Thomas Sowell Makes A Case for Newt

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Oct 19, 2010
19,815
6,469
390
Michigan
Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense as usual.


Thomas Sowell
The Past and the Present


4_header_image.jpg


If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-past-and-the-present.html
 
Last edited:
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.
 
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.

Yep.. all the dems can do is run a smear campaign. They can't run on Obama's record. All one has to do is look at what Newt accomplished as speaker to know how he will govern. His record speaks for itself.
 
That's the point. Newt's record will sink him during the next three months.
 
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.


Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod stated if Gingrich wins the nomination they will NOT go after him on his personal life.

So again-it's this FEAR coming from the GOP establishment of nominating a real conservative. For some reason they believe Gingrich would chase off independents. Yet--independents are standing in the same unemployment line as the rest of us.

Furthermore--I think Romney's stance on illegal immigration scares more independents--and especially Latino's away.

So beats me--what they're so worried about with Newt Gingrich?
 
That's the point. Newt's record will sink him during the next three months.

Yeah? and what about his record will sink him?

Yeah--balancing the federal budget for 4 years in a row--and leaving office with a projected surplus budget--is scarier than s....t.--:badgrin:

For Jake anybody but Romney is scary. Newt's record beats Romney's hands down as Thomas Sowell points out.:cool:
 
Yeah? and what about his record will sink him?

Yeah--balancing the federal budget for 4 years in a row--and leaving office with a projected surplus budget--is scarier than s....t.--:badgrin:

For Jake anybody but Romney is scary. Newt's record beats Romney's hands down as Thomas Sowell points out.:cool:

Yeah Gingrich has a 96-97% history record of being conservative. Again--it's just the fear from establishment republicans of nominating a true conservative--that's why we got John McCain in 2008--a moderate--and someone who was "supposed" to be able to attract independents--LOL That's what this is all about with Romney too. But--I think with Romney's stance on immigration--he will scare off more independents and Latino's than Gingrich ever would.
 
Last edited:
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.


Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod stated if Gingrich wins the nomination they will NOT go after him on his personal life.

So again-it's this FEAR coming from the GOP establishment of nominating a real conservative. For some reason they believe Gingrich would chase off independents. Yet--independents are standing in the same unemployment line as the rest of us.

Furthermore--I think Romney's stance on illegal immigration scares more independents--and especially Latino's away.

So beats me--what they're so worried about with Newt Gingrich?

Give me a Newt Obama debate and see were we go from there. What's Obama going to run on?
 
Dr. Sowell makes a lot of sense as usual.


Thomas Sowell
The Past and the Present


4_header_image.jpg


If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-past-and-the-present.html

Well, hallelujah. Someone out there is finally talking sense, instead of jumping on the "We must choose the most electable!" bandwagon.

When you interview a candidate for a job, you don't ask him about his marital history. And you don't fire an employee if you find out he cheated on his wife. It would never occur to any thinking person that that would affect his skills and abilities to do the job . . . until the job in question is an elected office, for some odd reason.
 
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.


Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod stated if Gingrich wins the nomination they will NOT go after him on his personal life.

So again-it's this FEAR coming from the GOP establishment of nominating a real conservative. For some reason they believe Gingrich would chase off independents. Yet--independents are standing in the same unemployment line as the rest of us.

Furthermore--I think Romney's stance on illegal immigration scares more independents--and especially Latino's away.

So beats me--what they're so worried about with Newt Gingrich?

They're used to nominating blandly-smiling empty suits who will be nice and polite and gentlemanly . . . and usually end up losing because they refuse to fight for the election. Sadly for the GOP, Ronald Reagan is the only candidate in recent history who could be nice and amiable and still kick butt while doing it. It's pretty much going to have to be one or the other.
 
The newties here remind sensible folks that politics remain the art of the possible. Newt is not going to be possible against Romney much less Obama. Romney is conservative enough to hold the right of center as well as the center. Newt cannot pull the center, which he will lose to Obama.

Mumbling about "conservative enough" no longer counts, just isn't enough anymore.
 
The clue is understanding what is. Many of the far leftites and the hard righties have no clue.
 
The newties here remind sensible folks that politics remain the art of the possible. Newt is not going to be possible against Romney much less Obama. Romney is conservative enough to hold the right of center as well as the center. Newt cannot pull the center, which he will lose to Obama.

Mumbling about "conservative enough" no longer counts, just isn't enough anymore.

If Romney wins, it will because he slimed his opponents. And his opponents supporters will remember that in November, when they don't show up to support him.

No one ever ran a dirty campaign in the primary and won in the general. Pissing on the people you are going to need to knock on doors is a sure-fire loser... and so is Mittens.
 
It makes sense to me. I will be voting for a leader for a very serious time in our history. His personal life has nothing to do with his leadership skills. This country needs leadership and he has proven it over and over.

I think Romney can help on the economic front, but we are dealing with world problems now as well. Gingrich has the background in both.


Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod stated if Gingrich wins the nomination they will NOT go after him on his personal life.

So again-it's this FEAR coming from the GOP establishment of nominating a real conservative. For some reason they believe Gingrich would chase off independents. Yet--independents are standing in the same unemployment line as the rest of us.

Furthermore--I think Romney's stance on illegal immigration scares more independents--and especially Latino's away.

So beats me--what they're so worried about with Newt Gingrich?

Axelrod has also said that they won't go after Mittens for being "Weird" (which is the code-word for "Mormon".)

Which is pretty meaningless. The Mainstream Media will carry that water for him.

Obama never had to say, "Boy, Sarah Palin sure is stupid", but the MSM certainly left a lot of people with that impression.

The difference I see is that Mittens gets all indignent whenever anyone brings up the "Weird".... er Mormon issue, while Newt lets the criticisms slide off his back. The people who scream loudest about Newt's infidelities weren't going to vote Republican anyway.

Mittens, as you say, will chase off Hispanics, because he demogogued the issue to beat Perry and Gingrich. He will chase off Evangelicals who hate Mormons. He will chase off working people when they find out he's one of the guys who puts people in unemployment lines.

It's almost like the Beltway establishment tried to find the worst possible candidate they could, and pushed him.

And out there you have Americans Elect, which might end up nominating a real conservative who will take away enough votes to pooch Romney's chances.
 

Forum List

Back
Top