Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for 50 years. One of the often-repeated catch phrases of our time -- "It's the economy, stupid!" -- has already stopped thinking in some quarters for a couple of decades.

There is no question that the state of the economy can affect elections. But there is also no iron law that all elections will be decided by the state of the economy.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was re-elected for an unprecedented third term after two terms in which unemployment was in double digits for eight consecutive years.

We may lament the number of people who are unemployed or who are on food stamps today. But those who give the Obama administration credit for coming to their rescue when they didn't have a job are likely to greatly outnumber those who blame the administration for their not having a job in the first place.

An expansion of the welfare state in hard times seems to have been the secret of FDR's great political success in the midst of economic disaster. An economic study published in a scholarly journal in 2004 concluded that the Roosevelt administration's policies prolonged the Great Depression by several years. But few people read economic studies.

This economy has been sputtering along through most of the Obama administration, with the unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent. But none of that means that Barack Obama is going to lose the 2012 election.

Even polls which show "any Republican" with more public support than Obama does not mean that Obama will lose.

The president is not going to run against "any Republican." He is going to run against some specific Republican, and that Republican can expect to be attacked, denounced and denigrated for months on end before the November 2012 elections -- not only by the Democrats, but also by the media that is heavily pro-Democrat.

We have already seen how unsubstantiated allegations from women with questionable histories have dropped Herman Cain from front runner to third place in just a couple of weeks.

In short, it takes a candidate to beat a candidate, and everything depends on what kind of candidate that is.

The smart money inside the Beltway says that the Republicans need to pick a moderate candidate who can appeal to independent voters, not just to the conservative voters who turn out to vote in Republican primaries. Those who think this way say that you have to "reach out" to Hispanics, the elderly and other constituencies.

What is remarkable is how seldom the smart money folks look at what has actually been happening in presidential elections.

Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections when he ran as Ronald Reagan. Vice President George H.W. Bush then won when he ran as if he were another Ronald Reagan, with his famous statement, "Read my lips, no new taxes."

But after Bush 41 was elected and turned "kinder and gentler" -- to everyone except the taxpayers -- he lost to an unknown governor from a small state.

Other Republican presidential candidates who went the "moderate" route -- Bob Dole and John McCain -- also came across as neither fish nor fowl, and also went down to defeat.

Now the smart money inside the Beltway is saying that Mitt Romney, who is nothing if not versatile in his positions, is the Republicans' best hope for replacing Obama.

If conservative Republicans split their votes among a number of conservative candidates in the primaries, that can mean ending up with a presidential candidate in the Bob Dole-John McCain mold -- and risking a Bob Dole-John McCain result in the next election.

The question now is whether the conservative Republican candidates who have enjoyed their successive and short-lived boomlets -- Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain -- are prepared to stay in the primary race to the bitter end, or whether their conservative principles will move them to withdraw and throw their support to another conservative candidate.

There has probably never been a time in the history of this country when we more urgently needed to get a president out of the White House, before he ruined the country. But will the conservative Republican candidates let that guide them?

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Join the Debate
1120 Comments So Far
« Previous1234567891011121314Next »
Antoinette15 Wrote: Nov 22, 2011 2:07 PM
Justice Holmes was also a very fine poet....."if I should live to be, the last leaf upon the tree,in the spring, let them laugh as I do now, ....." Our we now the last leaf?
Professor/President/Ruler Obama has the bit between his teeth as shown with his executives and proclaiming loud and clear, his way or the veto way.
A new book "Thrown Them All Out" is really pulling out all stops. This book names names and how so many Congressional members go from comfort income to millions.

tonis@tonisopinions.com
EARLYORL Wrote: Nov 18, 2011 10:04 AM
The electorate is already too stupid and too dependent on government to elect a candidate who is willing and able to rescue this country from going the way of Rome. It's an impossible task to rescue this country based on where we have been going the last 45 years with the accelerated pace the last 25 years. The progressives have done a great job of infiltrating at all levels, including the media and education. Our gradchildren will be experiencing a much different country that what we had. Sorry about that kids.
DavidMac Wrote: Nov 18, 2011 7:13 PM
Earl: So if you're correct, eventually (20 - 30 years from now) it will take an armed revolution to get rid of the socialists. Sowell pointed out that a significant number of Republicans are in bed ideologically with the Marxists, wanting "moderates" (code for "liberal") to be nominated and, of course, lose to the Marxist-in-Chief, Komrad Obama, Premier Wannabe of the Socialist States of Amerika.
Earl29 Wrote: Nov 20, 2011 3:46 PM
EARLYORL Wrote: Nov 21, 2011 10:03 AM
I'm not sure how it happened but there are 2 Earl's (EARL and Earl) on this site. Sorry about that Earl.
Antoinette15 Wrote: Nov 22, 2011 2:11 PM
Okay, you are one, I am two, three? It took me ten months to show an admirer of Professor/President/Ruler Obama that he is just a facade for the position. I am still trying and will not give up. Don't you.

toni@tonisopinions.com
chessexpert Wrote: Nov 17, 2011 9:34 AM
One thing I like about conservatives is their diversity of thought. That is what happens when individuals THINK. Ann Coulter argues that we should get behind Romney. Thomas Sowell almost implies anyone but Romney. These are two bona fide conservatives.

I think Sowell advances the primary truth. We need a true conservative. In the end, Bachman, Cain, (even Palin) would be recognized as authentic conservatives and get the votes of conservatives and independents. Even independents in the voting booth would choose someone real to the plastic Marxist in the White House today.
Charles3662 Wrote: Nov 17, 2011 9:21 AM
Where is Ron Paul anymore? He is by far the best candidate--if the country believes in the importance of the Constitution. The answer is--Ron Paul could never win on Dancing with the Stars, so why nominate him for President? There are few true Republicans anymore. The Tea Party is closer to true Americans than either the Republicans or the Democrats. At its core, the next election is a beauty contest and Americans will deserve exactly what they get. The key is segregation into states, counties and communities, not looking for a one size fits all candidate. Dr. Thomas is skirting the issue, maybe because the best answer is somewhat ugly. The best answer is identifying and removing the socialists from the electorate.
trumpman Wrote: Nov 17, 2011 3:35 AM
Any person in power, who has given AN OATH to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet continues this cover-up, is guilty of misprison of felony. Until then, most so-called conservatives are nothing but dishonorable traitors.

ref: http://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/163
trumpman Wrote: Nov 17, 2011 3:35 AM
re: "There has probably never been a time in the history of this country when we more urgently needed to get a president out of the White House, before he ruined the country. But will the conservative Republican candidates let that guide them?"

He would already be out of the White House if there were any courageous politicians, justices, mainstream media, and yes, even conservative columnists such as Mr. Sowell. Obama is ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING the White Hose because he is NOT a natural born citizen (one born of two U.S. citizen parents) as the Constitution requires. Enough already with all this angst of who will eat Obama. Every civil servant that has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution needs to review and renew that oath.
gucciwat Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 10:13 PM
In 2003, Iraq was a minority Sunni-led nation, and there was little likelihood Iran would move WMD through Iraq to Lebanon or Palestine, because Iran was and is a Shiite theocracy. These countries were enemies.

We helped install a Shiite-majority government in Iraq. This government will get closer to Iran. Iraq will become a transporting ground for WMD into countries surrounding Israel.

The Iraq war didn't make the Middle East safer. It made it more dangerous. Saddam was a paper tiger in 2003. And a lot of brave Americans paid an incredible price for "victory." But we didn't make the politics there any more favorable to our overall needs.
gucciwat Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 9:10 PM
I've heard you Neo-Con Republican shills often repeat the phrase, "America is in the fight of our lives...America is at a cross roads and the stakes are high, maybe even our lives are at stake."

And more drama like, "The Democrats don't seem to even acknowledge that we are at war with a brutal throat slashing, burn people alive enemy that wants to destroy us. They'd pull our troops away from fighting in foreign countries with the inevitable result of the fight moving to our own homeland."

But, truth be told, the only way those with a slobbering love affair with the Republican Party are willing to pay for this engagement with the Islamo-Fascist enemy is to hold onto their precious George W. Bush tax cut.
annfan6 Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 8:51 PM
"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for 50 years."

----------------

"pro-choice"
"it's a woman's body"
"it's a blob of tissue"

There are three right there that should be on the ash heap of history already, since they're all lies straight from the pit of hell.
rdelavega Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 2:17 PM
You have put the finger on an issue that has been bothering me for some time. The question is will Perry, if soundly trounced in Iowas and North Carolina quit , endorse and work for a consensus Conservative candidate? Would, Bachman? Santorum? Cain? Newt? I mean will they basically let all conservatives rally a consensus Conservative candidate and defeat Romney? The only way Romney, in my opinion, can win the nomination is if the Conservatives refuse to join forces. In short will the Conservatives blow their chance to actually elect a game changer? If they don't they will have only themselves to blame for it. The other question is: Will the Libertarians ever get it that we must oppose Islamism? IF they do then they can win the White House
Tim341 Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 11:38 AM
Ron Paul
He wants to eliminate five federal agencies, and return many of their functions to the states as the founders intended. More freedom and more efficiency.
He wants to stop enforcing the will of the Globalist Banksters and bring back our military from countries that are no threat to us and where we have no national interest.
He wants to trim the Federal Reserve powers, as it has made the value of the dollar fall 98% since 1913. He wants an economy of wealth instead of debt as the founders wanted but were not able to implement.
MickeyG RVN 66-68 from CO Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 8:11 AM
"[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore ... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 1823


MickeyG RVN 66-68 from CO Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 8:12 AM
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45


m-pence Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 7:47 AM
They already blew it by giving the Obamanation the debt ceiling level that he tricked them into giving him !
Fabius Cunctator Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 4:28 AM
The Mystery Republican Candidate?
According to Sowell's logic the conservative Republican candidate must remain unknown until just before the election or picked at the Republican Convention at the earliest.
Also, according to this article, that candidate must either be Santorum, Gingrich, or someone else.
allen [skip] Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 1:41 AM
Yes the Republicans will blow this chance to win this election, there is not a true leader in the pack running for that office. The Republicans will not stand up against the democratic lies, because the old guard republicans are just as bad as the democrats. We need a leader not an older brother!
Tasmanian-Jedi Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 11:19 PM
"Will Republicans Blow It?"

Yes, if Romney or Newt is our nominee.

Righteousness exalts a nation (Prov. 14:34). By that yardstick, it's Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, Cain or Perry (barely). None of the others qualify.

The Super Committee Republicans might go along with a tax increase? We are being played, America. Don't put up with it, Tea Party. Go back and listen to the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again": "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Ted456 Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 11:35 PM
"Brer Fox went ter wuk en got 'im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w'at he call a Tar-Baby..."
"`Mawnin'!' sez Brer Rabbit (to the Tar-Baby), sezee - `nice wedder dis mawnin',' sezee...."
"Tar-Baby ain't sayin' nuthin', en Brer Fox he lay low..."
"Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose...."

Brer Rabbit = Tea Party
....

Ted456 Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 11:55 PM
The problem with the conservatives in this election is they keep fighting the Tar-Baby and not real things like these:

(1) Homeowners that have underwater mortgages and state law doesn't allow them to default and start again. In some states, you default and you are in debt to the bank for the rest of your life.

(2) Aging roads, bridges, levies, electrical system. Infrastructure isn't going to be rebuilt except by government programs and taxpayer money.

(3) Medicare is too expensive. People retire too early in life. I give them credit for a try by Rand, but none of the candidates supports changing Medicare entitlement age.

(4) Poverty is growing.

(5) Social mobility is dropping and people who want to rise up, it'sarder than ever.
Tim341 Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 11:44 AM
Perry is in the pocket of the Bilderberg Globalists, he supports the Dream Act, health care for Mexicans paid for by us, and a North American security and economic zone, merging our military and commerce regulations with that of Mexico and Canada.
shubi_ Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 10:23 PM
Trolls are trained by Soros Troll Central in several tactics:
1. Clog the site with posts so no one can find the serious discussion.
2. Post spam on every possible article.
3. Be so obnoxious the traffic on the site will be reduced
4. Continue to post the same talking point repeatedly despite the fact it has been soundly refuted.
5. Accuse your opponent of what you are doing.
Carlos7 Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 10:36 PM
Yep.

Many good Conservatives have already left Townhall due to the endless spam.

James Butler Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 11:38 PM
Nah...
You'll be surprise...
Those good fellow "Conservatives" have not left TH... No way...
They have just change tactics... First rule is to know their ways...
Surely there are different ways to respond to sybil than keep reputing his bots...

Most, if not all are still around and well aware... the marixsts commies are about to learn a great lesson from the American patriots, Veterans, Christians, Jews, Farmers, Bakers, merchants, Americans....

Grant75 Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 10:07 PM
The poor pay plenty in taxes – particularly, in terms of percentage of income. They get hit hard, not only with sales tax, but with inflation and consumer prices which are elevated by government regulations and corporation taxes. Big government control freaks, both libs and cons, don’t do the poor any favors.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:22 PM
Commchf, I'll bet you and I can agre, during morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC in the first three days since the Cain allegations from anonymous women broke, there were how many stories?
50
First three days after the Paula Jones scandal broke…how many stories?
1
First three days following Kathleen Willey's claims of being groped by Bill Clinton;
3
First three days after Juanita Broaddrick came forward to say Mr. Clinton raped her. 3
Powerful forces are at work to derail the candidacy of Herman Cain. These forces are from the right and left. Can he survive?
commchf Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:26 PM
Are you really comparing today's media environment to twenty years ago? Really? We had a total of four networks then and the world wide web didn't even exist yet.

What's really interesting is Cain stating that he shouldn't be judged in the court of public opinion! He wants our vote but we can't judge him!!! That's funny right there I don't care who you are.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:34 PM
So, do you agree or disagree commchf?
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:36 PM
commchf, I cited 3 news channels that have about the same amout of news as they did. Do you agree or disagree with the obvious difference?
commchf Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 10:35 PM
I honestly don't know if your numbers are accurate or not, but as I said it's not materially relevant because of the complete world change in media from 20 years ago to today. Simply put twenty years ago the networks had one 30 minute news show per day. If they did one story each then each network had 100% coverage. Today news is on ALL DAY LONG!
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:18 PM
"I can tell you, I know the liberal establishment in this country, is totally, (speaking in Halloween terms) freaked out, frightened of Herman" JUAN WILLIAMS
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:18 PM
We all knew this was coming. Herman Cain is an old man and surely he's hurt some feelings during decades in business. Leaders make decisions, they are never allowed to vote 'present'. The embodiment of everything talking heads despise is Herman Cain. It's been a generation since we had a leader that never attended Yale or Harvard. How would the world be, if we'd never had Ronny Reagan? It's time for another 'commoner' President. Maybe it's time for Herman.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:14 PM
"This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves"
Ronald Reagan
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:14 PM
Are we tired of the 'Elite'? All nine Supreme Court justices attended Harvard. REALLY? Not since Reagan have we had a President that wasn't Ivy League. There are 2700 Universities in this country. Why only Yale and Harvard? This is not 'representative government' folks. Herman Cain is our best shot at getting back what the Founders intended. We're not supposed to have a ruling class of perpetual politicians. If we do not end this Yale/Harvard/Yale/Harvard revolving oval office door, we have truly abandoned the revolution. I'm for Herman Cain, if, for no other reason...the talking heads can't stand him. Go Herman Go!!!
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Nov 16, 2011 7:09 PM
Agreed, Cambermeister... the permanent political class shouldn't exist, because our founders never intended it to - but now that it does, they are shaking in their wingtips because of people like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin. Palin was attacked with a degree of viciousness and hate I have never before seen, and was finally marginalized. Cain is now getting the same treatment. Whatever it is that these common-sense, ordinary Americans represent, the elites are afraid of them. Like you, I can support Cain on that basis alone. I've had enough of big-govt. republicans who try to outdo the Dems at their own game and who are just as prepared to ignore the constitution as the left.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:12 PM
Read the comments on any issue from Herman Cain. It's pretty obvious he never bothered to look at polling data beforehand. Mitt Romney is a good man...but....in the end...he's just another politician. I'm really tired of politicians. Our children are being buried under a mountain of debt. Politicians are willing to compromise with crazy people. How do we compromise with the likes of Nancy Pelosi? Do we agree to burying our children under a smaller mountain of debt? Herman Cain is kind of a bumbler but he is authentic. This genuine aspect of his character is why both sides of the Manhattan Establishment want him to go away. If we fall for the media hype this time...we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Cambermeister Wrote: Nov 15, 2011 9:05 PM
More than any other reason, the GOP was galvanized by opposition to the unconstitutional individual mandate. In a few months we will nominate the first politician to require an individual mandate. Why will we do this? Because...they made all other options distasteful. Essentially, we're told what to think.