Posted on 02/20/2014 8:34:50 PM PST by P-Marlowe
Like the Washington elite class of republican hang wringers, he is afraid for the country but unwilling to stand up and stop the madness by going against the grain and demanding accountability from Obama in exchange for budgetary and legislative cooperation that you would naturally give a president who had any respect for the opposition party, which does NOT apply to Obama.
It matters not what Sowell’s skin color is, I think in this case or in any of his writings. I believe what matters to him regarding Cruz is the so called “Calmity” that once actually did exist in Congress and he longs for something that will never be reinstated as long as Zero sits in the Oval Office.
He makes good sense. When you occupy unfavorable territory and don’t have the strength to win today, it’s better to retreat, regroup and prepare to fight tomorrow.
But the GOPe will not fight Democrats tomorrow either but they always fight conservatives
"Retreat, regroup"....with who?
(I can count on hand the number of politicians who are willing to fight for our nation/Constitution.)
And:
"Prepare to fight tommorow."...how?
(With so few willing to fight?)
In the previous hit piece on Cruz Sowell gives dire warnings that Obamacare is really about the government gaining control over every citizen.
So then what does he make of Boehner's statement that
"Obamacare is the law of the land"?
Cruz is self-serving, but Boehner is AOk?
Something is very wrong here.
Cruz is really rattling the GOPe.
“This is so weird. I had long believed I could never disagree with Sowell on anything, to say noting of a matter of supreme importance.”
Ditto. I hate it.
His argument is correct IF there really is any chance that the GOP will ever make any real effort to save the country.
He seems to think there is.
I don’t see it.
Maybe I’m wrong.
I will never again vote for these fabian cuncators who refuse to win at all costs, constantly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. GOP-E majority next year? May God forbid!
This country is in the position Washington was after losing battle after battle,Ted Cruz in my opinion is the Officer who came to the aid of Washington ,I believe at Valley Forge who whipped his ragged band into a disciplined Army,not sure I think his name was Von Steuben,maybe someone can bail.me out there. But Cruz is the man
Like McClellan, they know there is a risk of loss in every battle and seek to minimize it. They don't seem to have a strategy at all -- so their default strategy is defensive, comprised of an endless series of retreats.
Both McCain and Romney followed this strategy right to its inevitable conclusion.
The Obsolete RINO Wing of the Republican Party has “Called in Rich,” and thus cannot be bothered with anymore trademark, Cave-In “Leadership.”
What we need is to force Boehner to resign as Speaker of the House in a very public manner.
Any ideas?
The George Washington example is not appropriate, because Sowell is comparing a start-up, ragtag army with a conservative base that was victorious under Reagan, Bush, & Bush until betrayed/misled by deceitful, liberal republicans.
He is comparing an army with no previous experience or power, a 1 or 2 on a scale of 10, with a political army that has vast previous experience and a power rating someplace around an 8. The question is “do you allow that power to degrade to a point that future victory is unlikely?”
The Dunkirk example isn’t appropriate because you are comparing a catastrophic battle position with a conservative battle position that is so vital and hopeful that the number of conservatives refusing to vote for Romney could have won it for him if he’d not been a liberal republican. The question here is “Do you withdraw from the field, lose power, and continue to alienate an entire Army group within your overall Army?”
The most crucial battle in the Civil War was Antietam. The South was ascendant after a string of victories, Robert E. Lee had pushed north, and another victory would have probably won the South the recognition of European powers. In that battle of Antietam, Lee won a tactical victory and McClellan a “strategic” one of such small consequence that Lincoln replaced him. Lincoln traded one weak general for another, Ambrose Burnside, who history records as a general with such lack of imagination that he never should have been promoted above Colonel. Burnside went from Antietam to a humiliating defeat at Fredericksburg.
The South was at its strongest, and Lee’s army, while small, could easily have been augmented by forces in the west in any continuing push north. It was a critical moment, because Lee returned to Virginia and continued retreats into Virginia simply degraded the South’s fighting ability over time until they were overpowered as the North finally found its fighting legs and its economic power began to bear down.
Recognizing the tipping point in your power is crucial. If you refuse to fight and allow your power to degrade below that tipping point, then you have doomed yourself to defeat.
We are in no Dunkirk at the moment. Social conservative power could have won the last election. It could easily win the mid-terms of 2014, but NOT with quisling liberals pretending to be conservatives. These traitors side with the enemy to promote liberalism at enough critical points that a rational conservative must use Occam’s Razor:
“They are against us because they are not on our side.”
Ronald Reagan made that statement.
The popular quote above is attributed to Ronald Reagan, along with the variant, “That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor.”
There also would not have been a United States of America if the patriots in Boston had not started it all with the Boston Tea Party. Even a mind as great as Sowell’s sometimes gets it wrong.
Three times in three days is a disturbing pattern.
At some point you have to begin to question just how great of a mind he still has. Especially with these incredibly inappropriate historical analogies.
I expect this kind of drivel from left wing apologists, but I never expected it from Thomas Sowell.
I do think that Sowell has wandered off the reservation with this kind of stuff, he seems to be going bi-polar, or some kind of schizophrenic lately. I hope this phase doesn't last long. His contributions have been stellar in the past.
I agree with that, and I fear Sowell has been suborned by a plea for the "big tent" that supposedly will give "big numbers."
Romney tried that, and it didn't work. He drove the social conservatives away, and the liberals he was trying to woo got to choose between his on-again/off-again liberal rhetoric and a real liberal named Obama.
It was a fail with both camps. He lost the social conservatives and he didn't attract the liberals.
The supposed "big tent" gave SMALLER numbers.
Wake up Professor Sowell!
To think they can't be replaced by better representatives of conservative thinking during what appears to be an anti-democrat wave election is beyond silly. It's downright foolish.
Yes, Sowell did indeed attack Cruz. In the first of his 3 columns on the Senator.
And Sowell is not advocating holding fire. He is advocating *falling in line* (with the RINO leadership).
I do not know why Sowell is doing this. But it makes me consider his every word suspect.
Thank you so much for all your insights, dear brother in Christ!
I guess that, on certain topics, there is no room for civil discourse at Free Republic.
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.