I just didn't feel he was flawed enough for the list of flawed but extraordinary gentlemen :-)
Posted on 12/21/2011 7:34:38 PM PST by RedMDer
Economist and conservative author Thomas Sowell says voters should disregard Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “baggage” and support the former House speaker because defeating President Obama in 2012 is crucial to America’s future.
Sowell cites Gingrich’s solid record of “concrete accomplishments,” which he argues makes him a stronger candidate than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who pushed through one of the liberal healthcare programs in the nation.
...
He concludes: “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I don’t want ObamaCare, and I don’t want GingrichCare either.
Maybe so Thomas, but I don’t have confidence in either guy. And seems some people like Nikki Haley and Monica Crowley are going with Romney. So that isn’t good either. I guess I have to go with Gingrich if he wins... or you know what the choices are....On election day in November I’ll see what the choices are.
He's gotten my attention, more than once.
I do not understand why ANYONE can buy Romney's line that “well, I had to talk like a left wing nut job in Mass to win the election for governor” as okay. It's a MASSive disqualification.
Who says he's not lying now? His track record, by admission, is one of saying anything to anyone to get elected. That's nothing but a power grab by an egotistical maniac.
Newt is closer to 60% of that attitude now but I believe can be controlled IF we can send (and we should, 2012 is more ripe than 2010 to defeat the left) more conservatives to the House and Senate.
Romney would look for compromise as president while with more conservatives I believe (just my opinion) that Newt can be brought back to the “good side of the force” and start dismantling this massive leviathan.
Learned the hard way that if you click once and leave your finger on “send” too long, you’ll get multiple posts.
Please use the photo in any way you wish.
I wish it or something similar was the first thing one saw when entering this site. Not because I made it...it’s a very simple graphic, anyone could make it. It’s just so important that we unite behind the one man who can take it to the democrat media and Obama. Yes! He’s flawed, but who else has a reasonable shot? I think he is the extraordinary man for this important task...warts and all.
I commend all four of your choices, but I would have selected General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson instead of Gen. Grant.
http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/csos.htm
I’m with Sowell.
I just didn't feel he was flawed enough for the list of flawed but extraordinary gentlemen :-)
yes - The Man and the Time have met -
Let’s hope American has woken up sufficiently enough to know everything rides on getting him in....
This is our one chance to turn the tide and sweep the Socialists and the Establishment Cabal into the dustbin of history and bring back our great country and freedoms for many generations to come.
That is indeed a fine tagline my FRiend!
I agree with that also. I'm not aware of any of his flaws, just amazed at his leadership and battlefield skill.
If Thomas Sowell says so, I will take it under close advisement!
Bookmark
Here’s a link to the original article by Dr. Sowell and thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822390/posts
But we badly need to oust BHO from our WH as well. Just having House and Senate isn’t enough. For one thing, there’d still be a lot of RINOs there, and for another, what BHO’s increasingly doing with EO’s to bypass Congress is nothing compared to how he’ll do this in an unbridled second term.
I like!....I like! :-)
Character does matter. But it requires examination in context and our drive by media does a horrible job may that be because of their ineptness or personal bias.
Ultimately the reasoned and measured voter takes experience, education and the macro level guiding philosophy of the candidate as the primary measurements when evaluating. Unfortunately, this substance or “function” is only secondary as far as most voters is concerned, with “form” being the primary driving force behind the voters decision: name recognition, appearance (weight, height, hair, etc), demographics (sex, age, race), eight second sound bites that contain a feeling and reaction of the candidate (perfect example is Nixon vs. Kennedy), and simple party association. We have degenerated to the point where experience is a liability and the dark horse candidate such as Cain or Obama have the advantage since words can be pure but a record never is. Most voters that do some sort of research or analysis on determining how they vote simply look at the candidates through the “single issue” lens, i.e. gays, welfare bunnies, the enviro types. Essentially, reality no longer matters, the candidates are recreated for us (Kerry in 2004 is the consummate example of this) and the voter votes based on a feeling. Gingrich is an old, gray haired, white man with a geeky voice and who doesn’t walk with a swagger nor has the Hollywood/pop culture and news media seal of approval. What he has accomplished, his greater philosophical approach to security, economics, liberty, all this matters little for most voters. That’s the scary reality.
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.