[AnAmericanMother]

I'll grant you that Henry came around (after a disappointing start in the Revolutionary War) to be an excellent governor of Virginia. But Sam Adams as far as I am concerned was the equivalent of Al Sharpton - out there rabble rousing and getting people killed. (It's not his picture on the beer, by the way, it's Copley's portrait of Paul Revere, which has been altered several times over the life of the brand to look less like Paul and more like a generic modern American. It never looked like Sam. He was too ugly to sell beer with.)

We had counterbalance to Hamilton in Jefferson and Franklin and George Mason (my personal favorite). I don't imagine for a minute that Hamilton could have foreseen the fix we're in today. The Articles of Confederation had already proved a total failure when it came to running anything. . . . as it turned out the Constitution was the best workable plan at the time.

But if the Revolution had been left to the likes of Adams and Henry, it would never have gotten off the ground. Boston, New York, and maybe the Saratoga campaign would have been the end. Ideologues need counterweights to actually accomplish anything - they can lead the parade, but they can't do the grunt work.

[Gunslingr3]

Ideologues need counterweights to actually accomplish anything - they can lead the parade, but they can't do the grunt work.

Would Jefferson, Franklin or Mason sign a bill banning guns? Would they agree to do so publicly? That's grunt work I'd rather see Republicans not trying to accomplish. If you want to argue that Jefferson, et al were less radical than Sam Adams in bringing the question of American independence and liberty to a head, congrats, but I knew that, and it's not germane to a discussion of what our president has put himself on record supporting. I honestly can't believe you tried to draw an analogy between Al Sharpton and Samuel Adams. Wasn't calling him ugly enough?