YES. How dare he point out where the song is from and that it isn’t our national anthem.

Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Yeah. Sorta like if someone were to point out that the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper? Or the flag is just a piece of cloth?

Gregor on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Melodramatic and hyperbolic much?

Do you know all the words of the National Anthem? The real one that we stand up for? Every one of all 4 verses?

What, you don’t?

Communist!

None of these mother-fathers are the Second Coming.

baldilocks on January 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Comment of this young century, not to speak of the young year.

MadisonC, you are a one collected/polite dude. Proud of you, sincerely,

He’s not singing, he’s citing a phrase from the verse and struggles to recall the phrase “amber waves of grain”.

What does that have to do with Obama? It’s just not an apt analogy, no matter what side of the Obama kerfuffle one comes out on.

Anyhoo, in my endless thirst for knowledge, I did learn this interesting bit of trivia. The composer of America the Beautiful was Samuel A. Ward- the last in an unbroken line of Samuel Wards beginning with Rhode Island Governor and Representative to the Continental Congress Samuel Ward.

Samuel Ward is of the same family as Julia Ward Howe, who wrote the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

The Wards are very good at patriotic hymns.

Why him when until recently he was very much unknown?
Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I think because they weren’t happy with the field and Huck is very affable. Once he had to defend his history, the shine went off the coin real fast.

You guys are right, with my history, I need to be more clear. I will endeavor to do so in the future. I apologize for my mistake.

csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM

We still have to adjust to you talking normally, bud. Doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate it. ;)

it’s interesting to note that if all the people who are saying “Fred has the best policies but he just can’t win” were to actually support the man
Gregor on January 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I have said things along that line and though I know you were not addressing me specifically, it’s close enough that I’d like to take the opportunity to explain myself a bit further.

Fred does talk the talk. Of that there is no doubt. But for me, there has to be some action to back that up. Also some executive experience is very helpful when your policy proposals are as far reaching as Fred’s are. Lastly, I have heard Fred make some pretty serious gaffs about simple issues that he should have been up on. (everglades, cuban immigration etc) When I judge Fred as a whole, all he really has going for him is the rhetoric. It’s better than most, but it isn’t that much better for me to support a guy who hasn’t done what it takes to get the nomination.

Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Cal down deary, my entire comment was sarcasm. I wanted the Fredheads to see what it looked like when someone attacks AP over his thread topics.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Phew, because I was just about to tell you to take a nice restful nap. I know it’s tedious and repetitive, but sometimes a /sarc is warranted.

Does it take a lot of money to lie your way to popularity when you have the entire Evangelical world blindly supporting you?

That’s completely irrelevant. Besides, the Evangelical world could have backed anyone. Why him when until recently he was very much unknown?

Besides, it’s not like Huckabee is hurting for money either.

Gregor on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM

I didn’t say he was, especially not now that he’s the front runner. All I said is that he got to where he is now without being the one with all the money.

Up until a couple months ago very few knew anything about him. He’s a horrible pick for the claim you’re trying to make about the GOP.

Cal down deary, my entire comment was sarcasm. I wanted the Fredheads to see what it looked like when someone attacks AP over his thread topics.

csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Why? Haven’t they already seen what that looks like?

And please, I’m not at all “uncalm.” You’ve simply got a reputation when it comes to Mitt Romney, and you do yourself no favors with this “sarcasm.”

And enough of the “Fred’s lazy” crap. It’s a pathetic lie and by insisting on repeating it you show yourself to be dishonest.

Gregor on January 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Newsflash for you Gregor: If Fred can’t win 20% of GOP primary voters, he won’t beat Hillary in the general.

I know it’s easy to blame anyone but Fred for Fred’s problems, but I’m not backing a man who can’t run his own campaign. Lest you forget, Democrats can vote in the general and all 3 Dem frontrunners beat the crap out of Thompson in grassroots organization and fundraising.

But blame me for Fred not having his act together. Blame me for Fred dropping from an astounding 25% when he announced down to single digits over the course of 3 months. Blame me for not jumping on the Fred bandwagon and just pushing the man with the prettiest position papers who never has and currently isn’t walking the walk that talks his talk.

Fred supports Federalism. Unless it was McCain Feingold, where he flip-flopped, no wait, only non-Fred candidates can do that, lets call it “mispoke.”

Fred supports the right to life. Unless its his personal life, err, I mean, unless he’s getting paid for lobbying work. And he certainly isn’t going to approve of an amendment that would require the approval of 38 states plus a supermajority in both houses, that would be going against Federalist principles, which say the states decide… but apparently not if they’re collectively deciding federal amendments.

Fred is so transparent and it shows, yet you seem to think he’s the only honest man running. What makes Fred not a politician? His inability to communicate his message effectively? His unwillingness to back up his ideas with past tangible actions?

Criticizing the other candidates is easy; they actually have a record of actions. Fred just has a vote listing.

Oh really, I’m interested in insulting people? What was that then MC? Are you going to parse words over what the meaning of “insult” is, because I try very hard not to sling personal insults (you know, like arrogant, smug, elitist prick) into my postings.

You hoist yourself by your own petard.

BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM

When I make a clear, calm point about a position, and you turn it into melodramatic fire and brimstone about the end of America, you insult me. You’ve done it to Gregor, Ex-Tex, and a lot of other people. Some of them brought it on by being melodramatic to begin with. If you want to respond in kind, that’s fine. Just don’t pull that crap with me.

And funny you should talk about the meanings of words. Might want to talk with your boy Mitt about “saw”…

BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Remember when Fred fever started and I criticized him for using very vague terms like “In many respects” etc, without delineating what those “respects” were? I think this is the folksy demeanor that a lot of Fred supporters liked. His “sittin’ round the breakfast table” talk etc was a big deal for many. Not all, but many. Like I said from the beginning, that’s all fine and good in Tennessee where they know what that means and it’s a familiar trusted way of communicating, but the rest of the country doesn’t respond to it and needs specific points laid out. For the rest of us, it just seemed like he was letting his supporters fill in the blanks for what he meant, so they would all think he meant what their assumptions were.

The War on Terror
Nuclear Armed Iran
Fallout in Pakistan
Putin reviving the USSR
Supreme Court Justices

BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM

You left off “Border security.”

It’s funny that the person who clearly has the best policy on all these issues is Fred Thompson, but of course … you want the flip-flopper instead. Makes sense to me.

With all of your “Fred won’t win” garbage, it’s interesting to note that if all the people who are saying “Fred has the best policies but he just can’t win” were to actually support the man … he’d win by a landslide. The reason he’s not winning in the polls is because people such as yourself are insisting on campaigning for frauds instead of the man best fit for office.

And enough of the “Fred’s lazy” crap. It’s a pathetic lie and by insisting on repeating it you show yourself to be dishonest.

See, I stop reading at this point, because you’re nothing but an arrogant, smug, elitist prick who is not interested in civil discussion, but instead clamoring to insult people who disagree with you,

Oh really, I’m interested in insulting people? What was that then MC? Are you going to parse words over what the meaning of “insult” is, because I try very hard not to sling personal insults (you know, like arrogant, smug, elitist prick) into my postings.

You hoist yourself by your own petard.

Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Cal down deary, my entire comment was sarcasm. I wanted the Fredheads to see what it looked like when someone attacks AP over his thread topics.

Yes. Stay home. And when America dies because Missus Clinton went full-blown Marxist and set America back 50 years or more, then whine about how foolish the American public was to not elect Fred Thompson, our lord, savior, and redeemer from the evil liberals.

See, I stop reading at this point, because you’re nothing but an arrogant, smug, elitist prick who is not interested in civil discussion, but instead clamoring to insult people who disagree with you, right after turning what they say into overreactionary hyperbole. When you can discuss the issue without filling your diatribe full of snarky, patronizing, pedantic jibes at all opposing viewpoints to your own, feel free to let us know.

Huck did what he did without a ton of money.

Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM

“Did what he did?”

Does it take a lot of money to lie your way to popularity when you have the entire Evangelical world blindly supporting you?

Besides, it’s not like Huckabee is hurting for money either.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Oh I’m sorry MadisonConservative, lets screw the perfect to go with the horribly bad as our next President will only have to deal with these minor, insignificant issues:

The War on Terror
Nuclear Armed Iran
Fallout in Pakistan
Putin reviving the USSR
Supreme Court Justices

Yes. Stay home. And when America dies because Missus Clinton went full-blown Marxist and set America back 50 years or more, then whine about how foolish the American public was to not elect Fred Thompson, our lord, savior, and redeemer from the evil liberals.

After all, there are no other conservatives. You see, we have too much pride, the only man we can trust is a McCain-Feingold loving actor, lawyer, and lobbyist who hasn’t put one red cent into anything but ink and paper for conservatism.

Just scream EVERYONE ELSE IS A RINO, RINO RINO ONLY FRED! ONLY FRED! and screw all of us because the only man you’re willing to trust is the man who let Clinton slide, has done NOTHING for conservatism, EVER, except open his piehole.

Meanwhile, the grownups believe that Fred is not the Only Man Who Can Save America and are willing to earnestly support candidates other than Fred “let Frist do the heavy lifting while I polish up this White Paper on Federalism” Thompson. Fredheads don’t get that though, it’s Fred or bust. If they don’t get their candy then all of America should suffer because they weren’t as enlightened as the Fredheads.

The GOP agrees with you, otherwise it wouldn’t be considering Huckabee.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM

What? Like him or hate him (I’m closer to the latter), Huck did what he did without a ton of money.

BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM

I’ve heard your argument 100 times now. I’ve heard it. I know what you’re saying. You’re saying between a staunch conservative with low money, and a moderate with lots of money, you’d back the moderate because you want to get into the White House at all costs. I know. I know. The GOP agrees with you, otherwise it wouldn’t be considering Huckabee.

I’m not willing to make that compromise. Even Rush has said that if we don’t put a conservative on the ticket, we will lose. I don’t care about winning or losing the presidency at any cost. I care about putting the guy with the best policies, ideas, and opinions up for it, and supporting him all the way. I’m not going to tell the GOP that all they have to do is put someone up that will try to win liberal voters by being liberal, and I’ll vote for them. I won’t do it. I’ll sit it out, and so will a LOT of other people.

If you don’t like a guy, you will make a big negative deal out of everything they do. If you like a candidate, you will make a big deal out of everything positive they do and downplay everything negative they do. It’s actually based on a psychological principal called motivated reasoning. It doesn’t have anything to do with hypocricy.

davenp35 on January 2, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Sorry, but you’re just rationalizing here. Obviously that’s what people do. But is it correct or appropriate? Nope. It is being a hypocrite. Everyone tries on these boards to exhibit credibility. But as far as I’m concerned, if someone attacks a Democrat for doing something, but then dismisses/tut-tuts the same thing that a Republican does, then that person has little credibility lecturing me about anything.

Another great example: not all, but many, many on this board didn’t see what the big deal was that “family values” (and conservative Republican) David Vitter was banging a prostitute while he was married.

Talk about rationalizations.

Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Shhh Esthier, you’re ruining Gregor’s “ROMNEY IS A PLASTIC FLIP FLOP KEN DOLL ROBOT” tirade.

I don’t think you’re a dip if you don’t know that song, because you’re not running for president. However, if someone is going to be running the country, that’s one of the few symbolic things I think they should know, like Obama and his hand over his heart.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I’m sorry but I just don’t believe that clip proves that Mitt doesn’t know the song.

Memory is an interesting part of the brain. If you learn something in a certain state, you’re more likely to remember it in that state. For kids who take “the study drug” to study, taking it during the test is a must as well. If you learned something in a song, singing it is the best way to recover that memory.

Mitt wasn’t singing.

When the only words out of some poster’s posts are “His campaign sucks, he’s a crappy campaigner, he’s destroying his campaign”, it’s pretty clear that person is only concerned with the image of a candidate, and not his positions.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Maybe you and Gregor haven’t picked up the scent of reality yet, but:

Fred has no money.
Fred is shooting for third in Iowa, has no chance in NH, and the first state he might contend in is South Carolina.

I would love to hear how either of you think Fred is going to get a strong grassroots organization with no money and no momentum. He was crawling and begging for money for his last mediocre ad.

What you don’t seem to realize is that positions are not the only factor. It’s called marketing: You could have a wellspring that offers eternal youth and good health and it doesn’t mean squat if nobody knows you’re there. Fred’s 24/7 campaigning is so recent and doesn’t seem to be getting him anywhere, seeing as Iowa is, oh, tomorrow.

I agree with Fred on policy, the problem is he can’t sell himself worth anything and isn’t in it to win it. You see that as a positive quality, I see that as an achilles heel. Fred just wants us to crown him because of his positions when he isn’t even willing to take any actions to snare us in and is chronically incapable of bringing in money to support himself.

Part of being President is making a case for what your positions are and why they work. You don’t do that by waiting until the 11th hour and then saying “look at my 400 page treatise on foreign policy! Examine its brilliance!”

What part of “Fred has no money” don’t you understand? Fred has no money because he can’t fundraise. He can’t fundraise because he’s an uninspiring tired old policy wonk without a single defining action to his name and a thourougly inept campaign staff who he refuses to fire and replace, probably because he can’t afford to pay a new staff.

Fred lacking money and possessing a crap campaign staff aren’t the machinations of the MSM or the evil Hewitt-KLo-NRO-Murdoch conspiracy, it’s Fred sucking on the campaign.

If Fred can’t sell himself, he cannot become president. It isn’t about “image,” it’s about communication, a skill which Fred sorely lacks despite being a Hollyweird stooge. Maybe I can call csdeven in to get you to contribute one thousand more dollars for Fred to waste handily.