No one seems to be really happy with this year’s field of Republican candidates for that party’s presidential nomination — except perhaps the Democrats.
The sudden rise, and equally sudden fall, of a succession of Republican front-runners is just one sign of the dissatisfaction of the Republican voters with this field of candidates.
In this, as in many other aspects of life, we can only make our choice among the options actually available. So Republican voters who want to be realistic need to understand that they are going to end up with qualms and nagging doubts about whomever they pick this time.
Not all voters want to be realistic, of course. Some voters, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents, treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone into whose hands to place the fate of the nation.
People who think this way tend to vote for someone they just happen to like, whether for personal or ideological reasons, and regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected.
The surprising support in the polls for Congressman Ron Paul seems to be of this sort. But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?
Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone’s idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.
The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.
Romney’s own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.
Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more “electable” than the other candidates in general and Newt Gingrich in particular. But there was a time when even some conservative smart money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.
Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were “ecstatic” when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.
Today, it is said that the Obama administration fears Romney, but would relish the opportunity to clobber Gingrich because of his “baggage.” CNN has already started digging into Gingrich’s most recent divorce.
Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.
Even some of those who believe that Gingrich would devastate Obama in head-to-head debates on substantive issues nevertheless claim that all Obama has to do is come back with questions about Newt’s work for failed mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac.
But, even at the personal, point-scoring level, Barack Obama can open up a can of worms by going that route, since Freddie Mac at least never planted bombs in public places, like some of Obama’s political allies.
There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.
COPYRIGHT 2013 THOMAS SOWELL/CREATORS.COM
Be the first to read Thomas Sowell's columns and other Voice of Sanity articles by signing up today and having them delivered directly into your inbox each morning.
Additional articles by Thomas SowellComment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (maximum of 1500 characters). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.





"The surprising support in the polls for Congressman Ron Paul seems to be of this sort. But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?"
Surprising to you, because you're out of touch with reality. Why don't you spend some time at the grass roots level instead at the Neocon country club, then maybe you'll hear the clarion call. You're also out of touch with the Seven Nation Plan. A plan of CIA action which includes the overthrow of Iran. Don't worry, before 2012 is over all you out of the loop Neocon warmongers will understand that amerika has been covertly and overtly attacking Iran to the point of open warfare. The intensified covert operations have been being carried out for months now.
So don't worry, Mr. Warmonger, you'll get you're Christmas wish. In fact, open warfare with Iran is part of the BHO reelection campaign strategy. If Iran does not capitulate to the point which Obama can parade the country around as an election year trophy, then get ready for more blood—lots of it.
Furthermore, I've read your books in the past, Mr. Sowell; frankly, they seem overrated.
Finally, I find your lack of insight and support for Ron Paul dimwitted. You belong on Fox News. You belong with those who would mock Ron Paul's supporters with such overused phrases as, "beam me up Scotty."
The Ron Paul Revolution is advancing, we are on the move and in no mood for Neocon dimwits. Be warned: our phasers are not set on stun.
Ron Paul has an open hand of friendship for individuals like Kent Sorenson, an Iowa state senator, who left his leadership roll in the Bachmann campaign by surprise and is now aligned with team Ron Paul.
More "surprising support," Mr. Sowell? Get used to it, because Rand is in the bullpen warming up for the next surprise.
So despite the fact that Ron Paul is the one and only candidate who adheres strictly to Constitutional authority — and is the only presidential candidate to come along in the last fifty-years who is — we should all just get behind this latest warmongering version of John (Insane) McCain, like the good little drones we are? You can't be serious. Having someone like Gingrich as president with his finger that close to the button scares the living daylights out of me, as it should to any rational human. I'm afraid Dr. Sowell has something else on backwards besides maybe his shoes.
Oh, and btw, if Newt does manage to somehow pull this off by snaring enough suckers & fools to support him, we will clearly have a repeat of the 1996 fiasco, ala Bob Dole.
If CNN and the rest of the Communist News Networks were as diligent in exposing who and what Obama is, we would not be having this discussion, as Barack Obama would not be the sitting POTUS. Our media in this country, has willfully ran cover for Barack Obama while at the same time, have run 24-7 coverage in trashing anybody who dares challenge Obama. Fox News that claims to be the voice of the conservative movement is nothing but a joke. They have done more harm that the rest of the media in one respect. We all know that CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC, CBS, etc are nothing but Lap Dogs for Obama and the Democrats, but they do not claim otherwise. Fox claims otherwise, but does not real investigative reporting and in fact, their Headlines of the Day are the same as all the rest. The people in this country have no reliable source of news and information. All we get is what the editorial boards at the various networks decide to mete out to us on a day to day basis, but no useable information or knowledge at all except maybe for the Weather Channel.
Mitt Romney has been "accepted" & branded by the Bilderbergers…as was Obama & Bill Clinton B4 him….Romney is SAME as Obama except skin color different……BOTH DANGEROUS SOCIALISTS……..Watch Ron Paul on the Tonight show where he has more than a few seconds to respond to questions…..He's got great humor & energy……..Our ONLY hope to retain our freedoms under the Constitution / Bill of Rights (which Obama HATES, by the way…..)
For your info, I'm a Goldwater republican who voted for Ross Perot….
retired 17,000 Hr airline pilot….69 yo……..MA
Texe Marrs has done a thorough job of investigating the background of Newt Gingrich and it is clear that he is a loyal Zionist puppet whose goals are to smash Christianity, end American sovereignty, erase all national borders, wreck western civilization and kill off America's 235 year constitutional history forever and replace it with a totalitarian (fascist) New World Order.
He has been ultra-loyal to the Jewish money men (the Illuminati, the CFR, Bohemian Grove and their ilk) and to the secretive Vatican Opus Dei, another group of money men. It is clear that the elites dream team would be Gingrich and Romney on the same ticket.
I suspect all of this evidence is irrelevant. We are likely to have some form of a global cataastrophe between now and the November election which will serve as the pretext for the imposition of martial law and the complete destruction of our constitutional federal republic. It is verty sad, but part of God's plan to restore sanity and virtue to a world gone mad.
So it comes down to whether we want to see Newt rip the Obamao a new proctological orifice in a debate or one who will wow the public with his choice of aluminum foil hats?
What makes you think that the same thing would not happen between Paul and Gingrich as happened between Obama and Clinton? Paul has a purer agenda that will create a paradigm shift in our stagnant nation, taking the American experiment much further along the path of virtue and liverty. Gingrich is a great executive. He would make a great secretary of state. The mud slinging is just an electoral sham. When they are in the same cabinet, they will come to an understanding that will polish up the rough edges of both parties.
This Citizens for Goldwater chairman has been disapointed by status quo establishment RINOS since 1964. Ron Paul is the anti establishment candidate who is needed if the experiment in human freedom given to us by the framers is to survice.
Gingrich or Romney? That's the choice?
So now we have the internet version of "pretend Ron Paul does not exist" campaign that the mainstream (and yellow) media has been fostering since Paul announced his candidacy?
It appears to me that instead of opting for less than optimal choices, we should ask ourselves what is it about Ron Paul that creates such a level of fear (even terror?) among the yellow press, that their only response is to pretend he doesn't exist. While we are at it, we might also want to ask why that fear (and the equivalent "he doesn't exist" campaign) also manifests itself among talking heads of various extractions.
Personally, i can't even understand why "our" yellow press and media even criticize the North Korean press. Their own fawning obsequiousness with our current socialist leadership makes the North Korean articles about their "great leader" seem meek in comparison.
This cage fight between the (R)ats and the (D)emons always ends with Americans as the losers. It is why Mencken wrote: every two to four years they give the idiots the vote to make them feel important. Wake up boys and girls you no longer live in America but Rainbowland —if you don't believe me then phone any large company; the first thing you'll be asked is, "do you want this in English or Spanish?". You no longer live in a constitutional republic but a minorocracy whereby the few tell the many what to do.
Dr. Sowell, usually right on, is wrong on this one.
There is no right way to do wrong. The Lesser of Two Evils is not an acceptable alternative. And, "He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much."Lk.16.10, in the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ.Men whose personal lives are sinful are men whose public lives are also sinful. The present POTUS is just about as sinful as a man can be, and look at the ruin he(and his ungodly predecessor) brought upon us! If we do not repent and do it Gods way we are finished. Its time to shape up or ship out; on the ball or on the boat; the MLR is still there. Shall we fight for the right; or surrender to the rule of some slightly less satanic ghouls?
No one loves RP as much as me. But to quote Dick Morris, he has no cahance to beat Obama. He will be steamrolled. Then what we all do, watch the demise of our country as the BO administration finishes us off by implanting even more socialists in our federal government. We have got to use the strongest weapon we have to rid our selves of this dangerous man, and we better be sure it is our biggest weapon. Alas, RP, is not our biggest weapon and the DEm's know it. It will be a fearmongering festival for the left leaning media. I say don't risk it, and regroup with a third realistic party in 2016.
Yeah, best to just roll over and expose our throats to the neocon government supremacists.
misspelled words, cant find glasses!
Can any of you imagine what would happen if Ron Paul went up against Obama? Paul published a racist news letter with his name on the top of the page for several years. He now claims he didn't know anything about it. His name was on the top of every racist page he sent out. Are you starting to get it. Racist, racist, racist, racist, racist. Get used to the word. If Paul gets nominated, that's the only sound you're going to hear up until Obama wins the election.
He claims he didn't know about the racist comments in his news letter with his name on the top of the page that he made a million dollars selling.
There are several possibilities here:
1. Ron Paul is a racist.
2. Ron Paul isn't a racist, but he's so completely and utterly incompetent that he actually didn't know what he was signing his own name to. (Great endorsement for president!)
3. He is lying.
4. ALL of the above.
Ron Paul is UN-ELECTABLE. HE CAN'T BEAT OBAMA.
Therefore, he is not the candidate who will preserve our constitution. He's the candidate that would preserve Obama.
If you're still supporting Paul, please start engaging in some more rational thinking. His name will be all over the commercials shown at the top of a racist statement from his own news letter. You know it will. He can't win.
Reply to Gates:
Get this straight: Anybody with integrity who challenges the system will be viciously smeared because of real, embellished and/or invented past sins, because that's how the system works. If you cave and allow yourself to be intimidated by all of the propaganda artists whose job it is to feed the ignorant masses specious rhetoric, then nothing will ever change.
Frankly, if the race becomes a contest between Sh*tt Romney-vs-BHO, then I'll vote Gary Johnson in the general election as the Libertarian party candidate.
Moreover, if the only thing that Ron Paul accomplishes in 2012 is to move the political football past the 50 yrd line so Rand Paul can later score a Presidential touchdown, then I will have achieved my personal goal of supporting Ron Paul.
Finally, people like you don't get it, viz. we know that a vote for white, RINO Romney is a vote for a white BHO, because they are both part of the system which is killing what's left of amerika.
Besides, you have no idea how hard the Paul supporters are going to hit back with the truth: I hope people keep on calling RP a racist, racist, racist, because it's going to backlash on them. Take a look at just one of the counter punches of truth:
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=mxfxCpt8mtY
that's good, rs.
down in the trees. the forest, however, shows rp trying to revive another still born. the con-stitution.
i understand how compelling william wallace-like figures are. the scots did gain popular ("people-ular") "freedom" (not individual personal freedom) at bannockburn. but only temporarily; they could not keep it. nor could the scots-irish in the old south keep it. (same war, btw.) and wallace was drawn, disembowelled, quartered, beheaded. not to mention all the other blood spilled, both sides.
oleaginous margarine movements will not get it done. not even hand-picked hand-churner "real butter" will get it done. the addiction to polyunsaturated transfats, for which con-stitutional democracy is recipe, is the pernicious, health destroying, goo. it is also the goo-goo, gah-gah language of wee bairns & lassies.
what an rp nomination, election, anticlimax could do, is persuade more people to kick the self-poisoning. am all for that.
The truth is—and you know it already— that at best RP is a "narrow, cramped road" leading out and away from the collectivist state. Will the ignorant masses travel that road, or will they choose "the broad [collectivist] road leading off to destruction." You know, the road Jesus parabled about; except, JC was speaking of theocratic rule whereas I'm referring to classical liberalism predicated on the golden rule of non-aggression.
Personally, I think the ignorant masses will choose Armageddon a al Neocon, although I will fight like I believe the opposite, i.e. a la Alamo-vs-The Neocon Army until neo-Sam Houston vanquishes and the cycle repeats.
Quit the negative comments, Gates. You did not suggest who could beat Oboma. Paul is the only candidate on the Republican ticket who can. The man (who was he) who leaked the supposedly racist newsletters said he never heard Paul make a racist comment about anyone.
RON PAUL RACIST or NOT?
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=b-aPeJYB4io
As I read somewhere recently, it's interesting that those criticizing someone for missing a few paragraphs over hundreds of newsletters are those who vote for 2,000 page bills without reading them first.
Please read todays Ann Coulters column, she says it so much better than I.
Something that Dr. Sowell and many others seem to be missing is the We the People have about had enough. Putting a Repub establishment approved type in the white house simply guarantees four more years of the same old crap. In any process gone awry, there comes a time when you must shut the contraption down, clean the junk out of the gears, and then re-calibrate it to its original specifications. This allows it to operate efficiently and effectively. Simply slathering on more of the same old grease doesn't remove the grime that is destroying the machine. The problems cannot be solved by the government but only by getting the government out of the workings of the prosperity machine we call America. Spread the word.
This is a rather surprising strategy suggested by Mr. Sowell. I've only been recently introduced to him and found some of his earlier writings quite insightful.
But he's certainly dropped the ball on this one.
"Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington."
Really? Mr. Sowell, couldn't you come up with a better idea than essentially "let's vote for more of the same"?
I usually like his thoughts but on this I have to say Thomas is not so well in the head. Is he now just another establishment hack?
Ron Paul for President!
The only candidate we can trust, he is the only candidate who understands economics and can lead us out of the financial mess we are in. Paul has none of the damning baggage, scandal and cold heartened antics of the not so well candidate Newt.
dear sir:
option one here is ron paul
option 2 is other gop candidates
option 3 is newt…
option 4 is romney
option 1 is the best..ron paul BY FAR….he has solutions(the only one who has solutions)he can win IF the usa is desperate enough..in 2012..scared enough of bankruptcy or worse…but the usa must be very broke and desperate for him to have a chance…the usa is close but not there yet….this makes ron a long shot unfortunately…
option 2 is possible but none has risen far enough to be
a conservative standard bearer…the good news is that most are very good and conservative…/and might yet rise…
option 3 is newt….at least he has pledged to make repeal
of obamacare priority number one……and his views are conservative…in general terms…however he has 2 things and more to prove…1. to decisively and meaningfully cut the insane spending…in washington….a PLAN….and COMMITTMENT…2. to signal he will not keep the floodgates open for illegal,banana republic third world immigration…in the milions while he is president..if he cannot prove these things He is not acceptible!
Romney….because of romneycare..liberal views..wall street bailout he is unacceptible…flip flopping…to be a gop nominee… anyone else in the field is acceptible…but only ron paul is desireable…
mr sowell might be right but i hope NOT…hopefully if elected newt would be more conservative than his election views
once in office….don't lose hope…friends…….
No one seems to be happy with the field of Republican candidates for that party’s presidential nomination? Just where are you getting your news from? If you can push yourself away from the network news and get on line you can see all sorts of happy and excited people about the possibility and growing awareness (without the help of mainstream news) that RON PAUL has got a growing army of US citizens totally pumped with his steady and continually growing numbers. As more people find out only through his grassroots org they come on board because he speaks with intelligence and knowledge not rhetoric and fluff.
The sudden rise and fall of the other candidates comes only from the media shoving yet another one of THEIR chosen in our faces in hopes we will accept them and not notice that PAULs numbers are rising. Oh they have worked so hard to keep his name from being said or shown but his message cannot be squelched, the climate is right and the time is now.
We have only one reason to put PAUL in the oval office, that is that nothing will change if we do not. Right now it is the establishment vs the people; Dr Paul is accepting lots of money from a special interest group, "the American people" and when he is in office he will only owe favors to that one group.
Prepare for an astonishing surprise Mr Sowell, prepare for PAULITICS!
Good news from Iowa. Campaign manager Kent defected from a false accusess competitor to Ron Paul. Another Fe ME ista exposed herself as a liar. We have a track record. Clinton claimed to have been dodging bullets in Cosovo, when she was having lunch on a sunny afternoon during her campaign.
I am very glad to read the many great responses to a clearly out of touch writer.
Too many people take what Ron Paul says out of context. For example, when I asked my wife about Ron Paul, her reply was, “You mean that guy who wants to legalize drugs?”
Paul is not advocating people use drugs of any kind. He is simply for the US government getting out of people’s personal business and stick to their real job as stated in our Constitution.
I never heard Mr. Paul “casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran”. That is just another example of taking out of context what he is saying.
I heard him say it is not our job to be the self appointed policeman of the world, especially when our policing is for our own personal gain and not for the benefit of those whom we are claiming to be protecting.
If I am left with the choice of someone besides Ron Paul and Obama, I will choose to not vote.
<iIn this, as in many other aspects of life, we can only make our choice among the options actually available.
see that, graycat? the limiting frame containing ‘free will’. here, it would be more accurately called a “corral” (“rodent maze” is also good…as a cat, right up your baliwick). of course, the correct choice, that sowell will never explicate, because it would un-butter his own bread (what would he have to write about…well, besides things like his distaste for polo…), non-participation, is ignored, in favor of “realism”. that ole’ animal pragmatism.
< not all voters want to be realistic…some…treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone into whose hands to place the fate of the nation… people who think this way tend to vote for someone they just happen to like, whether for personal or ideological reasons, and regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected
this is a beautiful example of psychological projection. and of nobilifying a perceptually negative emotion – fear – into something more palatable to the self-deceiving rationalizers who congeal within various corrals. sowell is a cattle-whisperer, “there, there, this way to git along, little doggies…”
< but does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?
more projection from the mouth of a rep for the only country in the history of the world that has actually exploded nukes in “war”. twice. over the heads of civilian populations. the man’s skin is black, but if you take off your bovine goggles, the true color comes into perception: yellow. then, check your own complexion in a mirror…if it’s the same, and you don’t have a bad liver, you just may be a con-servative (defined as someone who cons themselves, then serves it up…).
< the smart money says he is more “electable”
uh-oh, an apology-an slip (a la freudian). what’s the so-called “smart money” about? using the machine to make more money, of course. how many corral critters do you suppose qualify as “smart money”? yet, sowell flatters the critters with associational sleight of hand – and they swallow—regurgitate—re-masticate—re-swallow, over and over and over. for humans, that’s one definition of insanity; for bovines, well, that’s just how they are.
< but there was a time when even some conservative smart money types were saying that ronald reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.
the smart money did very well with their old boy, reagan. how did the corral critters do? what’s the reagan “legacy” to them? same as before/since: not just the foot, but the entire leg(acy) is up your rear end. many mandibles are being articulated by the toes of that leg…..
< more interested in newt gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future
past is prologue. past rhymes with present, telegraphs future. that is why history is studied. and why those not bothering to learn history’s lessons continue making childish rhymes. over and over and over again. arrested development? autism? 4-chambered stomachs? or “serious realists”, as per sowell? pick your synonymic euphemism.
sowell is a necromancer. whole newt, not just the eye, is the ingredient in his cauldron. i wouldn’t drink that, were i you.
the man’s skin is black, but if you take off your bovine goggles, the true color comes into perception: yellow. then, check your own complexion in a mirror…if it’s the same, and you don’t have a bad liver, you just may be a con-servative (defined as someone who cons themselves, then serves it up…).
Well said, I'm going to borrow that one!
oops…
"is" (black). strike that.
"appears" repairs. alliteration bonus points, too. :<)
borrow away, rs. no cartel here……
sowell is a cattle-whisperer, “there, there, this way to git along, little doggies…”
Well said!
I was directed to your article through Robert Ringer’s voice of Sanity newsletter. Needless to say I have now unsubscribed to this newsletter. Anyone who calls themselves the “Voice of Sanity” should not be endorsing a corrupt globalist sociopath like Newt Gingrich
"But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?"
Yes. Someone does. Seriously. Acutually, there are quite a few of us.
Sowell, you are so wrong. The only Republicans who are not happy with the candidates are the Republicans who favor big government. Those of us who want freedom and small government are ecstatic that we have a near perfect candidate. The time tested and proven Dr. Paul, a man who has supported small government and conducted himself with honesty and integrity for years and years even though he has been in the pit working among snakes.
I do not care if Iran gets atomic weapons. Many nations have them. The United States is the only country to ever use them. That is nothing but an old cold-war scare tactic to try to get Republican voters to vote for a big government candidate. The Soviet Union had nukes for years during the cold war. Hell, they got the plans from the United States. We did not bomb them. It isn’t the bomb that warmongers are worried about it is just the current excuse to go to war.
If we are to get Barrack Romney or Neutered Gingrich we just as well keep Oboma. They are cut from the same cloth. Oboma may be a brighter shade of red but only because the Neocons are trying to conceal there true color. John Gay said, “An open foe may prove accurse but a pretended friend is worse. At least we know what we have with Oboma.
gay's quote…
and mafioso pragmatists adopt whichever machiavellian by way of sun-tzu bit of "corleone" dialogue, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". byzantine intrigues ensue and most do not expire, sitting in garden chairs, of natural causes.
if one want's to play "go", one should get a board & some stones. trying to play it with real people, via politics (forceful trespass), makes stoning is a well-deserved fate.
This is off topic…. but I am predicting Oboma will dump Biden and take Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson as his running mate. Nelson you remember cast the vote to give us Obomacare.
Wow – lots of vehement and even some well-conceived replies. While I'd relish a Ron Paul presidency, Dr. Sowell has it right – he's likely not electable, and won't get the Republican nomination. My feeling is that the bottom line is that we need to 'un-elect' Obama and his ilk, and that will require a strong candidate with wide support – support RP isn't likely to garner, despite his stellar record.
Consider this – When RP doesn't win the Republican nomination, he might well consider running as an Independent. As such, he would still garner a significant percentage of the Independent/Libertarian/conservative Republican vote. And perhaps enough votes to take away from the Republican contender (who, regardless of which candidate, I view as a better choice than Obama). End result will be a divided conservative base – such that no conservative wins a majority. And Obama gets re-elected with under 50% of the votes…
I don't know how to resolve this, but it appears those of us who are "anti-Obama" need to pick a single candidate who can deliver a Constitutional government.
Unfortunately, it appears the 'best' choice can't win; and the secondary choices aren't fully committed to limited government.
Which leaves me – like Dr. Sowell – with a personal dilemma. Vote my conscience, for the future of my Country – or vote for a person who can eliminate the current President…
Not what I'd hoped for this coming election year…
The answer is to vote for the best candidate. Lesser of evil is evil and will not accomplish anything. If Oboma wins with less then 50% it will force him to tone down his demands. At least as good a solution as electing one of the evil republicans.
I still believe that Paul has the best chance of beating oboma of all the other R candidates.
sowell's argument is hollow, as I've shown.
you've missed something significant. "strong candidate" and "wide support" are mutually exclusive propositions (you can add "typically" before "mutually", if rp ascends). the pregnant middle's only strength is numbers…now, recall the fate of the bison.
obama's not the/your problem. fostered attribution errors about "dilemmas" is the/your problem.
>> Sowell, In re: Ron Paul: “But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?" <<
Spoken like a true Obama-Skin-Bro, trying to preclude the Kenyan-interloper’s eviction from Camelot; while 4-decades of My high regard and respect, for what I’d known to be a very diligent academician, just hit the trash-can!!! … If a “Nerves-Nelly-Nuclear-Finger” is extant on this Planet; it lives at the end of an Ashkenazi “color Me Jewish” Zionist-hand in Jerusalem!!! …
Within this latest ruse of “Election Season” process, I find We Christians are certainly, and rapidly reaching the point of being the “meat” within a “slice” of Zionist “White-bread” / Islamist “Dark-bread” sandwich, wherein this “Enemy of My enemy, is My Friend” current lash-up between these two eternal enemy factions, shall be their “progressive” mantra, until Romans 8:36 has reached complete – or at least substantial fruition; and they can then “divvy-up” their spoils, or go-to-work-on-each-other!!! …Albeit; where We Christians have come to proper grips with Matthew 7:13-14, we gain that perfect promise, so stated in the whole of Paul’s Romans 8:35-39 passage – of which his 8:36 admonition is part!!!
God Speed His Holy Son’s return to CANCEL this lease and square-away this Satanic cesspool,
YoOle Me
FOR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of Dr. Ron Paul's PERSONAL Statement of Record, in re this Nation's International Sovereign posture, and his fundamental stance within his aspired Presidency, see: http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
God Speed,
YoOle Me
How sad, Mr. Sowell. You have provided such a beacon of freedom for me — for decades. Why turn away? For conquest, intervention, murder, the dictator's myth of omniscient, omnipotent, altruistic subjugation? And for that we must accept a crushing state, less freedom at home, mucking around in countries and cultures we don't understand, and decades of blowback as those whose families we collaterally damaged, or who are tortured by our dictator "friends", justly dedicate their life to our deaths?
the new world order wants mitt romney to get the nomination so bary satoro i mean oboma wins again so we can start world war 3 and wen they purposely crash our money system oboma will take the blame and then jeb bush will be the hero of the natzi run amerika this is there plane. i dont care if you all dont believe what i wrote,oh and we loose all of our freedoms cause they will use ther fake terroists to blow up some city with a nuke (and they are the c i a) thats there plan to take away our last bit of freedom.im sorry that i cant spell i went to there schools. so all be ready, i know what they want.
Wow. I thought Mr Sowell knew how economics works! He should know that Dr Paul's foreign policy is the least likely to be dangerous due to open trade and less military intervention instead of closing off relations. When you have beneficial trade between countries both countries will not go to war so easily since we all need to make a living. This is very disappointing coming from him.
sowell, like friedman, used to sound like he was good on econ. but figures such as these were steps toward the discovery of the austrian school (which got no play at all when i took econ courses, in college).
econ is the mother of all the social sciences. so really not surprising that it should be turned into 'the dismal science' – the better to maintain as much confusion as possible.
if it's not austrian school, it's not econ. and if you want to see a real life david vs goliath drama, this is the story to read about.
Very Disappointing.
Sowell talks about treating elections as occasions to vent emotions, yet Thomas Sowell proceeds to do just that. He advocates voting for someone based on popularity. He ought to know better. Advocating for popularity over principle is irrational and nothing more than emotional venting. There is nothing rational about supporting candidates that for any practical purpose are no different whatsoever than Obama. Romney and Newt and Obama all ignore the Constitution, support or supported socialized medicine, Fannie and Freddie and other GSEs, the Dept of Ed and federal takeover of education and in actually federal takeover of nearly everything, bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, continuing deficits, expanding government, the income tax, NDAA, the Patriot (aka Soviet Act), SOPA, and other enabling acts that can and will be sued to shut down conservative speech and conservative movement, and on and on.
If you have a 50% chance of being guillotines and a 45% chance at firing squad and a 5% of escaping, do you vote for the guillotine because it yields the best chance of winning? Apparently Thomas Sowell does. That is not rational. Popularity does not trump principles.
Shame on Sowell who I used to admire and buy every book.
…Forgive Me, but your analogy seems to have gone over My head (no pun intended), albeit: where decapitation choice is between Muslim BUTCHERS – I’VE SEEN VIDEO of these ANIMALS’ cannibalizing their still-living Russian prisoners, in their drawn-out process of decapitation – or Guillotine: I’ll have the French mode; Thank You!!!
So Hal too would completely disregard pursuing the only option that offered him a chance at survival, and instead pursue the guillotine because it has the best chance of "winning."
No wonder the country is leaping down the path of totalitarian socialism and teatering on the edge of economic collapse.
…. Well, Martin, you – of all people – can probably understand: I don't send My kids but they take their lunch!!!
Thomas Sowell does not understand that we are a failing empire. Does he want a recovering economy or a war with Iran?
Calvin Coolidge: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”
it is an error, continuously made, to give these people such benefit of doubt ("does not understand"). the sowells, et al, are part of it; they are inside; their official function, albeit sub rosa, is to provide "intellectual" cover. they are apologists for the hand that feeds them.
if you can see it, (and i, others, can see it), then it is self destructive, probably optimistic bias, to adopt the position that stanford-perched sowell does not see it. his motive is to keep "it" going. nothing more.
With ALL due respect to present company: Some people have the vocabulary & articulation to sum up things in a way no one able to read, can fail to understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do:
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Thanks for the quote. I HAVE TO pass it on.
ok…but this czech mates himself with tired regurgitation of present tense "republic", when it has been past tense for at least 147 years…not to mention that his reasoning applies to all the presidents any of us have been alive to see, and most of the ones that preceded us, too.
i.e., they're all fool princes (both the 'winners', and the loyal opposition losers, of any given cycle), voted in by fools. the key word is "vote".
patient: "doc, it hurts when i do this."
doc: "don't do that."
Evidently Mr. Sowell didn't read Mr. Gingrich's introduction/forward in one-world socialist government advocate Alvin Toffler's "The Third Wave." I respect Sowell but not his choice for CFR member Gingrich to be the next POTUS. Thomas must have been having a senior moment when he picked neocon Newt.
If I may, Mr. Sowell, let me suggest you stop watching Faux News. I think Rupert Murdoch's hit-men O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, G. Jarrett, S. Smith & Greta have numbed your once fine-tuned brain. That tends to happen to those who listen to the beating war-drums 7 days a week.
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD!!!!
"Thank you god!!! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battle for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else envolved without any impediment."
in re: Farrar Motion to dismiss by Obama is DENIED!!!!
SO, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? … Quoting her opening statement:
"I still can’t believe this. The order is in the link above. Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office."
Albeit: go to her site (the URL above) and read the Order (linked there, under the "Farrar Motion to dismiss …" string ….
PERHAPS NOW WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S REALLY ANY Law REMAINING IN THIS COUNTRY.
God Speed,
YoOle Me
You don't mean to tell me that you actually believe that the Department of (In)Justice … which is run by a clown named Holder … who is a puppet of Maobama … will leave this as it is and not appeal or not stall it unto infinity, do you?
I really think its sad that someone of Thomas Sowell's stature is so wrongly mistaken and so removed from reality that he should really investigate the truth about Ron Paul before he makes any further comments that may erode his credibility. Very out of touch, sorry.
Since it is nearly a whole daysince the last post, and probably will not ever be read by any of these people, most whom are charging forward to the next windmill. I have followed Dr. Sowell and Dr. Paul for over thirty years. Love them both, always will. Not for sure either one of them would be a good president, any more than I can be sure that Newt, Rick, Mitt, John, Gary, Other Rick, or Michelle would be. I do know that I would vote for either one of them. I do know from reading all 63 posts that Dr. Sowell got it right about the "need to vent"
Damn! I have seen everything from some good old holdover facism from the 40s & 50s, some obvious bigotry, some very well thought out arguments, some obviously there for comic relief, and some Indication of total political madness.
The late great historian Shelby Foote, in the wonderful Civil War series, that and The War being the best ever on PBS, said something like "happened because no one would compromise. Our whole system is built on compromise."Could we be up for a civil (or uncivil) war between the various groups of Republicans. I am so hopeful that since one of them is going to be the nominee, and the standard bearer for all freedom loving Americans, that we can all get together and beat back the President and his Communist minions. If we can't, and just pissed-off dummies or a 3d party run, beats us, I'm seriously afraid that civil war can't be that many years off. Look inside yourselves and see what you can do.
the system pitch was inalienable rights, not "compromise". the antithesis is about as stark as can be. the lawyers have got you.
the confeds were correct not to compromise, no matter foote's assessment. the confeds were crushed. and the compromisers, since then, have wrought what is.
I don't understand "waiting on moderation" If that isn't "moderate" enough, shive it!
Let me get this straight. Conservatives are not afraid of a Nuclear Russia, a Nuclear China, a Nuclear North Korea. Military experts say the United States could wipe out the entire Iran navy and air force in 3 days, but conservatives are deathly afraid of a nuclear Iran. They need to stop reading all the war hype designed to get us mired down in Iran,
Respect your views on most topics.
W. Allan Bean.