Posted on 02/20/2014 8:34:50 PM PST by P-Marlowe
There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington had followed the tactics being urged by people like Senator Ted Cruz and his supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Bump
That’s not really fair. Folks have been bending over backwards trying to figure out what’s going on with Thomas Sowell and many are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, though, of Ted Cruz, it finally has to be honest. If it looks like Sowell is going after Cruz, and it gets repeated, and repeated again, then why is it wrong to acknowledge that Sowell has taken out after Senator Cruz.
It’s just a fact.
And, it’s also a fact that he’s calling for the GOP-E to be principled, but that he takes Cruz to task for being principled.
It’s a contradiction. And it’s so unusual coming from Thomas Sowell that folks are commenting on it.
There is also the view that the first battles could have ended the war immediately had the confederate forces pursued the union army into Washington and captured them while taking the Capitol.
In the battle of Bull Run there was a chance for the confederacy to take Washington and Lincoln, and demand surrender but the decision was made to let the union army run back across the Potomac; it was thought they had learned their lesson and wouldn’t be back.
The lesson is to pursue the enemy to total defeat without delay.
We see this lesson unlearned today in many recent military campaigns. In the first Iraq war there was an opportunity to go to Baghdad and take Saddam Hussein immediately and put him on trial for the atrocities committed in Kuwait. Limited war seems always to lead to another war later as the defeated regroup and survive to fight another day.
Thomas Sowell is 83 years old. Dementia happens and Obama’s Chicago Way intimidation and blackmail happens.
I have personally witnessed elderly persons who were personal heroes to me become irrational in a short time of a few months. It happens.
As we struggle to explain Sowell’s recent barrage of attacks against Cruz, and they are indeed attacks, it requires reading and rereading him to find a nugget of logic in his writing. There IS civil discourse going on here, it’s just that Sowell has nothing to stand on; he’s plainly wrong on all counts.
Because many conservatives have never before found logic and principles missing from Sowell’s essays, it is confusing to see these missing in his recent commentary. So of course the reaction is “What is wrong with Thomas?”.
Rather than you berate conservatives for their displeasure and criticism of Sowell, for your erroneous claim of a lack of civil discourse, why don’t you tell this thread where Sowell has made points that they should accept? If you could do this you would do this; but as you have’t done this, you have nothing and are merely sniping at conservative reaction, a reaction which is rooted in logic and principle.
Yes he’s 83 years old and he it’s possible he’s losing it.
I think a more apt comparison would be a Marshall Philippe Petain or even a Vidkun Quisling.
I didn't read that. He criticized Cruz for his methods, not his principles.
That’s not really fair. Folks have been bending over backwards trying to figure out what’s going on with Thomas Sowell and many are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe what's going on with him is that he wants to win the Senate this year and the White House in 2016 and he doesn't think Cruz is helping accomplish that goal. That is worth considering.
Rather than you berate conservatives for their displeasure and criticism of Sowell, for your erroneous claim of a lack of civil discourse, why don’t you tell this thread where Sowell has made points that they should accept?
OK. What is wrong with this one?
Many Republicans wanted their party to fight the Obama administration before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, in hopes of extracting at least some concession — on spending, on the Keystone pipeline or whatever. Unfortunately, the Republicans had no more chance of winning that fight than the stranded British troops had of winning a battle against Hitler's army. Whatever the Republicans threatened, President Obama could call their bluff. They would either have to back down or have a second government shutdown for which they would be blamed. Another shutdown could doom their chances of winning the Senate in the 2014 elections, and perhaps even cost them the House of Representatives. In a war, you do not fight battles that you are certain to lose, if only because you will need your troops to fight later in battles you can win.
You mean George Meade. George McClellan was fired after Antietam.
I guess Mr. Sowell is suggesting that John Boehner is “our George Washington or Winston Churchill”? We’re in worse shape than I thought!
Ok, jaz, sorry, but please remove me from the Thomas Sowell ping list.
That’s fair. He criticizes Cruz in 3 article that I’ve seen this week.
Read “Cruz Control, Part II” here:
http://spectator.org/articles/57871/cruz-control-part-ii
I figured it was the George and the M. It is really close when trying to recall all those names.
“Although never being actually defeated in these battles McClellan nevertheless retreated.”
The strategic objective is therefore your enemy’s mind. If he believes himself defeated, he is. With apologies to Sun Tzu...
That article is at least as much an attack on Boehner and the GOP “leadership” as it is on Cruz. In another article I read today Sowell “attacks” Cruz by comparing him to Patrick Henry as opposed to George Washington. I wouldn’t mind being attacked that way.
“This is the third article in 3 days bashing Ted Cruz and advocating a policy of retreat.”
Perhaps Mr. Sowell is succumbing to the promise of victory in the mid-term elections and the fruits of (a Republican) victory?
I would advise him not to count reaping those fruits with such leaders as Boehner, McConnell & McCain. Conservatives always seem to take a backseat in the Republican caucus when the R’s have the majority.
And McCain is always ready to flip sides and stand with the Democrats whenever he senses an opportunity to gain pork for Arizona, an ego-boost for himself, or to just plain stick a thumb in the eye of the Conservatives. A more petty & vain politician I have never seen.
What’s wrong with it is that it is defeatist.
The current leadership of the republican party have no record of success except that which was initiated by Tea Party conservatives, e.g. the sequester which unfortunately was given away by Paul Ryan with the support of the leadership.
If you have been reading the excellent ‘civil discourse’ on this thread and others you would absorb that history teaches us that winning or losing a battle is not the issue rather it is in building TRUST within your ranks.
There is NO TRUST in McConnell and his ring, or Boehner and his ring. Ted Cruz is building TRUST at every level except with those who are two-faced.
You have also repeated the lie that republicans were responsible for the shutdown. That is the liberal media talking through you; you are parroting their talking point.
The fact is the European press including the BBC were reporting that republicans were WINNING during the Obamacare defund effort when and while they stuck together. Once Boehner caved on the debt ceiling, it was jeered by the disgusting NY media that they lost and were responsible for the ‘shutdown’.
How can you defend the circles of McConnell and Boehner when they just voted against their own party and yet turned around (in McDonnell and Cornyn’s case) and voted with them for the sake of appearance.
How can you defend McConnell when he stated that he had to ‘protect’ Americans in voting to let the debt ceiling be raised without condition and then immediately voted against it being raised. This is 100% transparent hypocrisy. How do you defend this?
But, his summary of the history is actually quite accurate. And Trenton was more than symbolic - it led to Princeton and basically driving the Brits back to NYC. Washington knew how weak his situation and picked his battles, often tricking Brits (as in after Trenton) into thinking he was still around when he actually left. He never shirked from a battle, only too anxious for it, but he wasn’t stupid.
I am skeptical of Cruz. I could swear he did something “unconservative” recently. I really don’t trust anyone in politics to be really “conservative”.
He has been a stalwart conservative and much admired around here for a long time. But I don't know what's gotten into him other than he disagrees with the aggressive approach of Cruz. He is in the company of Ann Coulter, Michael Medved and many others. We desperately need the Senate and I suspect this is why Sowell is so worried - it's within our grasp and he doesn't want to see us lose it. But if we get the Senate we can't do that "power sharing" crap, play nice, and wait for the rats to tell us what to do. How pitiful was that? There is no point in gaining the Senate if it's the same old go along to get along GOPe.
I'm with Cruz for various reasons including what we've been doing for so long has not worked....not to mention that he is absolutely RIGHT on the issues and he's willing to take on the bad guys.! However splitting the party will just get us Hillary or whoever AGAIN. The reason the rats get away with so much is they're lockstep no matter what.
There are strategy arguments on both sides - I don't want to trash Sowell just because he believes in a different strategy.
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.