« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Finally, an adult in the room: Thomas Sowell: Gingrich’s Past, Our Future

Sowell: “Dwelling on the former speaker’s “baggage” won’t help the nation’s future.”

Wow, this is a must read. It’s hard to even grab excerpts from Sowells piece since it’s so well stated.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the 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.”

Sowell, like Rush, has the rare gift of seeing the forest through the trees. Having perspective, able to see the big picture.

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 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 may be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter,

Yet we are falling all over ourselves floundering in the tabloid media trap of comparing our candidates to perfection, rather than to the danger Obama represents to our country.

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 now claims that they were.

There are nearly zero mentions of Gingrich’s accomplishments in office. If Bill Clinton can claim all the glory, why not give credit to Gingrich? Don’t these type of accomplishments start w/ the speaker in the house?

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results….When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Coburn and the rest of the namby pamby GOP DC elites who came out after Gingrich basically calling him mean, should be ashamed of themselves. They made themselves look foolish. Meanwhile Coburn was boasting how nice Pelosi was. I haven’t heard Coburn apologize and admit his mistake for that.

Show me a leader who aspires to be liked and I’ll show you a LOSER. She me a leader who aspires to be respected and I’ll show you President Gingrich.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.

A voice of reason, Sowell, like Rush, sees the big picture. Exactly as Gingrich does, after he put in the time to learn the lessons of history and able to take it to the most dangerous president we have had. A rare combination of knowledge, ability, and cohones.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286226/gingrich-s-past-our-future-thomas-sowell?pg=1

COMMENTS

  • Common_Cents

    Who won straw poll of 23,000 Tea Party Patriots?
    Who can take it to Obama and embarrass him in debates?
    Who did Thomas Sowell just praise with nearly an endorsement?
    Who does Rush Limbaugh continually praise?
    Who isn’t liked by DC insiders?
    Who has proven to accomplish actual conservatism in office?
    Who has probably had the most conservative accomplishments since Reagan?
    Who ushered in a Republican revolution?
    Who launched Contract w/ America?

    • snowmonkey

      What are you saying?

      Are you saying that we were never serious about family values and basic morality?

      Are you saying you really didn’t care about Clinton’s past – that it was all just politics?

      Are you really saying that basic human decency does not matter?

      Newt, frankly (his most favorite word) would be the worst thing to happen to America in our long history.

      Newt, frankly, would spell the end of the GOP. How could a Republican ever hold her head up and say, “We are the party of the family,” after nominating Newt Gingrich?

      Forget it. You may not really believe in the values the party has espoused for decades, but many others do – enough that Newt will never get nominated/elected.

      • clowngirl

        when He had the option of sending Jesus (literally the perfect man) or any number of disciples who had never overseen the killing of Christians.

        Instead he picked a man who would later describe himself as “the least of the apostles” and “the chief of sinners”.

        In doing so, was he saying murder was ok? or that sinfulness did not matter? Did God not care about basic morality?

        of course not. It follows that putting a person in high office in spite of known past sins does not imply those sins are in any way acceptable.

        Newt has repented. He’s got a daughter defending him both in person and in print. In my view, that says a lot. And Newt’s always remained close to his children and now is very close to his grandkids. He goes back to Virginia most every weekend to see his wife sing in their church basilica.

        Newt’s values, in the present, look to be in order.

        • jakeofalltrades

          So what you’re saying is that we need to appoint a Muslim terrorist to the presidency… gotcha.

          • clowngirl

            n/t

          • jakeofalltrades

            given your handle.

            But just in case:

            What you did there was find a laudable personage from history, find one random thing he has in common with your candidate, and then add “ergo, my candidate should be president.”. It makes no more sense than Ron Paul on a bender.

          • clowngirl

            Which was that past sins should not serve as an automatic disqualification – no matter how bad they may be.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Saul wasn’t running for President. He wasn’t chosen by the people at all. That scripture has no bearing whatsoever on how to choose leaders. It borders on abuse of scripture what you did there trying to twist it to support Newt’s election.

            You should bend your perception of reality to fit scripture, not the other way around. (Because our fallen perceptions are distorted and can be calibrated thereby).

            The proposition that Newt has changed is a reasonable one that can be supported with facts, such as Newt’s own statements and the statements of his family. It doesn’t need massive leaps from scripture to support it – it needs facts.

            And unfortunately, the facts do not stack well in Newt’s favor.

          • clowngirl

            We don’t agree- and there no point in continuing this but you are either intentionally twisting or grievously misunderstanding my point.

            Paul was an important leader appointed by God in spite of his being a murderer.

            I am not suggesting ( as you seem to think) that Newt should be President BECAUSE of his adultery, that he is particularly like Paul, or that God’s appointment of Saul means that Newt should be President.

            All I was saying – and I stand by it – is that electing (or appointing) someone to high office in spite of past — long repented — sin, does not in any way imply a tolerance for that sin.

            If Newt was unrepentant and was currently committing adultery that would be completely different.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Exactly – Saul was appointed by God. The electors are not (at least not directly). The scripture has nothing to do with selecting leaders. It has no advice to give us on whether Newt’s sins should count against him or not.

            Twist scripture all you want – I’ve done what I can to warn you.

          • clowngirl

            In which the poster expressed a sentiment that nominating Newt with his past sins would be the equivalent of approving of them.

            I’m not saying that past behavior should never be considered and yes, obviously this should be evaluated on a case by case basis – but nominating a guy who professes repentance in good faith believing that he has repentance is not condoning his prior sins.

            I’m sorry to hear you think my comment is inappropriate – and I’ll credit you with presumably meaning well- but I still respectfully disagree. I thought the person I responded to was out of line in basically insulting anyone who supports Newt.

          • jakeofalltrades

            That’s why I said “borderline” abuse of scripture. The problem is that the part of scripture you cited has nothing to do with your point.

            And 90% of the preachers in this country have no problem twisting scripture. Sorry if you stepped in to my unmarked war zone.

            The Bible does not give specific advice on how to choose political officials that I can remember. So the scriptures aren’t even on point here. If the Bible is silent, we should let it stay silent and not start speaking for it.

            It does give advice on how to select church officials in 1 Timothy 3, which is as close you’re going to get to the opinion on the issue of past deeds and their effect on eligibility for leadership.

            In the case of church officials, Newt’s past would absolutely deny him any major leadership role in the church.

            You only get one wife.

          • jakeofalltrades

            The man who denied re-marriers the right to lead in the church, is Saul of Tarsus, the very same man whose life you cited to prove that past deeds have no bearing on the selection of leaders.

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      but not rank hypocrisy. If the GOP nominates Newt, we’ll look like colossal hypocrites. We will be mocked in the primary, get hammered in the general, and never be able to argue in favor of family values again.

      I wonder what percentage of the women’s vote we’ll have after 6 months of hearing about Newt dumping his first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer? And if you believe that character counts, then what kind of man has the character to do that?

      Sowell is a smart fellow about economics, but he doesn’t know squat when it comes to politics.

  • izoneguy
    • jakeofalltrades

      NSFW

      This also applies to Romney, in a different way…

      • izoneguy

        He is old & fat now so I doubt he can go for wife number 4. LOL

        • jakeofalltrades

          And here I am, single.

          • izoneguy

            Is worth hundreds of millions – that goes a long way in attracting the ladies -
            Counterpoint: Bill Gates got married

          • jakeofalltrades

            The Gates argument seals it.

          • Common_Cents

            While obama throws gasoline on a burning America. Brilliant!

            Take it up with Thomas Sowell.

          • Common_Cents

            I find it curious that nobody gives a little credit here.

          • barleycorn

            All the snark comments here are from mental Lilliputians or people who should be slapped awake.

            Circular firing squads have never been a a good base for a political movement but this time around conservatives seem bent in that direction.

            Good piece by the way.

          • williamjameson

            that’s where all the hacks go to school.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        declines after age 60.

        But does Newt get character points for an accident of nature?

    • beric

      And an ad-hominem. Endorsements don’t matter (at least to me), and just because someone endorses a candidate does not mean the candidate immediate takes on that person’s views.

      And it’s also amazing how people would never let someone get elected who made mistakes, regardless of whether or not they learned from them. Some people have set the bar so high for Newt to prove he’s learned from his mistakes, he’ll never be able to prove himself to them. And this is problematic. IMO Newt learned a lot more losing an election than Perry did winning one. You learn from mistakes. If you never make any, how will you recognize it when you’re about to?

      • tailfins1959

        When clicking on “This is a personal attack”, I was expecting you to beat up on someone here. So who are you personally attacking?

        • beric

          But claiming that a pro-adultery endorsement proves Newt is pro-adultery is a personal attack, and also fails a logical test: guilt by association.

          • tailfins1959

            I was just snickering at the title, that’s all.

          • Aaron Gardner

            It isn’t guilt by association when Newt admits to adultery.

          • Finrod

            ..

          • merryj1

            An excellent and timely quote! Thanks, Finrod.

    • Common_Cents

      Do we really want to give obama birther ammo? Perry should distance himself and walk back his solicited birther endorsement of Arpaio. What a gift to obummer.

      • tailfins1959

        These “get tough on the accused” jerks undermine the very founding principals of this country. At the very least the non-convicted could get better food and a better mattress/pillow.

  • Common_Cents

    Should make for an interesting caucus finish.

    This will be his message, optimism:

    “My only request to the people of Iowa is when you get ready to vote in two weeks, ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to reward politics as usual, negativity as usual, attack as usual, consultant as usual, fundraising from Wall Street millionaires as usual?’” Gingrich said in Hiawatha.

    “Or do you want to vote for the only person who has consistently, steadily been positive for the entire campaign?”

    He’s keeping his powder dry for Obama, the way it should be.

    • izoneguy

      • Common_Cents

        gingrich is the only one that can take romney down. Gingrich out early will help Romney do well in IA, NH, SC, and FL. Game over.

        • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

          Perry can take Romney down, and has at least twice–over RomneyCare (and the lies in his book) and over his hiring of illegals. No bad logic accepted here.

          • Finrod

            .

          • acat

            Texas primary is in March, and one would imagine Perry would do reasonably well in the State that elected him over and over and over …

            Look, if you’re going to slag Perry, that’s your call, but at least do so intelligently.

            Mew

          • Finrod

            I also don’t expect any candidate that did not have a single top 3 finish in the first three states to continue past that point, except for Ron Paul, for whom laws of logic don’t apply.

          • gekster

            But it happened.
            Unless you are hooked into Miss Cleo, all you have is speculation.

          • heraklios

            He might pass Newt and move into third. This would exceed expectations and keep him alive until SC and FLA

          • avagreen

            but, when I came over here to investigate, I saw that it was just three pink rainbows emanating from the back side of your lap.

            No worries. Carry on.
            <em<I don't expect Perry to finish in the top 3 in IA, NH or SC
            Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, December 27th at 11:44AM EST (link)

            I also don?t expect any candidate that did not have a single top 3 finish in the first three states to continue past that point…

          • romansdaughter

            I had just been wondering about you and where you were at. Glad to see you are back with us. Did you have a good Christmas? I hope so.

          • avagreen

            at the moment, they are rather speechless.

            http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/23/breaking-rick-perry-disqualified-from-virginia-ballot-for-insufficient-signatures/comment-page-13/#comment-5223044

            Christmas went well. I have good health (more or less), I live in a free country, I’m paying my bills, and I can worship my God freely. What else is needed? ;)

          • Finrod

            Do you attack everyone on RedState with such vile imagery, or did you just pull that out for Christmas?

            Go back to Hot Air, and take your crap with you.

          • avagreen

            1. Perry’s going to drop out.
            2. I post crap (after reading all your anti-Perry comments……I don’t think so).

          • Finrod

            Perry didn’t crack the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire, like I said.

        • sunshinek67

          that has caused unforced errors on Mitt Romney. Perry just gets up under his skin. Perry has gone up in every debate since “oops”. I wish Michele Bachmann would go after Mitt Romney the same way she went after Newt Gingrich in the last two debates, she dinged him up harsh. She’s good, needs fact check sometimes though lol.

  • David123

    if Newt is the nominee. I will concede that loyalty to America is more important in a president than loyalty to a wife. However, at this point we’ve got some good loyal conservative Americans to choose from who have also managed to be loyal to their wives (or in Bachman’s case, her husband).

    There is also the risk that adultery and hypocrisy will repel middle-of-the road voters, resulting in a loss by Gingrich in an election that Perry, Santorum, or Romney would have easily won.

    • Common_Cents

      He’s gonna get smeared as dumb Bush til the texas steer come home.

      “While answering a question during a town hall meeting in Maquoketa, Iowa, Perry forgot about the about the standard deduction he built into his own flat tax plan, saying it would be gone.

      Jindal quickly chimed in to correct him. “You actually keep the standard deduction in your flat tax,” said the popular Bayou State Republican.

      “Oh that’s right, as a matter of fact we raise it to $12,500, uh, per family I think,” Perry replied. “Thank you for correcting me on that governor… not that I ever make a mistake.”

      Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/20/jindal-corrects-perry-candidates-own-tax-plan#ixzz1h7nrWUZP

      • reggie182

        It’s obvious that Perry isn’t the one who devised the tax proposal. He apparently hasn’t even studied it carefully.

  • Menlo

    Either that, or you have one of those expensive Japanese models.

    I am not able to forget his support of the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

  • Common_Cents

    WASHINGTON, DC, Dec 19, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — Conservatives have spoken. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has won the Townhall.com and HotAir.com National GOP Primary. Voting ended Thursday, Dec. 15 and Newt Gingrich was declared the winner after over 250,000 votes were cast.

    Townhall.com and HotAir.com, the leading conservative online network, created the National GOP Primary to give conservative voters across the country an equal opportunity to voice their opinion on the GOP nomination for president. It was the largest online primary this election cycle. The voting ballots were tabulated late Thursday night and Newt Gingrich won with 36.5 percent of the votes. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in second with 18.8 percent of the total number of votes. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann came in third with 17.7 percent. Texas Representative Ron Paul came in fourth with 17.4 percent. Texas Governor Rick Perry finished last with 9.5 percent.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/townhall-and-hotair-announce-results-of-national-gop-primary-2011-12-19

  • Common_Cents

    Miraculous that Gingrich hasn’t completely imploded like other candidates have. Not any other candidate would have survived the torrential onslaught Gingrich has by all sides. And he’s still in top 2-3? Hardly an implosion.

    “AMES, Iowa — A new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of 330 likely Iowa Republican caucus goers finds Ron Paul in the top spot among GOP presidential candidates with 27.5 percent, followed closely by Newt Gingrich with 25.3 percent. Paul’s lead over Gingrich is within the poll’s margin of error at plus or minus 5 percentage points. ”

    http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/dec/ISUpoll2

    If Ron Paul does well in IA, the long knives will come out for him, especially on his dangerous foreign no policy. That will give Gingrich a nice rebound opportunity going into Newt Hampshire and SC.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      I think his fav crash is on, but I can’t confirm it.

      And the IA poll skews Paul, which is good news for Gingrich.

      • Common_Cents

        Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative!

  • Common_Cents

    Keeping his powder dry for Obama.

  • Common_Cents

    gingrich the adult in the room.

    And the DC elite are crybabies saying Gingrich is mean? It’s time we get someone in office to ruffle a few elitist feathers in DC.

    DES MOINES ? Newt Gingrich put a pox on all parties in Washington for failing to pass a payroll tax extension, but he especially condemned the Senate, where Republicans joined Democrats to vote for a two-month extension of the tax break, which affects 160 million Americans.

    House Republicans under Speaker John A. Boehner rejected that plan.

    ?They can?t figure out how to pass a one-year extension, so the Senate leaves town?? Mr. Gingrich said Wednesday morning. ?It is an absurd dereliction of duty, and it?s game playing.?

    He pointedly did not criticize Mr. Boehner for rejecting the Senate compromise and indicated Republicans would not be punished by voters.

    But Mr. Gingrich conceded that the spectacle on Capitol Hill did not look good.

    ?I think this is an example of why people are sick of Washington and sick of politics,? Mr. Gingrich said, noting that it was another example of why a change in leadership is needed in the next election.

    He added, ?Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure in a way that I think the American people find very, very disheartening to think that their leadership cannot get together and be mature.?

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/gingrich-condemns-the-senate-for-collapse-of-payroll-tax-cut-extension/

  • Common_Cents

    Newt doubles down and calls out Romney. HAHAHA Just what he’ll do to destroy obama in the general. Romney is a PANSY and has a glass jaw.

    *****************
    ?You?re kidding, of course,? Gingrich said in Manchester when asked about Romney?s comments. ?Look, I?ll tell you what. If he wants to test the heat, I?ll meet him anywhere in Iowa next week one on one, 90 minutes, no moderator,? he said.

    Gingrich said he took considerable heat when he was House speaker and can stand up to whatever President Obama throws at him. He accused Romney of being afraid to stand up for the ads running in his behalf, which he said were false.

    ?Let?s test this kitchen,? he said. ?I?m happy. I?ll go in the kitchen. Go back and ask Gov. Romney, would he like to play in the kitchen? I don?t think so. I don?t think he wants to do anything but hide over here and pretend it?s not his fault that he is flooding the people of Iowa with falsehoods. That?s his money and his staff and it?s his responsibility.?
    ***********************************
    CMON Romney, if you can’t take on Gingrich 1on1, you will fold like a house of cards against Obama.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-test-the-heat-with-one-on-one-iowa-debate/2011/12/21/gIQAxYFu9O_blog.html

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      . . .

    • reggie182

      Newt should put commercials on the air calling Mitt and anyone else who is running negative ads against him cowards for refusing to debate him one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas style. Saturate the airwaves with them!

      • Common_Cents

        It’s time for 1 on 1 debates, no moderator. Let’s see who has real substance and can articulate it. Who has a grasp of all the issues? Who even knows the details of their own tax plan? LOL No teleprompter, no phoning your buddy governor.

        I agree, Gingrich should put out ads challenging the candidates to 1 on 1 debates.

        they would be very informative and Iowans need the help in making a decision as many are still undecided.

        Cmon candidates, put up, or shut up.

  • Ausonius

    In his “Confessions,” Saint Augustine reveals – in some opinions, rather callously, but that could be due to style – that at one point in his life he was juggling 3 women plus an illegitimate son.

    Augustine had left his “companion” of over 10 years, and the mother of his son, in order to appease his mother, who had found an underage bride for him to save his soul by taming his appetite through a legal marriage. While waiting 2 years for the future bride to attain legal age, he started an affair with a third woman.

    Not very admirable. Not very admirable at all.

    Augustine, however, has the word “Saint” in front of his name for his accomplishments in theology and the reformation of his own life, and in dealing with both the collapse of the Roman government and the successful advance of barbarians in the late 300′s and early 400′s.

    People change, and some conquer the challenges thrown in their way.

    Some change because of the challenges they meet.

    • snowmonkey

      Saint Augustine really repented.

      What is your evidence that Newt has really repented? Is it because he says he has?

      Did he not just say that he was hired for millions at Fannie Mae as a historian? Do you believe that? Facts say different.

      Did he not just say that he really didn’t tell his wife in the hospital room that he wanted a divorce? Facts say different.

      Bottom line: Newt will say anything, and do anything, to get what he wants. He is still Newt, and he has not changed.

      If Newt has truly found religion (after being a Lutheran, then a Baptist, and now a Catholic), then good on him. But repenting (reconciliation, as Newt says it, as if he were God’s equal who does not beg forgiveness, but “reconciles”) does not wipe the slate clean with society. If that were the case, there would be few people in prison, and fewer still being executed.

      Character counts. Remember? And Newton has no character.

      • Ausonius

        Maybe Newt’s Catholicism is sincere, maybe it is part of an Adult ADHD personality, which he obviously has, maybe it is a way to get the Catholic vote, despite 3 marriages!

        I am not sure a majority of Catholics could identify his religion.

        As a political philosophy, “Washington is worth a Mass” would not really work given the hostility, rather than neutrality, toward Religion in D.C.

        Absolutely character counts! And yet Billy Jeff Clinton was elected twice, and remains – somehow – in the public eye rather than a despised clown. And yet, BIG BRObama was elected, despite the lies and mendacity and pusillanimity in his character.

        Aristotle’s criticism of democracy needs to be revisited!

        Whose character among our candidates stands forth as the best? And will it matter to the voters?

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    I’ll vote for one of them.

    If not, it is simply not arguable that Newt must be the nominee over Mitt Romney.

    Newt’s thoroughgoing knowledge and historical understanding of the American dynamic in the world is crucial as we begin the process of unraveling the statist leviathan.

    Mitt Romney would simply be yet another social-climbing technocrat, another seat-warmer… A John Boehner without the smoking and golf.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      …seriously, these false dilemmas are getting tiresome.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        If Governor Perry is still around by then, I will give him serious consideration, as well.

        But, I think Bob Tyrell over at the American Spectator gave a good encapsulation of the Perry candidacy. He was a big-time supporter of Perry, but after his five failed debate performances, and his seeming inability to articulate his positions well on the hustings, he’d come to the hard conclusion that Perry simply isn’t ready for the national stage.

        It is a hard, hard judgement, but I think it might have some merit.

        But, I love the Texas Governor. The facts, are, though, that he’s running for President, and that means more than pointing to his record in Texas, and hoping everybody overlooks his rhetorical flaws. I am completely enamored of his world-view, and his tax and regulatory proposals. But, I am not sanguine of his leadership abilities. You MUST be able to rally those to your banner who might not be so predisposed. And, I find a lack of this so far in Governor Perry.

        But, his such a good, wholesome, earnest, genuine, solid man that I might vote for him anyway. I sense I will make up my mind about ten seconds before I sit down to mark my ballot.

  • Wayne

    seem to have a narrow choice of candidates that stand a chance of competing with BO in 2012. It has bemused me that we can’t produce one person that has Obama’s oration skills capable of clearly telegraphing the message about OB’s presidency and how both parties got us into this mess and suggesting that only the Republican party’s core principals can save us. Someone capable of articulating a clear plan of how to get us back on the right track that cannot be undermined by their past. Let’s not forget that the last perfect person on the earth was crucified for blasphemy (well that’s my opinion anyway). I digress..

    Instead, we continue to focus on trivia which is symptomatic of America’s long romance with Democracy vs. Republicanism. Few Americans understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic or a Democratic Republic. And, even fewer voting Americans.

    Unfortunately, Republicans are forced yet again to swallow the bitter pill of the lessor evil. What a shame! With so much at stake, just one clear voice that cannot be discredited would be all we need. We get the leaders we deserve and we cannot avoid destiny. All we can do it fight this fight one person at a time and perhaps there will be a geometric proportion in that effort that can change our course in time to prevent the horrible outcome of continuing to do nothing or too little.

    • ayrnieu

      Oh, c’mon. Anyone can read from a teleprompter, tilt his head back 45 degrees, and be carried around like Xerxes on the backs and shoulders of the entire media.

      Whoever our candidate is, he won’t lose over debate performance, or over ancient conduct, or over ‘insensitive’ remarks or jokes. He can’t lose over any of this, as he’ll get attacked as fiercely by the media no matter what the facts are. The only way he can lose is if Republicans talk themselves out of voting, or cannot even themselves agree that there is an enormous difference between the parties. If Republicans as a body insist on voting, and clearly understand that the _certainty_ of treacherousness from Democrats outweighs any of their _worries_ about Republicans, then our candidate will win. Given the votes of a party that has its house in order and the votes of unsure Americans who are persuaded through contact with such a party, we’ll simply win. Our opponent is a teleprompter.

  • Wayne

    but, it would be dangerous to be so arrogant as to think whomever the Republican’s throw at the Dems will win whether a teleprompter or not. I would have never believed that the American public would be so stupid as to elect the Clintons much less BO.

    But, I believe the problems we face will not be fixed by merely electing a Republican, particularly Romney! We’ve been steadily digging this hole for many years through ignorance and apathy. An entire generation of young people have to be “de-programed” and that will take empirical experience not political promises. Not many learn from history, particularly power hungry politicians and corporations in collusion with big government.

    After all he got elected teleprompter or no and there is no reason to believe he won’t get reelected again.

    Be smart, tireless and dedicated to changing the way Americans think! Find ways to engage the ill informed or ignorant and transform them into independent, personally responsible freedom loving individualists. In being Americans most of that is done for you. It’s the sense of entitlement and apathy that anything can be done about it that is the problem. Maybe not the only problem but certainly one of the greatest obstacles in fighting this fight is convincing people there is one going on and that it’s important and necessary to win if they want a future for themselves and their families.

    • Flagstaff

      Our spokesmen need to be clear about what is wrong with Obama’s policies (not just state that they are wrong) and why ours will be better.

      Can anybody in Wisconsin who isn’t an SEIU member really think that Governor Walker and the legislature didn’t do the right thing for the state? If they do, we haven’t done a good enough job of explaining just what was going on, what was done, why it was necessary, and what will happen if it’s reversed.

      There are many national issues that need to be explained the same way. I can’t imagine anybody who could do that better than Gingrich, followed by Romney. The education needs to start yesterday.

      I’m afraid that none of them will bother to do it, though. If they opt for sound bites over facts and details, we are in trouble. But what do I know? Only how it seems to me.

  • Ausonius

    This Diary by Common Cents has generated 5 recommendations, and 38 comments, but did not make it to the list of Recommended Diaries.

    Another diary on Christopher Hitchens also has 5 recommendations, and 10 comments.

    The latter is on the Recommended list, but not the former.

    What is the reasoning behind this?

    Allow me to second the comments of Wayne: we are reaping the whirlwind of stupidity and cowardice sewn by 80 years of Leftist propaganda, which has infected schools public and private, the airwaves, the churches, and departments of government from dogcatcher to the White House, with very few exceptions.

    Countering all this will either take a complete collapse, so that the consequences of Socialism/Communism become REALLY obvious, or the arrival of Republican leaders who are not cowards and who will DARE to explain the superiority, morally and economically, of a Conservative position on government.

    Merry Christmas!

    • Ausonius

      And thank you for deleting the “TOM TANCREDO” conspiracy theory diary from yesterday.

      Next week will be interesting for Gingrich and the rest of us.

  • The_Gadfly

    There are basically three groups of people running: the establishment candidates, the upstarts, and the kooks.

    The establishment candidates are Mitt and Newt. Both of them having been moving through the revolving corporate/lobbying/political appointment revolving door for so long is seems like they were born there. They are tanned, well-coiffed, and for all they yammering about making significant and fundamental changes, won’t do anything to upset the establishment unless they have no other choice. If you are resigned to choosing an establishment candidate take one of them. I personally give the edge to Newt because he did actually change things back when he was in office. But then as now, some mysterious force emanating from the Senate, deflected blame for the incompetents over there to the leader of the House. Mitt’s two big accomplishments: saving the 2002 Olympics and Romneycare.

    The kook: Ron Paul. Some might add Huntsman. I put Huntsman in with the upstarts. Never vote for the kook. It is okay to be sorely tempted, just don’t actually pull the lever.

    The upstarts: Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman. For me, each of them has some really good positives, and a one or two bad negatives. On paper Huntsman has produced the most Republican fiscal platform seen since Reagan. He definitely would work for smaller government. But for me he mirrors Ron Paul too closely for me to be comfortable, and there’s that whole ambassador to China thing. Bachmann is a better debater than Perry, but in the end Perry has the record for creating jobs in Texas. So my choice is Perry.

    Santorum? Although I like him, I’m not sure if he properly belongs in the upstarts or the Establishment. He seems to have one foot planted firmly in both camps. Which probably explains why he never caught fire.

  • olsmithie

    is certainly not helping. (save helping Obey.)

    Sowell is making a great, (as usual), point about having a President who actually looks out for America over the Komrade O.

    The thing that causes confusion is the character issue.
    A candidate who has established core principles will not
    dither when answering any question. His character determines one’s actions in any particular situation.

    The candidates who have changed, repented,or “learned from experience” beg the question of what is genuine and what is for upping their numbers in the polls.

    The burden of proof, as with everything in life, is on the transgressor who made the mistakes, to prove that they have really changed. If they have really changed their core values, then great.

    Please be understanding, however if we exhibit a tendency to doubt a politician’ s veracity.

    Regards

  • snowshooze

    Most of the stuff of his that I have read is drivel.
    He might be old, does that qualify him?

    • williamjameson

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

    • Finrod

    • jakeofalltrades

      fyi

      • acat

        (hey, ya pitch easy ones like that, ya gotta expect the hits..)

        Mew

  • Common_Cents

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/In-Final-Stretch-Newt-Gingrich-Holds-Town-Halls-in-Iowa/10737426689/

    A great overview of his plans.

  • Common_Cents

    I just think he’s got the best economic plan of any of the candidates. I love the idea that he wants a strong dollar–that was clearly Reagan all the way. An optional flat tax, that?s wonderful. Spending restraint. If you look at some of his reforms of programs, it is just a very, very good, well-designed economic package and that?s what I am all about. I figured it would be remiss of me not to come and out and say, ?I think he?s the best candidate.?

    http://www.newt.org/news/video-art-laffer-endorses-newt-gingrich-fox-news

    Laffer will be in IA campaigning w/ Gingrich.

    • beric

      This endorsement can only help, particularly from a Reagan economic advisor.

      RedState is already sold out for Perry, but I like Newt’s 21st Centure Contract with America a lot better, as it’s clear Newt actually though out his economic plan himself, something I somehow doubt Perry has. And again, on the thread’s original topic, it’s good to see Sowell pointing out Newt’s strengths, to the so many who seem to be so apt to ignore them.

      Newt is running his campaign on ideas, and against the Washington establishment. The tenancy of so many to focus solely on his flaws, rather than on solutions to fix America’s sorry state, speaks of the situation within the GOP right now. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Newt on every single detail, he understands and articulates the issues like no other candidate, and really narrows down on what’s important. And again, he focuses on positive solutions, not attacks. Too many forget Reagan’s 11th commandment, and how we’re doing the Democrats’ work for them right now.

      I’d encourage everyone here to watch a few of his speeches. His historical background, and his belief in American exceptionalism are virtually unmatched. Watch a clip from a speech: “You ain’t seen nothing yet,” which I found inspiring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAz5pfPP3LU&feature=channel_video_title

  • progressivelibertarian

    that’s been feverishly at work trying to Islamize America as fast as they can (with assists from Obama, Eric Holder, Soros and his minion outlets, leftist useful idiots, etc, of course), in its tracks.

    For the general, it helps that Newt has the best potential among the GOP contenders to out-debate Obama.

    There is some chance that he can still pull it off (the nomination) if a few currently unpredictable chips fall his way, but he definitely needs to exercise more discipline as well as political alertness, and work tirelessly here on out to build a competent organization.

    • tomatin

      I think Perry has the will to be a good CIC but he will need a good national security cabinet to support him.

      Huntsman is very knowledgeable too but he’s too much of a dove sometimes.

      • progressivelibertarian

        The Chinese regime plays hardball (on trade, currency manipulation and a host of other issues), and their will can only be bent by our side hanging tough enough and playing hardball in return. In fact, we need a Prez. who can stand up and tell the Chinese regime to not only behave on bilateral matters, but also start democratizing their country and return power to the will of their people.

  • Flagstaff

    to read some of these comments.

    I think Sowell makes a lot of sense. The ONLY legitimate arguments against Gingrich are that (1) the lying MSM won’t have to lie quite so much to poison him publicly, and (2) he’s just too smart for the general public. In fact, Newt’s smarts are just what Obama’s were supposed to be.

    (Supposed: “Everybody says Obama is really smart, so I suppose he is.”)