Quotes Suitable for Framing: Daniel Webster

Sunday, March 26, AD 2017



If we work upon marble, it will perish; if we work upon brass, time will efface it; if we rear temples, they will crumble to dust; but if we work on men’s immortal minds, if we impress on them with high principles, the just fear of God and love for their fellow-men, we engrave on those tablets something which no time can efface, and which will brighten and brighten to all eternity.

Daniel Webster, May 22, 1852

Continue reading...

March 7, 1850: Seventh of March Speech

Monday, March 7, AD 2016

“You have made great speeches,” said the stranger. “You will make more.”

“Ah,” said Dan’l Webster.

“But the last great speech you make will turn many of your own against you,” said the stranger. “They will call you Ichabod; they will call you by other names. Even in New England some will say you have turned your coat and sold your country, and their voices will be loud against you till you die.”

“So it is an honest speech, it does not matter what men say,” said Dan’l Webster. Then he looked at the stranger and their glances locked. “One question,” he said. “I have fought for the Union all my life. Will I see that fight won against those who would tear it apart?”

“Not while you live,” said the stranger, grimly, “but it will be won. And after you are dead, there are thousands who will fight for your cause, because of words that you spoke.”

The Devil and Daniel Webster, Stephen Vincent Benet

1850 was a year of great transition for the United States.  The great trilogy of statesman who had guided the fortunes of the nation since the War of 1812 were engaging in their swan songs.  John C. Calhoun would be dead before the end of March of 1850.  Henry Clay and Daniel Webster would be dead two years later, but 1850 would mark their disappearance as major figures in American political life.  All three men were in the United States Senate.  Henry Clay, taking his last bow as the Great Compromiser, had cobbled together the elements of what would become the Compromise of 1850.  Calhoun devoted his dying energies to attacking the Compromise, convinced that the North and the South could no longer compromise on the issue of slavery and that the time had come for a peaceful separation by the dissolution of the Union.

Webster throwing his support behind the Compromise was critical in its passage.  Webster had always cared most of all for the preservation of the Union, and he knew that if some sort of compromise was not worked out, the Union would almost certainly dissolve.  His position was highly unpopular throughout New England where he was widley regarded as a traitor.  Eventually Webster resigned from the Senate, serving as Secretary of State until his death.  The Compromise of 1850 probably ensured Union victory in the Civil War, delaying the conflict for ten years, during which time the North became more industrialized, with ever spreading  railroads and telegraphs knitting the North into a powerful nascent world power, largely nullifying Southern initial advantages in generalship and cavalry. Here is the text of his speech:

Continue reading...

One Response to March 7, 1850: Seventh of March Speech

Daniel Webster

Thursday, March 7, AD 2013

Yes, Dan’l Webster’s dead–or, at least, they buried him. But every time there’s a thunder storm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave and speak loud and clear, “Dan’l Webster–Dan’l Webster!” the ground’ll begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while you’ll hear a deep voice saying, “Neighbor, how stands the Union?” Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper sheathed, one and indivisible, or he’s liable to rear right out of the ground. At least, that’s what I was told when I was a youngster.

Stephen Vincent Benet, The Devil and Daniel Webster

In his short story The Devil and Daniel Webster, Benet has Satan conjure up the damned souls of 12 villains from American history to serve as a jury in the case of Satan v. Jabez Stone. Only seven of these entities are named, and we have examined the lives of each of them including the “life” I made up for the fictional the Reverend John Smeet.  We also looked at the judge who presided over the case, Justice Hathorne.  Only one personage remains to examine, Daniel Webster.

Born in 1782 a few months after the American victory at Yorktown, Webster would live to be a very old man for his time, dying in 1852.  Webster would serve in the House for 10 years from New Hampshire and 19 years in the Senate from Massachusetts.  Three times Secretary of State, he also attempted on three occasions to win the Presidency failing three times, watching as much lesser men attained that office.  Like his two great contemporaries, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, his name is remembered while most Americans would be hard pressed to name many of those presidents.

While holding political office he also practiced law, arguing an astounding 223 cases before the United States Supreme Court and winning about half of them.

He was acknowledged to be the finest American orator of his day, a day in which brilliant speech making was fairly common on the American political scene, and his contemporaries often referred to him blasphemously as “the god-like Daniel”.  Perhaps the finest example of Webster’s oratory is his Second Reply to Senator Haynes of South Carolina during the debate on tariffs which took place in the Senate  in January of 1830.  In the background lurked the nullification crisis and possible secession, a crisis which would build over the next three decades and explode into the attempted dissolution of the union in 1860.  The ending of this speech was once known by every schoolchild:   Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!

The American Union was Webster’s passion throughout his life, he being above all an ardent patriot.  He was also an ardent opponent of slavery.  However, in 1850 when his opposition to slavery conflicted with what he perceived to be the necessity of a compromise to preserve the Union, he did not hesitate and helped hammer the compromise together.  Because it included a stronger fugitive slave act, he was roundly condemned throughout New England, something noted in The Devil and Daniel Webster:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Daniel Webster

  • We live in a much different country today than the one Daniel Webster fought to preserve. I would not compromise my anti-abortion principles to save this country (and I certainly wouldn’t go to hell rather than see its dissolution, as Webster proclaims his willingness to do in Benet’s fictional account). Over a century-and-a-half has lapsed since Webster’s time, and the country we have today would no doubt be unrecognizable to Webster. I’m not so sure he’d find what we have today so worth preserving.

  • Completely disagree Jay, root and branch! Your words actually echo those of radical abolitionists prior to the Civil War who denounced the Constitution as a Covenant with Death because of slavery and called for the breaking up of the Union. Wiser men, like Lincoln and Webster, saw that the primary hope for ending slavery was the preservation of the Union and that the Union was a good in and of itself. They were proven right and I think their example is something to ponder today when there is too much idiotic talk about Secession once again. There is nothing wrong with this country that would be solved by breaking up the United States of America into two or more squabbling Republics, and endless new evils would result. As for Webster’s quip in the story about going to the Pit, considering he just had bested Satan in court and was about to give him a kick in the hindquarters, I doubt if Webster would have been going to the Pit to surrender his soul, but rather to have another round with Mr. Scratch!

  • The difference, Donald, is that I don’t believe for one minute that the best hope for ending abortion lies in the preservation of the Union. Nor am I sold on the Manifest Destiny-based argument that the Union is necessarily a good in and of itself.

    Now, I’m no secessionist, and I certainly don’t hope for the dissolution of our country. And I don’t even think it’s a realistic possibility any time in the near future (certainly not our lifetimes, and probably not our children’s lifetimes). But I firmly believe that there may be circumstances at some point in our nation’s future in which there may a much higher good than preservation of the Union to work toward and/or fight for.

  • Though I’m extremely fond of the “Liberty and Union” speech, I’m more in Jay’s corner on this one.

    I don’t see him taking a Garrisonian position. Indeed, the problem is not the Constitution, the problem is that it has been turned into a Rorschach test, with people amending it without actually doing the hard work of amending it. Either via lawsuit or winking at flatly-unconstitutional legislation. We have a Union–indeed, increasingly a unitary state–but less liberty.

    Union without liberty is…well, there was a Soviet Union once.

  • Thank you, Dale, for saying in just a few words what I was unable to convey in either of my two comments. You have concisely and accurately captured my exact concerns.

  • Webster would have recognized a contemporary American plague.

    From his critique of President Jackson’s veto message against the renewal of the charter of the Second Bank of the United states.

    “In his 1832 veto of renewing the Bank’s (Second Bank of the United States) charter, Jackson complained that its profits went to foreigners and a ‘few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.’ Daniel Webster replied that the message was a ‘wanton attack on whole classes of people, for the purposes of turning against them the prejudices and resentments of other classes.’” The poison runs even stronger today in the party of Obama.

  • I think that but for the preservation of the Union in the 19th Century the whole planet would have entered a totalitarian nightmare in the 20th. I believe that on the whole the United States of America has been a powerful force for good in this world and I will not allow slavery or abortion to alter in the slightest my love for this country and for the Union. I completely agree with Webster’s ringing words : Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable and I believe his words are just as applicable today as it was in his time. As for liberty, I think I will do a post comparing the status of liberty in Webster’s day and the status of liberty in our own time.

  • A comparison of liberty in the two time periods will be interesting. From my perspective, neither “liberty” or “union” means what it did back then. Today, liberty is more akin to license and union to co-existence.

  • I will hold both periods to the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

  • America is the only nation on the face of the earth with freedom guaranteed by our Creator endowed, unalienable rights, unalienable because God is infinite, and unchangeable.

    Jesus Christ descended into hell.

    “I doubt if Webster would have been going to the Pit to surrender his soul, but rather to have another round with Mr. Scratch!”

  • Yes, Bill Clinton is out of office, so they say. But if you go to the White House and listen closely, they say you can still hear his grand oratory echoing through the halls. And if you call out his name three times, it is said that you can feel the ground shake and his voice bellow forth, “is Girls Gone Wild still in business?”. You better answer that it is, or he will return to the White House and right the injustice…nah, it doesn’t work for some reason.

  • Pingback: Daniel Webster | Algeria Auction

Daniel Webster and Leviathan

Friday, January 18, AD 2013

Daniel Webster's Sea Serpent

I have long admired Stephen Vincent Benet’s The Devil and Daniel Webster in which Daniel Webster defeats Satan in a jury trial for the soul of Jabez Stone.  Far lesser known is an amusing story written by Benet in which Daniel Webster encounters Leviathan from the Bible:

“Well, Mr. Webster,” said Seth, and stared at his boots, “she says you’re quite a handsome man. She says she never did see anybody quite like you,” he went on. “I hate to tell you this, Mr. Webster, and I feel kind of responsible, but I think you ought to know. And I told you that you oughtn’t to have shot at her—she’s pretty proud of that. She says she knows just how you meant it. Well, I’m no great hand at being embarrassed, Mr. Webster, but, I tell you, she embarrassed me. You see, she’s been an old maid for about a hundred and fifty years, I guess, and that’s the worst of it. And being the last of her folks in those particular waters, there’s just no way to restrain her—her father and mother was as sensible, hard-working serpents as ever gave a feller a tow through a fog, but you know how it is with those old families. Well, she says wherever you go, she’ll follow you, and she claims she wants to hear you speak before the Supreme Court——”

“Did you tell her I’m a married man?” said Dan’l. “Did you tell her that?”

“Yes, I told her,” said Seth, and you could see the perspiration on his forehead. “But she says that doesn’t signify—her being a serpent and different—and she’s fixing to move right in. She says Washington’s got a lovely climate and she’s heard all about the balls and the diplomatic receptions. I don’t know how she’s heard about them, but she has.” He swallowed. “I got her to promise she’d kind of lie low for two weeks and not come up the Potomac by daylight—she was fixing to do that because she wants to meet the President. Well, I got her to promise that much. But she says, even so, if you don’t come to see her once an evening, she’ll hoot till you do, and she told me to tell you that you haven’t heard hooting yet. And as soon as the fish market’s open, I better run down and buy a barrel of flaked cod, Mr. Webster—she’s partial to flaked cod and she usually takes it in the barrel. Well, I don’t want to worry you, Mr. Webster, but I’m afraid that we’re in a fix.”

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Daniel Webster and Leviathan

Piers Morgan on Domestic Thermonuclear War

Monday, January 14, AD 2013



Hattip to Jim Treacher.  CNN talking head Piers Morgan, desperately trying to hold on to any shreds of credibility after his shellacking by Ben Shapiro, emitted this email:

America has over 5000 nuclear warheads. Quite hard to defend against a ‘tyrannical U.S. government’ with that kind of firepower.


Where to begin?

First, it is unlikely that even the most mad US President would decide to use nukes to put down a rebellion in these United States.  Too many of his own supporters would be killed and the overall reaction would likely be for the rebellion to grow as a result of his action.

Second, a wide spread rebellion in the United States would likely have the sympathy of factions within the US military, if not their active support.  The order to nuke Americans might lead to an active revolt by the military.

Third, in the event of a widespread rebellion, the rebels would probably quickly have nukes of their own.  In the case of Obama, most ICBMs and tactical nukes are located on bases in Red states.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Piers Morgan on Domestic Thermonuclear War

  • Seems like Morgan is pretty persuasive to me. I mean, when you look at situations in Iraq and Afghanistan where our military had significant problems with obstruction from insurgents using small arms and homemade explosives, we solved the problem by using nuclear weapons, right? And since using nuclear weapons on US soil would be even more popular than using them in the Middle East, it’s obvious that the government would not hesitate to use nukes against any domestic rebels in some imagined future scenario. Heck, the only reason why Russia hasn’t used nukes is Chechnya is that they’re way, way more soft hearted than the US is.

    Oh wait…

  • He’s become the Bill Donohue of gun control–only less measured and introspective.

  • Suppose you were an idiot. And, suppose you were Piers Morgan. But, I repeat myself. (See Mark Twain on members of Congress.)

  • Donald’s reply brings to mind a couple of points. In the case of Ruby Ridge and Waco, both factions were armed to the teeth, and yet the government was able to ‘subdue’ them (a less euphemistic term might well be more apt). However, it did so only after an aggressive PR/smear campaign that portrayed them as white supremacists and/or child molesters, thereby making a case to the wider populace that both groups were fringe elements beyond caring much about.

    Even so, there was a kind of military (or at least ex-military) blowback that Donald also mentions, in the sense that Ruby Ridge helped provoke homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh, though he was able to murder his victims without guns or nuclear devices.

  • When Morgan is the spokesman for your movement, you clearly have some serious problems.

  • America’s first (known) and most “prolific” serial killer did not use any high- magazine capacity clips, or an assault weapon.

    He ran up a “body count” of over 200.


    The most dangerous weapon known to man is man’s evil mind.

  • Mr. Shaw, the case of H. H. Holmes seems hardly relevant to the current discussion. No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.

  • “No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.”

    Considering that approximately 312 people out of a total population of 330,000,000 were killed by rifles of all type last year, I think there would be more logic in attempting to ban evil thoughts than in banning any sort of rifle. Twice as many homicides were committed by people using nothing but their bare hands. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with pistols which no one is seeking to ban, although decades ago there was an attempt to ban cheap pistols known by their critics as “Saturday Night Specials”. Politics is the explanation rather than logic since multiple slayings and their aftermath is the only time when the lost gun control crusade has any traction.

  • JL:

    There you go again, bless your heart.

    Just the facts, man.

    Here are animate and inanimate objects that are far more dangerous to children and other living beings.

    3,900,0000 Americans died in 2010.

    1,500,000 were killed by abortions.

    600,000 died from eating Whoppers and twinkies (heart disease)

    198,000 killed in preventable medical mishaps

    54,000 Killed by cars

    26,000 Killed by gravity (falls)*

    17,000 killed by drunk drivers

    1,694 killed by knives

    726 killed by unarmed assailants

    496 killed with hammers/clubs

    323 killed by long-barreled weapons (assault rifles, shotguns).

    * In NYC there is an expanding outbreak of suicide jumpers, largely attributable to the horrid economy – thank you Obama and liberals!

    And, since NOvember 2008, free Americans purchased 68,000,000 firearms.

    In 18 days, NRA added 100,000 new paid members.

    You are better than the gullible imbeciles those evil people are “playing” with this umpty-umphth gun control PR stunt.

    You are too intelligent to let them distract you the gathering American tragedy.

    Anyhow, I’m praying for you.

  • “No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.”

    “1,694 killed by knives”

    Let’s ban knives too! Oh wait. They’re trying to do that.


  • Instapundit: Harry Reid: “Don’t expect an assault weapon ban.”

    “The Second Amendment is something that was adhered to by Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy,” Reid said. “So I don’t think anyone wants to diminish the Second Amendment, but I think everyone should just take a deep breath and realize where we are and where we need to go.

    “We have too much violence in our society, and it’s not just from guns. It’s from a lot of stuff. and i think we should take a look at TV, movies, video games and weapons. And I hope that everyone will just be careful and cautious.”

    January 19 is Gun Appreciation Day. Make it a point to communicate with your politician that you unconditionally support the right to keep and bear arms, and if that pol does not, you unconditionally oppose him/her.

  • Harry Reid making sense? The apocalypse is truly upon us!

    As usual, our intellectual betters look for a technological quick-fix for what is at root a sociological problem.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • Thanks for the prayers Mr. Shaw, but I think you again misunderstand me. I am in no way necessarily advocating for any type of new legislation with regards to firearms, ammo, etc. I mean simply what I said: H. H. Holmes seems hardly relevant to this discussion.

    On a more general note, to no one in particular, a quote from my new favorite book:

    “Sincere—that was the hell of it. From a distance, one’s adversaries seemed fiends, but with a closer view, one saw the sincerity and it was as great as one’s own. Perhaps Satan was the sincerest of the lot.”

    I think the temptation is to overemphasize the last sentence, but clearly that is merely a rhetorical flourish. We know the King of Lies is anything but sincere. Thus, the takeaway is this: your opponents on this issue are just as sincere and well-intentioned as you are. To think they are the height of evil and self-interest while simaltaneously holding that the NRA is some bastion of nobility and virtue strikes me as detached from reality. Quit vilifying your opponents as satan’s complicit minions. It’s uncharitable, absurd, and makes you sound deranged. People can be wrong and still be decent people. Yes, even re: gun control!

  • Thus, the takeaway is this: your opponents on this issue are just as sincere and well-intentioned as you are.

    Some yes, some no. You realize that this issue implicates matters of constitutional interpretation. Something Robert Bork said is relevant here: constitutional law has been destroyed as an authentic intellectual subdiscipline. Characters like Saul Cornell and Ronald Dworkin are many things. Sincere is not one of them.

  • The last time Americans had to use military weapons against their own government was not 1776…

    It was 1946…Battle of Athens Tennessee(returing veterns of WWII took up arms to get their votes counted correctly.

    Pulitzer prize winning writer Theodore White said “the F.B.I. didn’t investigate the local corruption because it went all the way up to the Speaker of the House of the U.S.” (paraphrase)
    check it out on wikipedia…The Battle of Athens (1946)

  • Fascinating David. I pride myself on my knowledge of American history but I had never heard of this incident before. I will make certain however that more people hear about it in the future.

  • @Art

    “Some yes, some no.”

    Well put. But the same applies for those on the other side of the issue.

  • Well put. But the same applies for those on the other side of the issue.

    Depends on the time period. The problem in starboard discourse today is more self-deception than the deception of others. Also, see Jonathan Heidt’s work. The left in this country in our time differs from the remainder of the spectrum in their ability to summarize the opposition’s viewpoint without caricaturing it. See also Robert Bork’s remarks on official Washington. He identifies a large culture shift in that social set occurring around 1981 (“liberals turned vicious”). I think you can identify another one around 2001 (just who are the starboard equivalents of Bradford deLong and Paul Krugman?). Look at our Presidential candidates over the period running from 1968 to 1988 and then look at the one’s since. There is a large change in the balance of integrity, agreeableness, and personal accomplishment between the two parties.

  • Piers Morgan was the editor of the left-wing tabloid the Daily Mirror who was sacked for publishing photographs allegedly showing British soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners but which turned out to have been faked in England. Unfortunately he was not down for long; indeed he keeps popping up to everyone’s annoyance. His recent television series saw him interviewing ‘celebrities’, asking prurient questions about their sex lives in order to titillate the less discriminating viewers. Well, he was a tabloid journalist, after all. I’m glad we’re getting a rest from him and it’s gratifying to see him making a fool of himself on the other side of the pond. Don’t deport him just yet.

    Forget the Second Amendment for a minute; the right to bear arms was part of English Common Law, which applied to the colonies, and later to the United States. It also applied to England; although firearms licences were introduced in the 1870s they were a revenue-raising exercise and were purchased at the post office for a few shillings. The first gun controls came in the 1920s; the government was worried about civil unrest, and a lot of weapons had been brought back from the Great War. In the 1950s there were a lot of unlicensed guns in circulation, but very little gun crime. Criminals tended not to carry them, since murderers who used firearms were unlikely to be reprieved, so the consequence of using them would be an 8 a.m. appointment with Albert Pierrepoint three weeks after conviction.

    The situation in Britain now is that the only people who are armed are black gangsters and crack-dealers on inner-city sink estates, and the police, who have taken to swaggering about looking like Robocop and usually end up shooting the wrong people.

  • We all need to remember these words of Kipling John before “too long” becomes “too late”.

    “Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw– Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law–

    Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing, Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

    Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years, How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

    So they bought us freedom–not at little cost– Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.”

  • JL:

    I pray for quite a few living, including several others on this page, and dead. At my age, I have many dear departed for whom I pray. Each loved me better than I loved him/her. I need to work each day on rectifying that deficiency.

    I am not as well read as you. I’m pretty sure your favorite book quote is not from Paradise Lost.

The Devil and Daniel Webster

Friday, October 1, AD 2010

Daniel Webster is running for Congress in the 8th Congressional District of Florida.  He is a veteran Republican politician, having served as the first Republican speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in 122 years.  He has also served as the Republican majority leader of the Florida Senate.  He is a pro-life conservative.  He is not the Devil.

His opponent is Alan Grayson.  Alan Grayson is the incumbent, being first elected to Congress in 2008.  He is a pro-abort liberal Democrat.  He is doing his best to depict Daniel Webster as the Devil.

My good friend Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia has a first rate post on this subject at his bog and has saved me quite a bit of work:

Back during the Bush years, I can recall debates in the Catholic blogosphere in which Catholics of a certain left-leaning ilk accused those on the right of having questioned the patriotism of anyone who had opposed the Iraq War.

The thing is that I don’t recall these instances of anyone’s patriotism being impugned (outside of David Frum’s infamous piece at National Review in which he accused conservative Catholic commentators Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak of being “unpatriotic”; but then, any conservative worth a damn doesn’t give a rat’s patoot what David Frum thinks or says).

And, in fact, the left’s protestations about having their patriotism questioned appears to have been nothing more than collective projection, imagining that their political adversaries were doing exactly what they would do if they were the ones trying to overcome opposition to a particular objective of national policy priority. This has been borne out since the election of President Obama: how many times have we seen the words “sedition” (also here, for example), “un-American” (also here, for example), “unpatriotic”, and even “siding with the terrorists” (not to mention “racist”) applied to critics of the Obama agenda?

But NEVER in my years have I EVER heard someone in politics say about someone in the opposition “He just doesn’t love America like I do.”

Until now:

Continue reading...

14 Responses to The Devil and Daniel Webster

  • Grayson’s career (and Paul Krugman’s as well) raise the question as to just where the boundaries of permissible expression of malice are within the Democratic Party.

  • On a side note…

    When I first saw the headline I thought you were posting about the classic black and white movie of the same title, based on the short story by Stephen Benet. Maybe for the weekend?

  • In 1832, the historic Daniel Webster actually confronted and exposed true evil: Democrat Party.

    From WSJ Robert Bartley (RIP), Obama, Dodd, Frank ” . . . harked back to the founder of their party. In his 1832 veto of renewing the Bank’s (Second Bank of the United States) charter, Jackson complained that its profits went to foreigners and a ‘few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.’ Daniel Webster replied that the message was a ‘wanton attack whole classes of people, for the purposes of turning against them the prejudices and resentments of other classes.’ The tradition, of course, runs strong even today in the party of Jackson and Obama.”

    The demagogues consistently rely (when untrammelled abortion, gay privileges, teachers unions, millionaire bureaucrats, and lies, lies, lies do not work) on inciting class/race envy and hatred. None of that is Christian.

    In charity I must again state: you will not be going to Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • I would pay T.Shaw to see a debate between you and Grayson.

  • Around the fifty second mark, the Hon. Rep. Grayson makes a lovely performance.

  • I apologize in advance. Debate never solved anything involving unadulterated evil.

  • Ah, but the debate would be endlessly amusing T. Shaw which is why I would pay money to see it.

  • You definitely covered the bad, ugly, and evil Grayson very well.

  • Let us hope Teresa that the voters of his district are reading these type of critiques.

  • Regardless of the truth, your viewpoint seems biased. Political ads are no way to judge a candidate. What a man does is far more important than what he says. Focus on the good and let us judge for ourselves. Ask yourself, would Jesus approve of my action and views. Probably not.

  • Somehow Mr. Grimley I doubt if you can speak for Jesus. Grayson is a disgrace, and his berserk ads are merely the tip of an over the top iceberg of conduct which befits an elected official as well as silk stockings befit a pig.

  • Political ads are no way to judge a candidate

    An advisory from Mortimer Adler many years ago in response to the proverb, “don’t judge a book by its cover”: the cover is what the publisher wants you to see and see first; there is information in that.

  • The ads are things the man has done, are they not? Words are acts. The man’s acts are dispicable and gravely immoral.