surratt "Conspirators". Lies and more lies, calling evil good and good evil.
    The urge to make movies, seemingly altruistic personal ambition, is nothing more than a front for the rewriting and popularizing of false history. You control a peoples history, you control the people.
    The left hides their propaganda as entertainment.
    MUNICH was particularly sick in portraying the terrorists as somehow uber humane martyrs for a cause.
    Sorry, we don't buy it. We are not all alike, all causes are not the same and all battles and struggles do NOT amount or end in the same thing.
    There is EVIL and there is GOOD.
    Courage and Godspeed.

  • Tanner

    Hollywood is a political propaganda machine for Leftist causes. I remember when I didn't have to worry about political agendas being put into any kind of fictional movie when I was a kid. Today, I can't enjoy a new movie that just came out and not have to worry about obvious political agendas being said. It's annoying and it's boring. Now in this generation, I have to stay on my toes and look out for anything suspicious in movies. Not to be paranoid, but just to be careful of what I hear. It should be noted, however, that it all depends on what you consider to be a political agenda and propaganda. For example, just by me saying this, the Left if it wanted to could easily say the same thing about movies like Last Ounce of Courage and Soul Surfer as being propaganda, of course from a anti-conservative perspective/bias. Since that movie doesn't represent the beliefs of the Left, therefore, for them it's propaganda. On the other hand, when it comes to movies like Avatar, Race To Witch Mountain, and Super 8, to the Right it's propaganda because the beliefs from these movies don't represent their values. In other words, it all depends on what you consider to be "true" and "false." Pretty much, it goes back to the 21st century saying, "Another man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." For the Left, leftist thought is good and conservative thought should be laughed that. For the Right, conservative thought is good and leftist thought should be bashed at.

    • PAthena

      Tanner says, "Pretty much, it goes back to the 21st century saying, '"Another man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."' This saying is false, a justification of terrorism. Terrorism was invented by Maximillian Robespiere, who gave a speech during the Reign of Terror in 1794 justifying the use of terror. The only sense in which a terrorist is a "freedom fighter" is that he is fighting for freedom for himself and those he supports, and not for anyone else. His motto is "Freedom for me, but not for thee."

  • Questions

    Ben Shapiro, as always, get his history as wrong as his cinema. The problem with today's Democrats is not that they're anti-black ("racist"). It's that they're anti-white. Everything the Democrats do is calculated in some way to weaken white interests, here and abroad. We conservatives unwittingly ratify the Left when we try to celebrate blacks and then yap about "racism," so long as liberals are "guilty" of it.

    Blacks aren't slaves on some imaginary liberal plantation. They OWN the plantation. They demand a free lunch and vote Democrat because they know who serves the largest portion. How about it if Republicans were to fight for the voting bloc that dares not speak its name — the white vote.

    • Ghostwriter

      And you're the obnoxious bigot who screams his name from the rooftop,Questions. Your views are no different from the KKK's.

    • Omar

      Questions, keep your racism, bigotry and intolerance to yourself. It is people like you that are trying to create racial intolerance in this country. You are no better than lunatics like Schlomotion.

  • Baro

    Let's be honest, once voting power was given to the ex-slave class, the Republic was lost, it was only a matter of time. These people have contributed, with very few exceptions, only chaos and destruction, yet we are forced to mollycoddle them.
    What should be done?
    In my opinion, most blacks (especially all who voted for Obama) should be stripped of their American citizenship and deported back to Africa. They just do not have the ability, including mental acumen, to be participating in this democracy.
    It's time for some honesty.

    • trickyblain

      And there we have it.

    • Ghostwriter

      Nice going,Baro. You give fools like trickyblain more ammunition to attack conservatives as racists. Why don't you and your fellow Klan member,Questions get a life instead of bothering us?

      • EJL

        Lincoln wasn't a racist, but surely you are. I find this reaction to be hate-filled and ignorant.

    • Omar

      Baro, you are being extremely racist and ignorant. America believes in a color-blind society, not your racist vision. Since you are so intolerant, why don't you comment on David Duke's website instead? Obviously, both of you behave completely backwards.

    • Lillith

      C'mon people, Baro is an obvious Lefty plant, trying to show you up as racists. Nice try Baro, now bu@@er off ratbag!

  • sugar

    Spielberg neither knows or cares about factual history. He creates movies to entertain people,not educate .
    Of course all his productions are liberal schlock.He is a extremely liberal Jew that is undoubtedly waiting for Israel to be annihilated so he can claim victimhood,produce 5 movies about it and get as rich as Soros.

    The Kansas–Nebraska Act, alienated Northerners and Southerners alike. With the rise of the Republican Party, which appealled to both Northeast and Western states, the industrializing North and agrarian Midwest became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism.
    The Kansas–Nebraska Act, opened new lands for settlement, and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing settlers to determine through Popular Sovereignty whether they would allow slavery within each territory. The act was designed by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois.

    Presidential candidates of 1860
    Abraham Lincoln – Republican
    John C. Breckinridge – Southern Democratic
    John Bell – Constitutional Union/Whig
    Stephen A. Douglas – Northern Democratic

  • sugar

    In 1860, the slavery issues broke the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions, and a new Constitutional Union Party appeared. The Republican Party, dominant in the North, secured enough electoral votes to put Abraham Lincoln in the White House without support from the South.

    Douglas rallied his supporters to the Union military to enlist, but he died a few weeks later.

    Bell retired to his family business, and supported his state's secession.
    Breckinridge served as a Confederate general.

    The parties haver never "switched." The KKK,segregationist were all Democrats.The 3 incarnations of the democratic party have shifted,disolved,reformed and bastardized history.

    The Republican party still follows the Constitution as it did when it formed in 1854.

    Both sides experienced racism but the Democratic party was built on it and bent on preserving slavery.They suffered terrible economic loss and eventually developed white guilt.

    • EJL

      Brilliant, informed assessment. Thanks.

  • JLok

    Here's an idea: Stop watching movies.

    People survived without them for thousands of years. You don't need them either.

    Focus on reality. Focus on the fight. Stop trying to entertain yourself into oblivion.

  • Asher

    Once again attempts by the left to cloud factual history. Lincolns principles and fairness were renowned especially on slavery, he was a true Conservative! The left has an agenda to keep…it is to lie, distort, and brainwash people. Vote the bible and take a last stand for honor, morality, freedom, and truth! Ecclesiastes 10 As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. The Heart of the wise inclines to the Right, but the Heart of a Fool declines to the left. Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. If a ruler's anger rises against you, Do not leave your Post; calmness can lay great errors to rest.

  • jemaasjr

    I suspect that it is true that Spielberg will do what he can to use Lincoln to promote a liberal agenda, and for the sake of argument I will accept that as true.

    But there is a second truth here. The 'conservative' Lincoln in our traditional presentation is also fake. Lincoln wanted to conserve the union, was consistent in that regard, and for that I give him credit. But he also wanted to strengthen the federal government. And as he was the one in charge of government, it was self empowerment.

    Lincoln suspended civil liberties prior to a demonstrated need, and in a variety of ways he extend the reach of government in ways that were not necessary to the war effort. He eventually got around to controlling the press, and this coincided with the period in which he was seeking reelection. So, was he doing it to preserve the union or to preserve himself as president? The two were the same.

    He did have a knack for saying clever things, but the list of things he is alleged to have said got extended. He is not the author or "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people… ."

    Also, his folksy demeanor was fake. In public he was this rural 'aw shucks' sort of guy, in private he was a typical political operative.

    What bugs me the most is that they throw Lincoln in with Washington. Washington was a genuine hero, Lincoln at best a marginal one.

    • Amused

      Better study your history , the nation was at war with itself spies on both sides behind each others lines , Habeus Corpus being suspendee was necessarry . OR are you gonna try and say the confederacy observed Habeus Corpus ??? So now you trash Lincoln ? And you are gonna PRESUME to know what Lincoln was thinking ? Gee maybe you woulda been on the side of the assassin huh ? Grow up man .

      • EJL

        I agree with Amused.

  • Amused

    Are you serious Shapiro ?? racism the preserve of the Democrats and WHAT ? "color blindness the preserve of the Republicans " LOLOLOL…….just look at 97%of the posts on this blog . The bloody republican platform is based on "getting the blackman out of the Whitehouse " and you guys took your lead from Blimpy Limbaugh , the very day after the election ….."I wanna see him fail " and that's what's stuck in your craw ……so now another phony strawman , are movies made inHollywood the paragon of your political and social beliefs ? Actors ? Movie sets ?

    So now you blow the dogwhistle and the sycophants -come-a -runnin ' , lifting their legs on Lincoln , just the way they did on Caesar Chavez .

    • EJL

      The Dems are not color blind. They are anti-white. They are gripped by reverse racism at this point in time. The true soldiers of liberty have to be sensitive to issues of race, but must firstly be persons of principle. There are more principled individuals leading the Republicans; however, I believe that Republicans should be more sensitive to ethnic minorities. Further, Democrats with their emphasis on government handouts have restored some excessive dependency among our African-American citizens so he black family is, sadly, becoming defunct (77% of African-American births are out of wedlock despite relatively high church attendance).

  • Amused

    I suggest that YOU Shapiro , stick to history , rather than what some dumbasss movie producer is saying . Only idiot learn their history from Hollywood , the rest learn rom books and study . But I guess you got the right audience here huh ?

    • EJL

      The Dems are not color blind. They are anti-white. They are gripped by reverse racism at this point in time. The true soldiers of liberty have to be sensitive to issues of race, but must firstly be persons of principle. There are more principled individuals leading the Republicans; however, I believe that Republicans should be more sensitive to ethnic minorities. Further, Democrats with their emphasis on government handouts have restored some excessive dependency among our African-American citizens so he black family is, sadly, becoming defunct (77% of African-American births are out of wedlock despite relatively high church attendance).

      • EJL

        Amused has an anger problem. I'm sure he or she has trouble making friends.

  • Omar

    Actually, the Democrats have a complex history. While the Republican Party stayed with its core principles of classical liberalism (modern conservatism), the Democratic Party went through a huge transformation in its almost 200 years of its history (1828-present). Throughout its history, the Democratic Party has gone from being the party of slavery and bigotry (1828-1930s), to embracing classical liberalism (1930s-late 1960s), to embracing radical left-wing politics (1970-present). Before the New Left activists took over the Democratic Party in the late '60s and early '70s, both the Democrats and the Republicans embraced classical liberalism and their agendas were almost identical to each other. Now, only the GOP embraces classical liberalism, while the contemporary Democrats embrace radical left-wing politics like identity politics. That's the reality.

  • Zinkzombee

    To this day many southerners believe Lincoln was a War Criminal. During the Civil War, Lincoln continuously circumvented the law and in many cases suspended the Constitution altogether. In doing so, Lincoln denied the rights of citizens he was sworn to protect. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, closed courts by force, and arrested citizens and elected officials without cause. Lincoln also raised troops without the consent of Congress, closed-down newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to U.S. policy. All actions of tyrant .Lincoln’s troops razed the South and doomed to poverty–generations of Southerners for many years to come. General Sherman‘s “March to the Sea” was nothing more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery, rape, and murder. These men were less soldiers on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree. Lincoln waged a war that cost the lives of 620,000 Americans. Including the murder of 50,000 innocent Southern civilians. If only Hollywood had the guts to tell the truth about Lincoln.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    THE REAL LINCOLN………….

    The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

    "A devastating critique of America's most famous president."
    —Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

    The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title
    …….. for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer.

    DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom,

    DiLorenzo Is Right About Lincoln – by Walter E. Williams
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

  • fmobler

    Can you think of a single Spielberg movie that portrays Americans in an affectionate light? Think of ET and its dystopic view of suburbia. It has been obvious for a long time that the man is contemptuous of the very people who have made him wealthy. In other words, he is just another Hollywood type.

    • tagalog

      Duel?

  • Joe

    There was a party switch. I’m a conservative and I accept that there was. Explain the Confederate Flag, why is it okay with republicans now when it was against the republicans in 1865?

    • Dukeq27

      Ok Joe do you really think that Republicans condone the Confederate flag? Why do you, apparently a typical liberal, ascribe things you don’t like or agree with to the GOP. And you aren’t any kind of conservative but probably a liar.

  • Dukeq27

    Is Doris Stearns Goodwin, the author’s, book biased? I haven’t read the book but she is a noted liberal from NY City.