South Carolina Message (Thomas Sowell)

Creators Syndicate ^ | January 24, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Just days before the South Carolina primary, polls showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich. Then came the debates and the question about Gingrich's private life, which brought a devastating response from the former Speaker of the House — and a standing ovation from the audience. Apparently the television audience felt the same way, judging by the huge turnaround in the support for Gingrich. The stunning victory in South Carolina brought Newt's candidacy back to life. But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters' response to Newt's mastery as a debater. The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative the voters prefer. The successive boomlets for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain showed the Republican voter's constant search for somebody — anybody — as an alternative to Romney. The splintering of the conservative vote among numerous conservative candidates allowed Romney to be the "front-runner," but he never ran far enough in front to get a majority. Mitt Romney's supposed "electability" — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody. This is the kind of candidate that is supposed to be the key to victory, no matter how many such candidates have gone down to defeat. If the bland and inoffensive moderate was in fact the key to victory, Dewey would have won a landslide victory over Truman in 1948, and John McCain would have beaten Barack Obama in 2008. Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much. Mitt Romney's fumbling when trying to answer the simple question of whether he would or would not release his income tax records is the kind of indecisiveness that is not going to cut it in a nationally televised debate with President Obama. Gingrich is not just a guy who is fast and feisty on his feet. He has a depth of understanding of what issues are crucial, experience in how to deal with them and — almost equally important — experience in how to shoot down the petty, irrelevant and "gotcha" distractions of the media. Does Gingrich have negative qualities? More than most. Wild statements, alienation of colleagues, reckless gambits. His use of the rhetoric of the left in attacking Bain Capital was a recent faux pas, though one that he quickly backed away from. But if we are serious — and there has seldom, if ever, been a time in the history of this nation when it was more necessary to be serious — then we cannot simply add up talking points for or against a candidate. What matters is how that candidate stands on issues that can make or break the future of this country. Polls show the public as a whole with more negative attitudes toward Gingrich than toward Romney. But negative opinions, like other opinions, are not set in stone. If the election campaign changes the opinions of a significant minority of the anti-Gingrich voters — when the alternative is Obama — it will not matter how much the remainder may hate Newt. Is this a gamble? The painful reality is that everyone in this year's field of Republican candidates is a gamble. And re-electing Barack Obama is an even bigger gamble. Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year's field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich's worst could be worse than Romney's worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich's best is much better than Romney's best. Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don't go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.

[jazusamo]

*PING*
Thomas Sowell

Recent columns
An Ignored ‘Disparity’: Part IV
An Ignored ‘Disparity’: Part III
An Ignored ‘Disparity’: Part II
An Ignored ‘Disparity’

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to or removed from the Thomas Sowell ping list…

[DarthVader]

The South Carolina Message:

Myth Rino sleeps with the fishes!

[bert]

-——and the pro-Obama media-——

The Messiah has lost already.

The MSM presstitutes will make the difference and a campaign.

This is the week I have been predicting the seven gray heads will go to the white house to deliver the message........ end the campaign for the good of the party, for the future of the chilrun.

[cuban leaf]

—Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody. —

I started saying, with the 2000 election that politicians are like beer: Really good beer is loved by those who appreciate it, but because it will have a strong flavor, it is not appreciated by “the masses”. That’s why you sell more Coors or Bud than Newcastle Nut Brown Ale, Alaskan Amber, or BBC Star Stout, or Goose Island, or Mac & Jack.

So every four years we get to choose between Bud and Coors for the “best” beer, because they are bland enough to not offend too many people. Meanwhile, the Mac & Jack, Alaskan Amber, etc. are loved by their followers, while never reaching real market saturation.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Really, really good column. I wish the rest of the "elites" would consider this.

Is this a gamble? The painful reality is that everyone in this year's field of Republican candidates is a gamble. And re-electing Barack Obama is an even bigger gamble.

Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year's field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich's worst could be worse than Romney's worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich's best is much better than Romney's best.

Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don't go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.

All of that is just dead-on, and it even applies to Romney. As bad as Romney could be, he's not going to be worse than Obama, and the mere fact that he depends on the GOP for support would push him further to the right that Obama.

But the overall point is right -- Gingrich has a slugger's chance of beating Obama, and that might be the best we're going to get.

[stillonaroll]

Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much. Mitt Romney's fumbling when trying to answer the simple question of whether he would or would not release his income tax records is the kind of indecisiveness that is not going to cut it in a nationally televised debate with President Obama.

BINGO!!!

[cuban leaf]

—When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don’t go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass. —

That one sentence sums up the whole thing.

It is along the lines of what Brian Tracy teaches: People are motivated by two things - fear of failure and desire for success. The winners are the ones that allow the latter to overrule the former.

[CASchack]

Dr. Sowell is right again. Mitt will not score any touchdowns, and he’s trying to kneecap his competition for the starting job.

[BigEdLB]

Methinks Dr Sowell is on to something... And with the folks in talk radio, like Hugh Hewitt who uses trained lawyer-spin to cast doubts on Newt. Hewitt is in such a cocoon, that he has NO IDEA how to be anti-Newt, and come across as not being in full spin mode.

[ops33]

“...a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody.”

I don’t want someone who will offend nobody. I want someone who will kick butt and take names.

[going hot]

I don’t want someone who will offend nobody. I want someone who will kick butt and take names.

BTTT

[Yaelle]

If only we could elect a true decent genius like Sowell. Oh, yeah, he can’t debate because he has a speech impediment. Hate the focus on that auperficial crap. Let him debate Obama with a keyboard. He’d slaughter him.

For conservatives, this is Newt’s to lose... But hang on to Santy because Newt just might blow it.

[Izzy Dunne]

I have been predicting the seven gray heads will go to the white house to deliver the message........ end the campaign for the good of the party, for the future of the chilrun.

Are you serious?

To do so would be to admit that 2008 was a big freakin' mistake.

Who are these "gray heads" who will admit that?

Does anybody (D or R) really think that O'bama really gives a flying fickle finger about the "good of the party" ?

Or the "good of the children" either?

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[jazusamo]

I don’t want someone who will offend nobody. I want someone who will kick butt and take names.

Exactly!

[rockinqsranch]

Good one, but all of Dr. Sowell articles are. Thanks for the ping jaz.

[bert]

-——Who are these “gray heads” who will admit that?-——

Pat Caddel is one. He has buddies of a like mind.

I see him on Cavuto and he is very unhappy and not at all afraid to be quite vocal

I left out it needs to be soon and that I might actually be wrong

[order66.exe]

“When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don’t go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.”

That’s a really good line. Campaign ad good.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Caddell and Doug Schoen wrote and opinion piece in the WSJ titled:

The Hillary Moment-
President Obama can't win by running a constructive campaign, and he won't be able to govern if he does win a second term.

Obama simply ignores them. They're pollsters.

Caddell worked for Carter. Schoen worked for Clinton. They're has-beens. They sit on the outside of the Democratic Party, looking in.