It's time to party like its 1865.

Well since the movie Lincoln came out its apparently now in vogue to make civil war references as political analogies.

First it was Charles Krauthammer: "It’s not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal… Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that’s what the administration is asking of Republicans."

The deal Krauthammer is referring to was the President's initial fiscal cliff proposal, which like it or not is exactly what the president campaigned on. Now of course thats kinda how negotiations are supposed to work. 1 side says "I want 100% of what I want /0% of what you want" the other side says "well how about 0/100?" to which side will say "how about 90/10?" countered by "how about 80/20" and so on and so on, until you wind up in theory with 50/50.  Now of course in any real negotiations any number of other factors come into play so you might get 70/30 or 30/70 ect. But starting with your your list of demands is kinda the way negotiations work.

That said I do understand Krauthammers shock, Obama's got a bad habit of making his first offer "how about 50% of what I want and 50% of what you want" so maybe Krauthammer just forgot what real negotiations look like?

But lets move on to the analogy portion of Krauthammers comments. He's probably right Lee was offered easier terms. See what the confederacy did was treason, and therefor all confederate soldiers could legally have been executed....and if nothing else the high officers likely expected to be. But the terms they got? "give us your guns, and your word you wont fight anymore and go home."

Lets be honest here when you "should" have been executed and the terms you get are "go home" those are extremely easy terms. easy enough that even if Obama's opening offer to the GOP had been "how about we unquestionably do it 100% your way" Lee STILL would have had easier terms, given the potential downside of harder terms.

Also lastly two other points, remember the Bush "landslide" as Republicans including Krauthammer called it? the one that gave him a "sweeping mandate? yea the popular vote different there was 2.4% (50.7-48.3) and the electoral split was 35 (286/251). That Obama win Krauthammer is referring to? Well thats actually 3.6% different at the moment (counts not finished yet) (50.9-47.3) and 126 vote difference in the electoral vote (332-206) and to be honest the Dem's actually got more votes for the house then the GOP, just the GOP majority was large enough to cancel that out...even though they did lose 8 seats.

Now the second point, Lee actually DID expect and offer his unconditional surrender to Grant. Yes Grant gave him good terms. But its not like Krauthammer's implying, that even after the civil war the US wasnt in a position of enough strength to demand unconditional surrender from the CS, who were in a much worse position then the current GOP is in these negotiations.

The US was in a strong enough position to demand unconditional surrender, and they got it. Where as Obama isnt demanding it, since unlike the CS, the GOP is well within their power to say "no" and counter offer to Obama....the fact they refuse to is not Obama's doing.


And now on to our second 1865 reference of the week: Former 1 term Tea Party congressman Alan West who was just defeated. Mr. West was interviewed by NPR when this exchange happened:

"NPR: So what's next for you?

WEST: Look, you know, God closes a door so that he can open up greater doors. I will continue to, you know, stand up and fight for this country. That's my goal. I have two daughters, 19 and 16, and I want to make sure that they grow up in a great America that provides them all the opportunities that it provided to their mother and father.

NPR: Congressman Allen West is completing his term in Congress. He was kind enough to join us from a House recording studio on Capitol Hill here in Washington, D.C.

WEST: And always remember, Abraham Lincoln only served one term in Congress, too.

NPR: Duly noted. Congressman West, thank you so much for speaking with us."

Now heres the thing: Alan West is totally right. Yea I said it. Lincoln was in fact only a one term Representative who then went on to be President (which is clearly the implication Mr. West was trying to make).

But here's the difference between the Truth, and the WHOLE Truth: Lincoln was a one term  Representative entirely by choice. Most Whigs (Lincoln's party at the time) believed in term limits, and Lincoln himself ran for office pledging to only serve the one term, so he made no attempt to run for reelection....unlike Mr. West who lost. Which means in theory at least, unlike Mr. West, Mr. Lincoln was never rejected by the voters. (to be fair I have no idea if Lincoln could have won a second term if he choose to). In fact although Lincoln ran for US senate twice and lost twice, back in those days senators were not directly elected, the various State Legislators elected them, so even that cant count as a rebuff by voters.

And the other thing Mr. West might want to be aware of: when Lincoln became president he was running in a 4 way race (which hasnt happened before or since) and only picked up 39% of the popular vote....just over 1/3 of the country, and in fact only picked up more then 10,000 votes in 18 states out of the then 33 states, so just a hair over 54% of all states....and only got electoral votes in 17 (basically half the states).

In otherwords although a president could win with that same electoral %  today the popular vote % especially in a 2 man race would render said president basically irrelevant and totally ignored and unpopular, and to be honest, in a two man race Lincoln likely would not have won. in fact given that two of his opponents were democrats (as the party ran two tickets that year after splitting on regional lines), had that party held together they would have beaten Lincoln in the popular vote (at least 47% adding their totals together) and likely in the electoral vote as well (although thats a bit harder to calculate)

So if your trying to imply that your going to be a dominate presidential candidate like Mr. West seemed to be, Lincoln is actually a really really poor choice.

However since he was the only former Rep to never hold another public office to go on the be president (12 years later but still) I guess in that respect he is the best Mr. West can hope for at the moment.