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.