Posted on 12/19/2011 9:59:22 AM PST by jazusamo
lol
He says so in your link ~ he’s done a 180 in terms of his support for Newt.
Your link is dated today. Are you sure it’s been posted here as a thread?
. . . Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. . . .
The federal budget was balanced in '98, '99, '00 and '01.
1998 minus 40 is 1958; (the Eisenhower administration)
Double HAHA
Sure, Sowell presents a lot of cogent points concerning achievements, but, c’mon, Mitt has great hair. So despite the fact that he’s never accomplished anything, lets nominate Mitt because he looks like what we think a president should look like. Even if he’s never given us any reason to vote for him. (smirk)
I do think Sowell is too dismissive of these concerns, however. Personal judgement and behavior are important factors when awarding a position of trust and responsibility, even when not directly related to professional judgment and behavior.
The "baggage" question on Gingrich is a legitimate one from both the pragmatic "does it make him unelectable?" and philosophical "can we trust him?" positions, In order to throw support behind Gingrich, it is important to ask those questions and be comfortable with the answers.
More clear thinking from Sowell. I agree with his priorities.
Newt is in no way like McCain.
I'm neither for Romney nor Gingrich, but I could imagine Gingrich telling the truth to the American public much more than I could Romney. Romney would easily roll over to make sure people liked him. Despite some of his past statements and actions (which he's since apologized for), I think Newt would be much more likely to hold firm to conservative principles than Mitt. That's not saying a lot, I'm just saying I'd trust that "zany" Gingrich more than I'd trust Romney.
You’re an idiot.
That’s not how I read Steyn’s article. He seems to think if Newt is still standing, then we have no alternative.
Here’s the prior post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822279/posts
Not if your only choices were Newt, Hitler and Stalin.
That is the expected answer one would expect from a Newter. No dialogue - just name calling.
I didn’t read that as an endorsement per se, but more of a recitation of the facts, and no real reason to oppose Gingrich.
You mean a sometime conservative, sometime liberal suck up, Republican backstabbing, amnesty loving, consummate insider, "maverick"? Na, no similarity at all.
Gingrich Ping.
As far as I am concerned in the national election...anybody but Obama.
And as far as the GOP nominee, any body but Romney (and Huntsman).
Thanks, you’re right. Steyn obviously hates Newt.
I’ll take Newt’s brains over Steyn’s quips any day. I imagine Dr. Sowell would, too.
Sowell is where many of us are. Newt is the least worse option. That is not high praise.
I love and respect Dr. Sowell and have become a Newt supporter since Herman Cain dropped out.
Within 6-7 weeks five votes will have been held and we will have a much better picture of how the primary is forming.
I've decided that over the Holy Days, I'm going to try to hold back on my acid posts and bomb throwing at supporters of other FReepers losing candidates.
Check my tag line and remember, I don't want to nuke all mooselimbs, we will save both moderates when they are identified.
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.