'Super Tuesday' (Thomas Sowell on Obama & Gingrich)

Creators Syndicate ^ | February 29, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Many people are looking to the many primary elections on March 6th — "Super Tuesday" — to clarify where this year's Republican nomination campaign is headed. It may clarify far more than that, including the future of this nation and of Western civilization. If a clear winner with a commanding lead emerges, the question then becomes whether that candidate is someone who is likely to defeat Barack Obama. If not, then the fate of America — and of Western nations, including Israel — will be left in the hands of a man with a lifelong hostility to Western values and Western interests. President Obama is such a genial man that many people, across the ideological space, cannot see him as a danger. For every hundred people who can see his geniality, probably only a handful see the grave danger his warped policies and ruthless tactics pose to a whole way of life that has given generation after generation of Americans unprecedented freedom and prosperity. The election next November will not be just another election, and the stakes add up to far more than the sum of the individual issues. Moreover, if reelected and facing no future election, whatever political constraints may have limited how far Obama would push his radical agenda will be gone. He would have the closest thing to a blank check. Nothing could stop him but impeachment or a military coup, and both are very unlikely. A genial corrupter is all the more dangerous for being genial. The four remaining Republican candidates have to be judged, not simply by whether they would make good presidents, but by how well they can cut through Obama's personal popularity and glib rhetoric, to alert the voters as to the stakes in this year's election. Ron Paul? Even those of us who agree with much of his domestic agenda, including getting rid of the Federal Reserve System, cannot believe that his happy-go-lucky attitude toward Iran's getting a nuclear weapon represents anything other than a grave danger to the whole Western World. Rick Santorum has possibilities, but can he survive the media's constant attempts to paint him as some kind of religious nut who would use the government to impose his views on others? And, if he can, will he also be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama in debates? I would not bet the rent money on it. And what is at stake is far bigger than the rent money. Mitt Romney is the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has always looked for, a moderate who can appeal to independents. It doesn't matter how many such candidates have turned out to be disasters on election night, going all the way back to Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. Nor does it matter that the Republicans' most successful candidate of the 20th century — Ronald Reagan, with two consecutive landslide victories at the polls — was nobody's idea of a mushy moderate. He stood for something. And he could explain what he stood for. These may sound like modest achievements, but they are very rare, especially among Republicans. Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic. Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates. Does Gingrich have political "baggage"? More than you could carry on a commercial airliner. Charges of opportunism have been among the most serious raised against the former Speaker of the House. But being President of the United States is the opportunity of a lifetime. If that doesn't sober a man up, it is hard to imagine what would. Do any of the Republican candidates seem ideal? No. But, the White House cannot be left vacant, while we hope for a better field of candidates in 2016. We have to make our choice among the alternatives actually available, of which Obama is by far the worst.

[JediJones]

BTW, that move of soliciting Dem votes must have been the type of ethics Santorum learned while working as a lawyer for Pro wrestling.

That also must be where he learned how to work with a "Boxer" in a wrestling ring...Barbara, that is... http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2848555/posts?page=4

[JediJones]

Thanks and I love this one in your profile too:

It would appear that Newt is the only politician on the planet who is not allowed to have made friends, made enemies, been unfaithful, raised two wonderful daughters, changed churches, spoken up, stayed silent, listened, looked, studied, criticized, praised, asked questions, given answers, caused confusion, solved problems, started debates, ended stalemate, shut down the government, reduced taxes, reduced spending, won election, resigned from office, written books, read books, recommended books, learned stuff, taught stuff, raised funds, spent his own money, admired others, disapproved of others, been funny, been serious, been argumentative, been conciliatory and God forbid - been human.

[JediJones]

He could open every press conference with, “You snobs make me want to throw up! First question?”

[goseminoles]

Newt may be the smartest and most knowledgeable candidate we’ve had in 50 years. We can’t settle for the lesser alternatives.

[JediJones]

Chalk it up to the ubiquitous CINOs...

[sodpoodle]

Ha hA - stream of semi-consciousness;)

[Gator113]

“Even on pro-Newt thread, you can’t help yourself but to bash Santorum.”

Oh heck, that ain’t nothin’.

I bash Santorum when I go to bed at night. I bash him in my dreams. I wakeup bashing him. I bash him while I cook my breakfast, while I make my lunch, when I use the bathroom. I bash him while I am driving down the road.

Heck, I have managed to replace an infrequently used swear word because of my bashing of your boy. If I get upset, now I just shout out, “Rick it”.

** President Newt Gingrich-”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”

[Digger]

And both of those men are Obama. He just calls the "republican" persona Romney. With either man we get Socialized Medicine. With both we get Liberal to Left judges. After those things it doesn't matter any more.

We also get a Supreme Court that will reign communism for the next 30 yrs.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

That's correct, in fact most of the Reagan Democrats are now Republicans or Conservatives. So the only Democrats interested in Santorum at the moment, are playing him for a stooge.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Now, you’re just plain Ricking MEAN! LOL!

[conservativejoy]

LOL! For an even greater effect, he can do his “Church Lady” impersonation. His Press Secretary could be a nun with a big ruler to keep them all in line. Seriously, no matter how hard I try to picture it, there is no way I can invision an image of Rick that is in any way Presidential.

[stickywillie]

Each time I see Santorum speak, my mind goes back to the “deer in the headlights” analogy. Rick means well, but he doesn’t possess the necessities for a tough fight. Mister NOOT’s the onliest one left running, and probably better than any of the others not running. NOOT was created for this moment in time.

[loveliberty2]

Thanks jazusamo. Dr. Sowell's analysis is, as usual, insightful.

Further, with reference to the "baggage" of Gingrich, JediJones makes a point which is worth repeating: "If they think someone failing at a marriage is worse baggage than Solyndra, Fast and Furious, trillions in new debt, the government takeover of health care, forcing churches to violate their conscience, refusing to develop our own energy products due to an adherence to vague pagan ideology . . . , then I’ll know once and for all that this country is too stupid to be deserving of its Constitution and that it won’t be surviving much longer."

With regard to Romney, recently, Charles Krauthammer, who certainly has not been a Gingrich supporter, said of Romney:

". . . But he (Romney) simply doesn’t have the capacity to explain with some color and sort of force conservative ideas."

Which is precisely why he has no business going up against an ideologue who does "have the capacity to explain with some color and sort of force" the ideas of redistribution.

Krauthammer was slow to come to admitting the obvious fact that Romney doesn't "explain" conservative ideas because they are not part of his intellectual DNA, as they are with someone who has immersed himself/herself in the ideas of America's founding history.

Gingrich's quick analysis of opposing ideas, combined with an ability to put them in historical context, didn't just come about by osmosis. They came about through a lifelong study of history. In recent decades, Ronald Reagan is the only American president who was so familiar with our founding ideas that he could weave them into discussions on "issues" of the day; thereby giving clarity to threats to liberty.

By the same token, Obama has studied, been mentored in, and well understands the ideology and strategies for presenting his case for redistribution, government planning, and control--all the while masking them in "genial" (love Sowell's description) benevolence and "taking care" of those to whom he appeals, even as his policies are enslaving future generations.

His Republican opponent needs to be quick and able to rebut, rebuke, and reveal the cloaked tyranny encased in his message which may appeal to those who see him as a benevolent leader, not a serious threat to their posterity's Creator-endowed right to be free.

Gingrich is right. If the goal of the primaries is to determine a candidate who can bring such clarity to the ideas of conservatism that Obama's counterfeit ideas will be defeated, then Romney, in the words of Krauthammer, "simply doesn't have the capacity" to do it. After the multiple debates, he has not exhibited it to this point; and that "capacity" cannot be coached. It must be a natural outgrowth of understanding.

It's time for a real "intellectual" to take on the pseudo-intellectual of the Democrats. That would have to be Gingrich.

[jazusamo]

Excellent post, loveliberty2 and JediJones is dead on the money. Thank you both.

It's time for a real "intellectual" to take on the pseudo-intellectual of the Democrats. That would have to be Gingrich.

I couldn't agree with you more and Krauthammer making the point that Romney "simply doesn't have the capacity" to do it.

[napscoordinator]

“Rick it”....that is pretty funny I must admit it.

[Kaslin]

Wrong, 0bama is both. Corrupt and evil

[SMARTY]

You’re right.

As I always say, America has survived bad Presidents in the past. But THIS bad President is making mistakes from which we may NEVER recover.

Moving away is a good idea. Did you look into applying for Australian citizenship?

[Shimmer1]

I was visiting some out of state relatives last night, they came down to GA and I love them, but two of them were saying at one point how they believed BO was good, he’d done as good as he could, but he’d inherited all this mess. I couldn’t bring myself to start an argument with my elders, though I am a mature adult myself. And I didn’t feel I’d do any good, they wouldn’t listen. But it galls me to have said nothing. It really does.

[Vendome]

I’ve had to listen to it as well. You want to call them out on the one hand, om the other you just feel sorry for them and hope they survive the Kool-aid they drank.

There ain’t no cure for stoopidity

[Vendome]

I’ve had to listen to it as well. You want to call them out on the one hand, om the other you just feel sorry for them and hope they survive the Kool-aid they drank.

There ain’t no cure for stoopidity