The Brilliant Thomas Sowell endorses Newt

I have to say, I love Thomas Sowell’s writing. Ever since I read Basic Economics several years ago I’ve just been drawn to his economic and social writing. He has a way of explaining all sorts of complex subjects in a way that could make even the most close minded liberal understand.

Anyway, I was thrilled to see on Twitter moments ago that Sowell has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
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.

If any of you are still on the fence, do check out the whole thing.

About these ads

78 thoughts on “The Brilliant Thomas Sowell endorses Newt

  1. Green Mountain Boy

    “If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.”

    Then prepare for it accordingly. If you don’t already know how, learn to fish and hunt and to survive without electricity. Plant a nice garden and gather your seeds. If a second barky term would mean the end of your world wouldn’t it behoove you to be prepared for it?

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        Neo, I understand completely. I also understand that voter fraud will be used on a scale never seen before in Nov, 2012. I also understand that there is not much will in the republican Party to challenge it.

        I believe that in a fair election any of the republican candidtates will will win. Even bat poop crazy Ron Paul. However it is not a certainty.

        My only point is. That if you are scared that another barky term will mean the end of your world, would it not be wise to prepare for it now?

    1. js03

      hunting will be outlawed, fish will be over fished are hard to find…farming is overregulated by the powers that be…wont be long before the DoAgriculture regulates the backyard garden as well…

      last but not least…living without electricity is about the only thing thats almost possible…except that local code’s require it so…good luck with that…

      the first barky term tore us a new one…a second one would literally rip the status quo to pieces…

      time to dump the socialists…joe mCcarthy…WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

  2. 4moreyears

    Grammar check, the “most close minded liberal” A bit like the “most opened mind conservative”

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        I cant keep track. Is 4my one of Watsons smelly socks. Dont think it is Thomas. He got smacked a couple of times for bad grammer and mispellings himself. Then droped that line.

        So many smelly socks, so little to say.

      2. Green Mountain Boy

        I would say one is definately a smelly sock. Pretty sure epsigafoos
        is a paul bot.

        WE WANT NEWY!!!!

        Another question. Lets say by the time the repub convention comes and by some miracle of our Heavenly Father one Mr. Ron Paul is the nominee, will this statement by Mr. Sowell still be true.

        “In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available,”

        Can you say brokered convention????????? LOLzer

      3. neocon1

        RP wont be the nominee, he could prove to the ross perot of 2012 and stick us with this doper commie cretin for 4 more years like perot did with the rapist.

        RP = ross perot
        RP = ron paul
        coinixidinks?

      4. Green Mountain Boy

        Neo, What if? The question was a what if question. I personally don’t think Mr. Paul will be the nominee. But what if? Would Mr. Sowells statement still be true?

        In my opinion the repub convention would dump him faster than rosie o’dumbass chowing down a tripple whopper.

      5. watsonredux

        GMB said, “I cant keep track. Is 4my one of Watsons smelly socks. Dont think it is Thomas. He got smacked a couple of times for bad grammer and mispellings himself. Then droped that line.”

        Nah, not me. But since we’re on the subject of grammatical smackdowns, you certainly packed an impressive number of errors into a small space. Congratulations!

      6. Green Mountain Boy

        Why thank you very much Sir and or Madam. I do my worst most of the time. Glad you noticed it. I guess you did get something out of all that public education after all. For that I congratulate you!!

      7. watsonredux

        Yeah, well, public education or not, I obviously got more out of my education than you did. But it’s never to late to learn, GMB.

      8. RetiredSpook

        Can you say brokered convention?

        GMB, that’s not at all out of the realm of possibility. I think there’s an excellent chance that we may still have 4 candidates after the primaries with no one over 30%. If they head into the convention that way, there are a half dozen non-candidates who, IMO, would be better than any of the current candidates. And if the GOP would come up with a bright, clean, shiny, new candidate 10 weeks before the election, the Donk opposition research apparatus would strip a gear. It could be fun to watch, and make for a very interesting election.

      9. Green Mountain Boy

        Just one more question Watson. Are you applying for the official B4V spelling and grammer nazi position? I think it is still open. I hear it doesn’t pay much and has no benifits but the question remains, why would you want it?

      10. Green Mountain Boy

        Spook, thats not the scenario I am getting at. In this little what if Ron Paul is the outright winner. He has more than 50% of the delagate count. He will be the nominee.

        Does the national rebub party stick with him or dump him as fast as they can?

      11. watsonredux

        GMB asks, “Just one more question Watson. Are you applying for the official B4V spelling and grammer nazi position?” No, not interested, although you could clearly use one. Perhaps you should try a private tutor. By the way, it’s benefits, not benifits. Maybe you should turn on your spellchecker.

      12. Green Mountain Boy

        Thanks for the advice there Watson. I be sure to not take it. I do not care car if I mispell engilish words for reasons already stated on this blog.

        But hey, you are civil about it least and that is an improvement.

    1. js03

      my grammar ner’ worried bout either…she just made sure that the point got across…

      if she er’ wrote a book, maybe she would reveal her inate nature, eh…

      1. watsonredux

        So maybe the constitutional experts out there could rationalize Newt Gingrich’s position on the judicial branch for us. As you know, on Sunday he said on CBS’s Face the Nation, there’s “no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that out of touch with American culture,” referring to a case where a judge ruled that explicit references to religion were barred from a high school graduation ceremony.

        So this is the bar for determining whether judges should be sacked? Whether they are in touch with “American culture”? Spook? Amy? I’d love to hear your take.

      2. RetiredSpook

        So this is the bar for determining whether judges should be sacked? Whether they are in touch with “American culture”? Spook? Amy? I’d love to hear your take.

        Go read the Bill of Rights thread, Watson.

      3. watsonredux

        Spook, I’m pretty sure I read most of the comments in the Bill of Rights thread, and I didn’t see any mention of Gingrich’s claim that judges should rule by being in touch with American culture. Seems rather arbitrary, doesn’t it? So I am asking about it here. How does that square with a conservative point of view? It seems to me that you would want federal judges to rule according to the constitution and not the culture they find themselves in.

        Since this is a thread about Newt, I thought it an appropriate place to raise this topic.

      4. neocon1

        waspstooge

        and I didn’t see any mention of Gingrich’s claim that judges should rule by being in touch with American culture

        because he never said it stooge.

      5. Cluster

        How does that square with a conservative point of view? – watson

        It squares with the constitution watson, and that was Newt’s point. The judiciary is just one of three co equal branches, yet lately we find ourselves with rogue judges who like to legislate from the bench, and of whom are seemingly very ignorant of judeo christian values and American culture. Newt’s point was that they are not the final say, and the legislative and executive branches can, and should, challenge those decisions. Unless you think otherwise, and would prefer an oligarchy. Which is it?

      6. neocon

        cluster

        or average people and LOCAL school boards tell them to sod off and ignore them.

        a gay judge striking down a people mandated law on gays?
        CAMON, state to HOMOsexual activest judge- puff off!

      7. watsonredux

        cluster said, “It squares with the constitution watson, and that was Newt’s point.”

        I don’t think so, cluster. Do you want judges to base their decisions on the constitutionality of laws, or on their values? I do think you represent a particular strain of conservatism that simply wants to promulgate your values on the rest of us. You actually don’t care for the Bill of Rights because that might get in the way. For you, the Constitution is trumped by your Judeo-Christian values. Part of the point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent people like you from doing so.

        I’d still like to hear from Amy and spook.

      8. Cluster

        watson,

        It’s comical that you would label me and tell me what I think, when you don’t even know me. It’s a very annoying liberal trait, and quite frankly the reason why liberals have such a distorted world view. I told you exactly what Newt meant by his comments and you launch into telling me that I don’t believe in the Bill of Rights and that I want everyone to share my values, which is an extremely infantile response.

        The jest of the argument is that the judiciary is just one branch – do you agree with that or not? See if you can answer that without any trumped up drama.

      9. watsonredux

        cluster, I read what you said, including, “lately we find ourselves with rogue judges who like to legislate from the bench, and of whom are seemingly very ignorant of judeo christian values and American culture.”

        So what do you want, judges that rule based on the constitution or based on their judeo christian values and American culture?

        As for labeling you and telling you what you think, you are right, I was generalizing that your comments represent a particular strain of conservativism. You yourself may not; I’m only basing that observation on what you wrote. But to claim that this is a liberal trait is comical. Do you ever read the comments section of this blog?

      10. RetiredSpook

        Watson-1:22pm: He said “there’s no reason the American people need to tolerate a federal judge who is that out of sync with an entire culture.”

        Watson-1:29pm:I’d still like to hear from Amy and spook.

        I disagree with Gingrich. There may be some debate as to whether or not he’s technically correct from a constitutional aspect (much of the discussion in the Bill of Rights thread centered around the constitutional aspect), but I think he was wrong to say what he said, and particularly in the way he framed it. I’m a little surprised that you disagree with him. The normal liberal argument for a “living Constitution” is based almost solely on cultural norms, so Gingrich is actually making a liberal argument.

      11. watsonredux

        Thanks, spook. I guess you will have to be surprised. I never said I was a liberal; you guys did. :-)

        I actually think what Newt said is a dangerous thing and not conservative at all. “American culture” is not static. Removing judges because they don’t happen to be in step with American culture is just wrong, IMHO. That said, the constitution is a written document that requires interpretation. But I’d rather have judges interpret the constitution than interpret their view of culture.

        I do think that Gingrich is pandering to, as I put it to cluster, a particular strain of American conservatism that simply wants to promulgate their own beliefs on the rest of us.

      12. Cluster

        I actually think what Newt said is a dangerous thing and not conservative at all. – watson

        That’s because you’re over emotional about it and are not hearing what he actually said. There is an established culture in America and not 100% of it, is explicitly protected in the Constitution. When Michael Neudow, and avowed athiest, wanted to take the “In God We Trust” off of the currency, it could have easily been taken up, and supported by a secular judge with a disdain for the judeo christian founding of the country. Newt simply said that in those social issue situations, that the legislature and executive branch are as equally powerful to dismiss the ruling. It’s pretty straight forward if you would actually think about it.

      13. RetiredSpook

        Thanks, spook. I guess you will have to be surprised. I never said I was a liberal; you guys did.

        Our bad, then, but that begs the question, if you’re not a Liberal, and most of your efforts on this blog are comprised of attacks on and criticism’s of Conservatives, just how exactly WOULD you describe you ideological foundation?

      14. Amazona

        OF COURSE wattle didn’t say he is a Liberal. That would have meant taking a political stance, which wattle avoids at all costs. That would have meant studying and understanding the Leftist ideology and then having enough backbone to commit to an ideology on intellectual grounds. In a perfect world, it would have meant going on to study conservative ideology, and objectively comparing the two, particularly on the basis of their historical successes and failures.

        In short, not what wattle does. wattle prefers to sit on the sidelines, picking up a talking point here and there from sour haters like Maddow and Matthews, getting his jollies from merely attacking what he seems to think represents conservatives and conservative thought.

        Why should he care about proving himself to be a complete political lightweight, when that is all he aspires to be? He gets a titter out of sniping and snarling and that is all he is really capable of.

      15. neocon1

        waspstooge

        Thanks, spook. I guess you will have to be surprised. I never said I was a liberal; you guys did

        we also said you are an IDIOT.

    1. Amazona

      awwww, 6206 is sad again. Ostentatious smarmy grieving seems to be a new Liberal theme. sad sad sad oh so sad weepy creepy sadness oh me oh my the sadness of it all, whimper the PL trolls.

      I don’t agree with what Newt said. BTW, it would be pretty hard to find anyone on this blog who has held him up as a poster child for true deep seated conservatism. When he’s good he’s very very good, but when he’s bad he’s awful—-it’s just that he would be running against someone who is never good and whose ‘awful’ outdistances Newt’s by many leagues.

  3. Green Mountain Boy

    Lets do another what if here.

    What if Newton gets the nomination and gets elected. We will even go so far to say that Newton benifits from a repub controlled congress. What do you think his first budget deficit will be?

    I will guess at least 925 billion dollars. Anyone else care to hazard a guess?

    1. neocon

      Give em HELL

      West, a freshman congressman and Tea Party favorite, made his comments to reporters last week about the Democrats’ supposed skill in convincing the American people that the only people to blame for the problems in Washington are the Republicans.

      “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine,” West said.

      The resolution said the House “disapproves of the behavior of the representative from Florida, Mr. West, for bringing discredit to the House by offending the memory of those who died during the Holocaust.”

      When Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) sent West a note telling him he should “help raise the level of congressional discourse in a vigorous debate,” West responded to Conyers standing by his comments, according to the resolution.

      “The Democratic Party does indeed have a vicious propaganda machine, it espouses lies and deceit and the master of deceptive information would be truly proud,” West wrote.

      alinsky 101

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        Neo, somehow I think the media will demand one if the government is under unified repub control. Don’t ask why that is just the way it is.

      2. RetiredSpook

        And if the Donks maintain control of the Senate, who knows if we ever will again. I can’t imagine how their fiscal failure WRT the budget doesn’t come back to bite them in the election.

    2. Cluster

      GMB,

      Considering that Newt was largely responsible for balanced budgets in the 90’s , what makes you think Newt would craft a $900 billion deficit?

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        Valid question Cluster. The projected total deficit for 2011 is 1.5 trillion and will most likely be around 1.6 trillion in 2012.

        If Newt crafts a 2013 budget that is only .9 trillion over he could claim some kind of victory. This is not a critisism of Newt per say at all. Was only a question.

        This is also only an opinion, just like anyone else has.

        Here is the data I was using.

        http://www.best-financial-advice.com/FederalBudgetDeficitDebtCrisis.html

  4. js03

    id say…if he started campaigning on the basis that he would cut federal salaries to bring them in line with the private market…he would probably sweep the floor w/obieOne…federal wages have spiked under oblamemee…

  5. js03

    more to campaign on for a winning strategy;

    Get government out of the mortgage business. That means, for starters, gradually privatizing Fannie and Freddie and abolishing their affordable housing charter. And at a minimum, defanging the Community Reinvestment Act, the antiredlining regulation Clinton added teeth to and that Obama’s now expanding. The CRA corrupts the flow of capital by rechanneling it into largely unprofitable investments.

    We also need to repeal or at least defund Dodd-Frank and the powerful new bank watchdog agency it created. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its army of diversity cops are gearing up next to socialize small business loans, which pose even more risk than mortgages. The prescription that Barney Frank and the other affordable-housing zealots sold as “reform”
    is simply more poison.

    1. Amazona

      Brilliant, Mitch. Absolutely brilliant. You not only link to wild-eyed conservative-bashing Andrew Sullivan as a source, your link includes this gem from a similarly reason-deficient hater:

      The quote of the day is perfect. We all know the GOP is insane, but I like to think that it was Barack Obama that drove them there. They really have lost their collective shit over him. For me, the last three years looks like a great big tantrum that a child might throw when they don’t get their way. Why, they can’t even vote for the payroll tax cut that they all agree upon lest they give Obama some scintilla of success.

      If the GOP wins in 2012, wouldn’t that be an endorsement of this kind of behavior? Wouldn’t it be like the parent who gives in to the brat throwing the tantrum? This party needs to destroy itself so that it can rise again. What better way to do that than by nominating Ron Paul? If Ron Paul wins Iowa and gets close in NH, then watch out. It will be mutiny. Personally, I can’t wait.

      Not that we didn’t already know where you are coming from when you post your anti-conservative nonsense, but thanks for reminding us.

      Now that you have, once again, illustrated the emotional base for your posts, how about stepping away from your hate-based irrational bigotry and addressing actual political issues? Think you’re up to that?

      That is, instead of getting a vicarious thrill from seeing some other mouth breather claim that the argument over the payroll tax cut is nothing but a “temper tantrum” how about addressing the pros and cons of the cut itself?

  6. Amazona

    Thomas Sowell is my hero and his opinion carries a lot of weight with me.

    But note that he is not saying Newt is the best man for the job, just better than Mitt. (As far as being better than Barry, that’s a given.)

    In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

    I wonder what Sowell would say if Bachmann or Santorum were to surge into a lead, or at least become competitive. I doubt that he would support Newt over either of these, if either showed a shot at being nominated.

  7. steelhead

    “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.”

    Perhaps Sowell is brilliant but he uses this quote to illustrate his point that we should not judge Gingrich by his past. Would that not be the present judging the past not the past sitting in judgement on the present?

    Beyond that, where did Churchill ever say this?

    Then Sowell goes on to say, “If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.” If one believes the polls Newt polls very poorly against Obama whereas Romney is very competitive. So, it looks like Sowell has actually provided an argument against Newt. Which leads me to join in with Sowell and say go Newt go!

    1. RetiredSpook

      Beyond that, where did Churchill ever say this?

      According to John F. Kennedy in his acceptance speech in in 1960, Churchill’s quote was 20 years earlier.

      “But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.” (The Chinese proverb is “It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”) Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech, July 15, 1960

      And, indeed, those very words are found in Churchill’s “Words at War Speech” from June 18, 1940.

      There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments–and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too–during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine.

      Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between members of the present Government. It was formed at a moment of crisis in order to unite all the Parties and all sections of opinion. It has received the almost unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. Its members are going to stand together, and, subject to the authority of the House of Commons, we are going to govern the country and fight the war.

      Your welcome.

      1. Amazona

        I will paraphrase:

        There are many who would hold an inquest in Congress on the conduct of the Governments………..during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it.

        In other words, at some point you have to stop looking for places to lay blame and look forward, to solving the problems that face us.

        The Blame Game is just a mechanism for stalling the problem-solving process, particularly when solutions would go against a particular ideology or set of agendas, or of avoiding reassessment of previously unexamined beliefs.

      2. steelhead

        Spook,
        It looks like Kennedy got the quote right. Sowell did not, thereby changing its meaning to something completely different than the original.

      3. Amazona

        Head of Steel, I don’t see how Sowell’s paraphrase changes the meaning of Churchill’s comment.

        Sowell: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.”

        Churchill: “…if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. ”

        It seems to be a quibble about the use of ‘judgment’ vs ‘quarrel’, a distinction which is quite clear in some contexts but less so in this one. But Lefties do depend on semantic quibbling to obfuscate real meaning.

        In either version, the message is the same—–focusing on rehashing old quarrels and grievances, and laying blame for past events, will mean the future will be lost.

        I would add, so would the Left, as it depends so heavily on creating and promoting discord, on laying blame, on fomenting dissension and divisiveness, to distract its overly emotional supporters from the reality of the movement. If they can keep their base all charged up over who did what, when, with whom, to whom, and then supply various sinister motivations for whatever they are pointing at, there is less likelyhood that there will be much attention paid to actual ideology and agendas.

      4. Amazona

        I repeat: The Blame Game is just a mechanism for stalling the problem-solving process, particularly when solutions would go against a particular ideology or set of agendas, or of avoiding reassessment of previously unexamined beliefs.

Comments are closed.