I don’t want to have to do either, but
1) I would vote for Gingrich over Obama (and with reasonable hope that he could turn out to be a pretty good president, and not simply the vehicle for rejecting Obama).
2) I would vote for Palin over Obama (and with ditto).
They are about as equally electable against Obama, and as equally likely to overcome their numerous shortcomings so as to maybe attain my hoped-for level of “pretty good” presidential achievement.
Sarah Palin is a better person than Newt Gingrich. Compared to him, her basic decency, trustworthiness, and graciousness shine forth.
But I’d rather have to do 1) than have to do 2).
Why is that?
I think I’ll go back to thinking about music now . . .
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
