Replies

Thanks for your response. My point was that the widespread voting in SC for Gingrich was not, as Brit Hume so narrowly summarized it, that he had a zinger or two in debates, or that it was that he kindled anger. It seems to be much more complex than that.

While the so-called "progressives" have censored the ideas of the Founders' from textbooks for several decades, the TEA movement has called attention to those ideas, and there is renewed interest in rediscovering the ideas that allowed America to be the place in the world where people were seeking opportunity and freedom.

Gingrich's intensive study of those ideas allows him to be the one, along with Santorum and Paul, who can respond to a question about a current issue, with a quick overview of how it relates to a larger principle underlying our Constitution.

Perhaps South Carolina voters, as applies to voters throughout America, are looking for someone who understands enough, and is quick and clever enough, to expose the stark difference between the ideas of a welfare, dependency nation, run by political elites who fancy themselves smart enough to make decisions for everyone else, and a free nation of individuals whose written Constitution prohibits elected officials from assuming such coercive power over their fellow citizens.

Clearly, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich appear, each in his own way, to be viewing our problems through the prism of Constitutional understanding.

Before November, some candidate must emerge who can help enough voters to discover, or, in some cases, rediscover the ideas of liberty which motivated our ancestors of 1776 to declare to the world the reasons why they would resist, reject, and oppose the coercive rule of King George, and claim their Creator-endowed rights to be free individuals under a rule of law and right and wrong.