"Lincoln doesn't need defenders against accusations of tyranny -- the mere charge is enough to diagnose some sad ideological disorder."

Or to put it more precisely, it's neocon crimethink to criticize the canting dictator who jailed dissident newspaper editors, threatened judges, conscripted unwilling Northerners and unleashed genocide in Georgia for the good of industrisalists and bankers.

Half a million Americans dead-- for what? So segregation could replace slavery for a century?

Shutting down debate about the legacy of Dishonest Abe will be as futile as trying to ignore the rising tide of enthusiasm for true Constitutionalism among the young liberty-lovers flocking to Ron Paul's Revolution.

As for Theodore Roosevelt, he was the prototype of today's big-state meddling RINO, who equates national greatness with military adventurism and the acquisition of foreign colonies. The kind of blowhard the Founders would have turned their backs on as a throwback to European delusions.

Some interesting points, but over all, I'm with Nilsson. It's Gerson's slobbering worship of Lincoln that is the "sad ideological disorder," not questioning Lincoln's power grabs.

To say that returning to constitutional government is tantamount to leaving America "with a government appropriate to an isolated, 18th-century farming republic," is likewise a silly conclusion. Government isn't what made us great. Liberty is. Yes, the transition would be painful because government does prop up much of the American economy now. Reconstructive knee surgery is painful too, but sometimes you can't be free to walk without it.

Typical Democrat-lite from the left wing of the RINO party from which Gerson & W destroyed the credibility of the Republican Party as a brand. Ron Paul is finally getting the respect and attention he deserves for remaining committed to Constitutional principles.

"Real, hairy-chested libertarians" Wow! Stereotype much? We get more than enough of the self proclaimed "intellectual elites" on the left looking down their collective noses at real Americans who are, of course, far too stupid to correctly interpret history or current events. We certainly don't need someone proclaiming, though one has to doubt the veractity of that claim in lite of articles like this, himself a conservative doing the exact same thing on a site reserved for PATRIOTS. Why is this person's article even included on this site??? I had to double check the web address to make sure I hadn't accidently ended up on msnbc.com. To quote someone I used to consider a Patriot until he started taking positions much like yours, you sir, are a PINHEAD!

Isn't Ron Paul a Pacifist? Just Say'n it's a rough tough world we live in. We need his constitutional knowledge & wisdom, yet it's the things he doesn't do well that concern many. Perhaps he should consider a high office position within the next GOP administration? Mr. Paul is a good man just wrong for the times we live. You are no Gen. Patton. America needs a modern day "Patton" to run things. Hum? how about Gen. Petreas for Potus 2012?

Then again we all know where things are headed. The Rino's unless purged at the Ballot box will continue to run the GOP/RNC & every other Republican Party mainstay. Until we fix our own ideological symptoms from within we are destined to continue to fail administratively & as a party.

Getting Republicans elected will be easy this election cycle barring imposed martial law. The policies of the Rino will fail should we let the conservative movement down by allowing their existence within the GOP/RNC just more slowly rather than the presently affecting fast track of the progressives a kin to the European style autobon to socialistic purgatory.

Teddy Roosevelt was a great American, Beck should try naming a few Libertarians in our Nations past that ever did anything other than take votes from the Republicans. This big tent conservative party mentality will be our demise just look at the last number of years since Nixon. Only Reagan stands out as the lone non-rino.

Overhaul the Party & prop up every Conservative man or women with a military background. True conservatives must first come to the realization that our federal government has a mandate to the national security of its people. We are still at War last I checked and unless I missed something in the last 50 years the Islamic Radicals are still trying to kill us with no signs of Hope or Change in their plans.

So, will all you deep thinkers out there in the political realm start doing your jobs and at the very least begin to approach the coming midterms from a perspective akin to reality.

We are at War people that will not change as long as there are radical jihadist in this world. So, let the market follow the laws of capitalism it will work its way out.(Besides while the present anti-American anti-capitalist so called progressives are in power little will change economically for the longterm good of the nation.)

Our security is the real issue of the day, without it we are destined to not just fail, but potentially be Muslim worldwide by 2070 should we continue to worry about such progressive things like Miranda on the battlefield to name one of many.

Someone needs to make a list of RINO's and watch how fast those on the list move back toward the middle ground of the republican party.

'Somewhere up on Sassafras~Knob we will wait patiently for a Patton to lead us as a Nation'

I smell a RINO.

Don't recall reading one of Mr Gerson's columns before, but this one certainly didn't impress me. An entire column devoted to a rant triggered by what appears to be a total misreading of what Beck was talking about. Let's see.

"Beck highlighted this damning Roosevelt quote: "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used.""

The key word that Mr Gerson apparently missed completely was "CIVIL." As in, civil servant. Roosevelt -- and Beck -- were talking about public sector employees. Elected officials, appointed officials, public servants. Roosevelt was saying he saw no problem with Congressmen amassing great wealth during their Congressional service so long as that wealth was "honorably obtained."

Judging from the way the fortunes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and many other Liberals obtain their wealth with zero scandal in the mainstream media, it's safe to say that "honorably obtained" means "blatantly breaking the law." No reason to think Progressives were any more honest in Roosevelt's day.

Yet Mr Gerson spends an entire column ripping Beck and Conservatives in general, for attacking the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Rather an odd thing for a columnist to be doing, except he agreed with Progressive ideals. Maybe that's the case with Mr Gerson. Make no mistake, Teddy Roosevelt was an admirable man AS A MAN. He was one helluva guy, a real man's man who would spit in your eye. But he was still a Progressive who abused the power of the SCOTUS to execute his crusade against free markets by personally targeting a handful of leading industrialists. There was no precedent in American history for singling out a particular individual who had broken no laws, and basically reinterpreting the Constitution to include an entirely new concept: trust-busting. The theory has been abused by Liberal politicians ever since.

Curious how a columnist leaps to the defense of Roosevelt and his Progressive policies, but if the columnist were a RINO then I suppose he might be an admirer of Progressive policies. We've certainly seen plenty of that in the last 20 years.