The Past and the Present (Thomas Sowell on Newt Gingrich)

Creators Syndicate ^ | December 20, 2011 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

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. 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. In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney. Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want? Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain. 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 lost big time.

[Cyber Liberty]

New tagline!

[freedomfiter2]

When bribes must be paid to do business, only crooks will be in business.

[Prokopton]

The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught.

Thats not why Gingrich had to pay a $300,000.00 fine and was repremanded. Gingrich admitted to providing inaccurate information to the ethics committee. Like most egomaniac politicians, it's the coverup that gets them.

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[llandres]

“We won’t be running against such a vulnerable opponent as Obama for many years to come and next time will be too late.”

First, Dr. Sowell is one of the most brilliant, esteemed conservatives of our time, and he’s familiar with all of Newt’s warts. He makes some very important points in this article and tells it like it is - we’d do well to listen;

Second, Obama’s vulnerability will depend on the guts, intelligence, cleverness, charisma and verbal skills of our nominee. The fact that the elites and the media hate Newt so much says that they greatly fear him, and that should be considered a high recommendation.

You ARE right that next time will be too late, because if we don’t put up the one who can (and wouldn’t hesitate to) give BHO the smackdowns he so richly deserves, for all the world to see, there won’t even BE a next time.

BHO will have a billion dollars and a complicit media. They will all fight very dirty and we can’t put someone up against him unless they have the chutzpah not to back down or freeze up and the eloquence not to falter or stumble.

No, BHO is NOT so vulnerable that we can afford to bring a knife to this gunfight.

[llandres]

“Though I don’t regard Romney as “bland,” I regard him as poison to the GOP and to our wonderful Republic.”

He is bland, and worse, he’s a milquetoast with nice looks. BHO would chew him up and spit him out on so many levels. Mitt gets that wild, deer in the headlights look when challenged (which he hasn’t been yet, so far, thanks to a treacherous media who want him as the nominee so badly they’re salivating. He’ll cave like McCain. BOR gave him every chance tonight to call out BHO for what he is and he wouldn’t do it. I’m also sure Bachmann, Santorum and even Rick Perry would back down when face to face with BHO. And they’d get rattled.

Now if we’ll just support the one who CAN smack down BHO and won’t shrink from doing it, we can get rid of Romney. Will we?

[llandres]

“I certainly want Newt to be all Dr. Sowell would wish, but I’m doubtful that he is.”

Dr. Sowell doesn’t deal in wishes, he deals in facts. He knows Newt’s warts, but he tells the truth - that Newt is our best weapon to defeat BHO.

[SFConservative]

... disappointed that Dr. Sowell doesn't know that the budget hasn't been balanced ...

I distinctly remember reading columns by Sowell about the insanity of declaring some things "off-budget" as the US has been doing for a long time. Why, for example, should disaster relief be off-budget? There should be a disaster relief contingency line in each year's budget, factored in magnitude by the historical scale and probability of sh!t happening. Some years you're up, some years you're down, washes out over the years. GAAP requires companies to account for that, but the Govt can pretend not only that it won't ever happen, it can pretend that when it happens it doesn't actually happen.

But if you define the budget to be the sum of everything that is not legislated to be traditionally off-budget, the Gingrich Congress caused it to be balanced without pushing more stuff off-budget. While there are those painful asterisks, it was quite an uphill achievement, built mostly on Gingrich's spinal rigidity at that time.

[llandres]

I’ve often liked Mark Steyn over the years. However, he trashed Herman Cain and bought into the (still unproven) allegations against him.

Close reading of this article, particularly the last part, tells me that he supports Romney.

Newt has the fire to win this election - and the ability (imo).

We HAVE to get BHO and his fellow America-hating radicals OUT at all costs. Newt would be many times better than BHO, and we just continue working to get more conservatives elected to Congress and Senate to keep him in line.

I believe Newt correctly sees BHO as an extreme threat to this country, so he’s determined to bring him down. That’s a good thing - and he deserves support in doing it.

[llandres]

“Getting rid of Obama isnt high on their priority list.”

That’s very disturbing, don’t you think? I mean, when the house (our republic) is on fire, before we can repair, remodel and redecorate, we first have to put out the FIRE.

BHO is the Fire. We have to put him (it) OUT.

[dixiechick2000]

Bully for you that you’ve never had a government loan.

We’ve had VA loans.

What’s wrong with that?

[dixiechick2000]

Bribes?

Where did you get that bribes were being made?

Pay to play?

Where did you get that?

Please provide links for your accusations.

[dixiechick2000]

The last two paras...

“So what does that leave? Tonally, his confident swagger is more appealing to the Republican base than Romney’s unctuous aw-shucks wholesomeness — just as John McCain’s maverickiness was more appealing than Romney last time around. And we know how that worked out for the GOP. The Dems are confident that this is a gift from the heavens: The Stupid Party is stupid enough to put up a scowly, jowly fat guy whose name is a byword for everything from the Nineties Mr. and Mrs. Moderate don’t want to revive.

But Newt wouldn’t be where he is right now if the conventional wisdom were all that wise. It’s easy to dismiss the futurological mumbo-jumbo of his accumulated brainstorms — “the Triangle of American Progress,” “the Four Great Truths,” “the Five Pillars of American Civilization,” “the Five Pillars of the 21st Century,” “the Nine Zones of Creativity,” “the Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilization” — except that right now he’s heading for the nomination and Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels aren’t. The Nine Zones and Fourteen Steps have been distilled to the One Singular Sensation: Newt lui-même. The SAS, the British special forces, have a motto: “Who dares wins.” Unlike Mitt, Newt dares — and he may yet win. As the old Dem bumper stickers used to say, “Newt Happens.”

It sounds to me like he’s heard from fly-over country.

[dixiechick2000]

BTW...

“...just as John McCain’s maverickiness was more appealing than Romney last time around...”

THAT didn’t appeal to the base, at all. MS is dead wrong on this.

Though, McCain was more manly...

[dsc]

“When bribes must be paid to do business, only crooks will be in business.”

You don’t get it.

The first thing is to preserve a system that permits private enterprise. You’re worried about non-fatal corruption while leftards seek to kill our system. If they have their way, no one will be in business, corrupt or otherwise.

[skeptoid]

The inaccurate information was an innocuous mistake on a legal form filed by an attorney that Newt signed without bothering to verify. It was legal silage that became haute cuisine for the sharks once there was blood in the water.

There was no criminal intent.

There was no coverup.

It was a classic technicality.

That's why (one day after his 11th re-election from his Georgia district) he said:
I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.

[DuncanWaring]

Then why did the Federal Government go more deeply into debt in each of those four years of alleged “surplus”?

[BCrago66]

I actually learned something from your comment. For one thing, I thought the securitization process started in the 2000’s, not the 90’s. While it can be argued that we would have been better served if functions of these GSE’s were performed by smaller, competing private entities from the start, it seems clear that the corruption of these entities started (or at least accelerated) with the politically attractive idea to use the Community Reinvestment Act and these GSE’s to extend credit to virtually anyone.

Problem is, I can’t think of a political soundbite in which Gingrich can explain these issues. In politics, if you’re on defense, you’re losing. So Gingrich’s only alternative is to double down on those issues in which he’s on offense.

[llandres]

There is a daily Mark Steyn thread - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2821303/posts

[llandres]

“Romney would easily roll over to make sure people liked him.”

Right - Romney is afflicted with “the disease to please”. To say that we need a candidate with the courage to “ruffle some feathers” - namely BHO’s - is spot on by Dr. Sowell.

But since we’ve got crazy RuPaul persisting in being our primary spoiler, if we don’t recognize Newt’s ability to whip BHO soon, we’ll be stuck with Romney as the media, Democrats and GOP elites want - and we’ll lose our republic to B. Hussein Obama.