Posted on 02/21/2014 8:05:27 AM PST by Innovative
Well said, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I have stayed out of the criticisms of Dr. Sowell other than to say I believe he is wrong about Ted Cruz. This has split some FReepers and in my view it shouldn’t because of Sowell’s stellar support of conservatism over many years.
I may reassess my view depending on what happens in the future but am not about to throw him under the bus now.
I am so shocked at Sowell's take on Cruz and the dilemma that faces conservatives with regard to the Republican party. It is the FIRST TIME in what, 15 years at least of reading Thomas Sowell's insight, that I have ever disagreed with him. I do think that as a younger man, Sowell would never have adopted the risk-averse attitude he has now. But there again -- is it because age has made him wiser, or because age has made him more vulnerable? Age does both to us all.
Spot on.
My problem is I stay mystified by those who gauze up the obvious. Minimizing everything that made this country the envy of the world has over time, led incrementally to now openly destroying the churches, schools, hospitals, factories and economy, our military, and jobs, in exchange for utopia from hell.
“Spreading the wealth around”, and, “fundamentally transforming America” was more than a slip of the tongue and a heady remark, but a gauntlet thrown down that should have been a call to arms.
Why would the starkly obvious allude a supposed “thinker” like Sowell, and those who entertain his pacifist approach to political combat, unless they have a person in mind who will perpetuate the illusion, against another man who will not.
Election time makes the beard stroking, peace-at-any-price crowd look not thoughtful, but unfortunately damn suspect.
I understand...Sowell wrote three columns on this subject, two were posted on Creators Syndicate on Feb 19 and one the following day on Feb 20. There’s been numerous postings of them with different titles and some people think he wrote more on the subject because of the different titles but then this happens often with many of his columns.
Like you I’m at a loss as to why he’s taken this position but he must believe that Ted Cruz has ulterior motives. I certainly hope not and absolutely don’t believe that he does and also hope Dr. Sowell comes to realize it.
Therefore I continue to hold Sowell in very high regard. I discard the possibility of him not having integrity. He is the SOUL of integrity in terms of conservative principle, and has been for as long as I've followed his words, which has been a very, very long time.
THEREFORE, I must attribute Sowell's mistaken take on Cruz and the best way to move forward hindered by a treacherous GOPe, to something else. Sowell is worthy of respect now as he has always been; the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, Romney, etc. -- are worthy of contempt as they have always been.
Leopards don't change their spots.
The Republican party needs to stand on the founding principles. If it cannot do that or refuses to do that, it should be let out to pasture.
My mistake, his first column was posted at Creators Syndicate on Feb 17 and I didn’t post it until Feb 18.
I agree 100%.
I am curious of what you might attribute to Sowell’s error? You thoughtfully acknowldge that his Cruz “take” is mistaken and attributed to “something else”.
Is Sowell, by his reputation, rhetorically gifted enough to shape opinion, and thereby turn the soil early in the season for possibly a more like minded candidate like Bush, who is known to be surveying the landscape for a possible presidential run?
I guess I believe it’s crunch time for this nation’s direction, that the only thing standing between complete fiscal decline, political corruption and moral collapse is the grace og God and the winner of the 2016 ballot.
I can’t imagine that a sage like Sowell wouldn’t agree that the critical juncture is here and that our direction is determined by the leadership of men, or of mob. So, if he does agree that leadership is the critical, surely he has someone in mind. Why else blame both the Establishment, and their only real nemesis, Cruz, unless he has an alternative to Cruz? If not Cruz types, whom would he believe capable of even making a difference?
A couple of things (and below I cut and paste from comments in posts 118 and 122):
I do think that as a younger man, Sowell would never have adopted the risk-averse attitude he has now. But there again -- is it because age has made him wiser, or because age has made him more vulnerable? Age does both to us all.
And --
Sowell is in is 80s, I believe, and he is very wise ... but his great age now may be making him more cautious and even timid than he would have been as a younger man. Would he ever have opined thus about someone like Cruz 20 years ago? Just the same, Sowell is much too wise to disregard because of one puzzling opinion.
Risk averse. Yes, I certainly buy that. A fork to the gun fight is the prevaling strategy of the peace at any price crowd running our party.
I do thank you for the reply, though, and the possible reasons for his what ever it was analysis. I can’t quite figure it out, myself, or what point it served.
Thx, Rita
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.