‘Churchill’ Gingrich?

Posted on | January 22, 2012 | 43 Comments

by Smitty

A great debater. Politically polarizing. Prone to great error, but also prone to spectacular success. Steeped in history. Politically brilliant. Unorthodox. Audacious.
All these qualities were once used to describe Winston Churchill. Today, you might use the same words to describe Newt Gingrich. Sound absurd? Not when you think about it.

Read the whole thing. The two points unmade in the article are that NY-23 would be Newt’s Gallipoli, and a tough pill for Tea Party types to swallow in supporting him.

The real humor would be in the presidential debates, when Newt starts quoting Churchill at length to the blatantly anti-British #OccupyResoluteDesk. The thought of watching BHO’s eyes narrow and jaw tighten makes one smile.

via Lucianne

Update: if Newt is Churchill, does that turn BHO into Chamberlain?

Update II: linked at Nice Deb.

Update III: linked by Don Surber.

Category: Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich

Comments

43 Responses to “‘Churchill’ Gingrich?”

Multimedia Group
January 22nd, 2012 @ 8:13 am

The thing that would really help Gingrich is some modicum of humility and a mea culpa or two.

I’d move his direction from Santorum if he would once in awhile utter about things like the Scozzafava debacle: “that was one of the more moronic things I’ve done, sometimes I can be a bit of a political opportunist and that was one of those times (along with that ‘park bench with Pelosi’ moment.”)

He could go on to say, “yes, I’ve done some idiotic things in my career, even recently criticizing Gov. Romney for being a capitalist, but at least its momentary. On the other hand, Obama is continuously idiotic. His presidency is one long string of stupid moves. At least I learn and improve. Obama gets worse by the day.”
Quartermaster
January 22nd, 2012 @ 8:38 am

I’m not a fan of Churchill. He didn’t approve of the war that Chamberlain gave Britain, but did nothing to bring it to an end other than expend the blood an treasure of the empire, which led directly to its death. He said he did not want to destroy the empire, but did just that.

Hitler put out peace feelers to Britain as he never wanted war with them. If Churchill had been a wise man, he would have accepted them and allowed Germany to take on the Soviet Union without distraction. Hitler would have been able to destroy Stalin and save the west an untold amount of grief in the process. Imagine no Red China, Korea, or Vietnam.

Churchill had the ability to see some things, but he was not the far seeing man so many like to think he was. I hope Gingrich, if he becomes POTUS, is not a Churchillian figure.
ThePaganTemple
January 22nd, 2012 @ 8:43 am

Gingrich would know how to provoke just the kind of reaction from Obama people need to see to show them just what kind of little fucking punk they were stupid enough to honor with the office of President. Romney is too big of a pussy. I’m sick of these hand-wringers trying to please everybody and trying not to offend anyone.
Anonymous
January 22nd, 2012 @ 8:45 am

“NY-23 would be Newt’s Gallipoli, and a tough pill for Tea Party types to swallow in supporting him.”

The same can be said about Rick Santorum’s endorsement of ‘Snarlin’ Arlen’ Specter.

Personally, I think ultimately both are relatively insignificant ‘hiccups’ for the respective candidates given the dynamics of the primary race, IMHO.
smitty
January 22nd, 2012 @ 9:05 am

An excellent rebuttal.
Ladd Ehlinger Jr.
January 22nd, 2012 @ 9:33 am

That is the most whacked-out and ignorant revision of Churchill’s part in WWII that I’ve ever read.
Guest
January 22nd, 2012 @ 9:56 am

…what?
Mister- in your world, does Spock have a goatee?
Guest
January 22nd, 2012 @ 9:58 am

Actually, IIRC he DID say the couch thing was a mistake.
Newt has shown more humility and willingness to admit error than Romney (“Romneycare IS the conservative way!”) ever could.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:09 am

You can’t keep mentioning NY-23 without mentioning Santorum dragging Arlen Specter, {the guy who pissed all over Robert Bork} across the finish line against Pat Toomey.

Either the kind of behavior displayed in NY-23 is a deal breaker, or it isn’t.

It can’t be anathema for one, but something we’ll be willing to overlook in somebody else.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:14 am

So far, the only reason I see some frenzied about NY-23 is that RSM’s got his knickers in a twist up there, so to speak, and hasn’t gotten himself sorted out since.

Gingrich’s behavior in NY-23 was nothing compared to that of Santorum twisting arms, making threats, making the rounds on behalf of Arlen Specter.

And Specter pissed all over Bork.

And brags about it to this day.

And Specter was a former Democrat, who only flipped to the GOP to advance his own political ambitions.

Specter was a thoroughly reprehensible figure, in office and out.

But Santorum went to bat for the jerk, and spins it to this day.

Either Santorum is this wonderful, unblemished conservative, or he too has gotten some dirt on his angel wings somewhere back along the trail.

My point is that the guy who is pushing voting rights for dirtballs and criminals, who pushed that while pandering on MLK day, while smugly moralizing to GOP contenders, ——– isn’t all he’s been cracked up to be.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:17 am

Concur.

Romney can only launch attack ads, and maneuver behind the scene to prevent Santorum’s victory in Iowa being duly announced the evening of his victory. That had Romney’s and the establishment’s hands all over that one.

I too have grown weary of the hand-wringers and the whole Bush family approach and tone.

The Bush family makes me want to throw up. And that’s just not a figure of speech. I DID come close yesterday to throwing up thinking of them, thinking of their influence upon the party behind the scenes.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:20 am

What destroyed the Empire was the United States, under FDR, insisting upon loans as financial aid for the war, insisting upon full repayment, and lastly, insisting upon the liquidation of the territorial possessions.

It was American policy that broke up the Empire.

And it was despicable.

The break up of European Empires such as France and Britain’s put the United States in the position of having to take up responsibilities of global power, such as would play out in Vietnam years later.

Eisenhower wouldn’t prop up France’s conduct of the war, ———— which left us in the lurch when they pulled out.

A wiser policy would have backed up their Empires allowing them to wage the colonial battles they were familiar with.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:24 am

I think this whole focus on humility to be weird.

Willingness to understand a mistake isn’t encompassed in my understanding of humility. That’s just smart.

Romney can’t acknowledge Romneycare to be an unconservative failure because it would be one more flip, one more flop, one more instance where Romney moves his positions to suit his political ambitions. Ironically, the guy who has flipped is now stuck defending a millstone around his own neck.

I don’t want somebody like Romney, constantly looking over his shoulder, constantly asking the establishment what it thinks, constantly sticking a finger into the wind.

Gingrich knows what needs to be done.
Dana
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:33 am

Hmmm, yeah, that would have been a great idea! No Soviet Union to be sure, but the Third Reich conquering all of continental Europe, the massacre of the Jews completed, and if there would be no communist rule, there would still have been nothing but fascist rule over Europe.

Good plan!

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer! Of course, since ein Volk refers only to Germans, one wonders how the French and the Italians and the Magyars and the Romanians would have far under der Führer and his successors.

I don’t think that you’d much like the world today had your vision come true.
Dana
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:36 am

What destroyed the Empire is that 40 million white people on an island off the coast of Europe couldn’t rule 700 million Indians or 100 million Africans forever. The war hastened its end, but not by much.
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:37 am

A factor, to be sure.

But the finances dictated British foreign policy.

You can throw war weariness into the mix too……
DAN
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:38 am

You’re clearly confused about my point.

I didn’t advocate the maintenance of the 3d Reich.

My comments were confined to the empire of the French and the British.
Mike Rogers
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:49 am

The scariest part of this post is the accurate portrayal of BHO as “Peace in our time” Chamberlain. That is why we need Newt, warts and all this year, more than ever.
Andrew Patrick
January 22nd, 2012 @ 10:55 am

Didn’t Stacy link this article, or one very similar, back when Gingrich was enjoying his first comeback, and piss on it from a great height?
ThePaganTemple
January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:08 am

If you think his views on Churchill are whacked out you should get a load of what he has to say about Lincoln.
AngelaTC
January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:20 am

So, because we refused to finance the empire, it was our fault it collapsed.

How can people so in tune with the past be so blind to the future never ceases to mystify me.
AngelaTC
January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:22 am

And you’re ignoring the after-effects of WWI, which paved the way for Hitler’s ascension to power in the first place.
AngelaTC
January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Me too, but I wish it was a real conservative that was growing a pair.
John Cunningham
January 22nd, 2012 @ 11:58 am

Stacy asked,
if Newt is Churchill, does that turn BHO into Chamberlain?

nope, Obama is Sir Oswald Mosley.
Green Eagle
January 22nd, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

“if Newt is Churchill, does that turn BHO into Chamberlain?”

No, but if you think Newt is Churchill, it certainly turns you into an idiot.
richard mcenroe
January 22nd, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

Yes, Specter crapped all over Bork. He also gave us Alito and Roberts.

What did we get out of NY-23?
richard mcenroe
January 22nd, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

I find the comparison between Newt and Churchill only slightly less offensive than the comparison between Newt and Reagan.

Churchill wrote one of the definitive works on the subject of British history. Gingrich stuck his name on a bunch of Harry Turtle-dove clone historical sci-fi novels.

Churchill stood up to one of the two great tyrants of modern history. Newt stood up for a blowjob while his kids were waiting in the car.

Churchill had the humility and character to serve as a humble back-bench MP after holding higher office. Gingrich quit his Congressional seat in a huff after he was stripped of his Speakership.

Churchill was skilled and forming coalitions and alliances. Gingrich’s own party peers didn’t like him.

Churchill saw combat and fired shots in anger four separate times. Gingrich saw Star Wars four times while lobbying for the US to build orbital space colonies at a time when we could barely get a shuttle off the ground.
richard mcenroe
January 22nd, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Churchill WON his General Strike; Newt lost the Government Shutdown.

Churchill was married once. Gingrich….
Adjoran
January 22nd, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

Based on what? A few good debate lines?

He SUCKED as Speaker after the initial Contract agenda was brought to the floor as promised. He served with nearly 300 other Republicans in the House, but only a few Establishment types of those endorsed him.

Why don’t his former colleagues endorse him if he’s so great, hmmm?
Adjoran
January 22nd, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

Since Toomey barely won statewide with several more years to prepare and in Republican wave year, it is safe to say he would have lost. Specter had helped Santorum – but apparently you think it is just fine to stab those who’ve helped you in the back.

No wonder you are for Gingrich – the double cross is his specialty.
Adjoran
January 22nd, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

Newt has already compared himself to all the great men of history except perhaps Jesus.

NY-23 was just one more act demonstrating his utter contempt for conservatives.

How stupid do you have to be to complain about RomneyCare and support Newt, who endorsed the individual mandate? Loudly and repeatedly, from 2006 up until it became part of ObamaCare in 2009, yet he gets a free pass on it.

Newt gets a free pass on everything from the hyenas hungry for red meat. They forgive him the 16 years of maltreatment and beatings and back-stabbings, just throw us some mo’ red meat, Newt!
Sunday Roundup 1/22/12 The Establishment Can Pucker Up And Kiss Both Sides Edition | Katy Pundit
January 22nd, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

[…] any president except Jimmy CarterBreaking: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to Step Down This Week‘Churchill’ Gingrich? ELECTIONSSC Exit Polls: Electability Most Important FactorNewt WooootNewt’s Ethics Records […]
ThePaganTemple
January 22nd, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

You make good points about Newt, but the problem is, there’s nobody you like besides Romney, except maybe for Perry, who you know didn’t have a prayer anyway. You act like all the other candidates should just concede to Mitts greatness and get behind him and forget all this election foolishness.
Huge SC Win Vindication For Gingrich Spokesman, Rick Tyler « Nice Deb
January 22nd, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

[…] The Other McCain, IBD: Gingrich Looking Churchillian In Political […]
Bob Belvedere
January 22nd, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

Hello, Dcmick.
Bob Belvedere
January 22nd, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

Exactly. Perhaps we can describe The Spector Incident as like Churchill’s support for Edward and Mrs. Simpson.
Bob Belvedere
January 22nd, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

I first called BHO ‘Chamberlain’ in March of 2009 [the old site has been taken down, so I can’t link], but the comparison of Newt to Winston fails because WSC was a man of honor, whereas Newt reminds me of Julius Caesar who wore the mantel of honor only when it suited his ends.
Bob Belvedere
January 22nd, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

Two points:

1) Newt waited a bit before he quit, so in reality he quit in a minute and a huff.

2) Newton Leroy for Space Czar!
Bob Belvedere
January 22nd, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

He’ll keep getting that free pass until and if he becomes the Nominee. Then the Left will hammer him as relentlessly as Wombat does the trolls.
Mike Rogers
January 22nd, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

And indeed, I did say “warts and all”, I just happen to believe that we are running out of not-Romneys , and notwithstanding his defects, Newt has a better grasp of history and economics than Santorum, as well as a better view of foreign policy than Paul.
Mike Rogers
603-661-9091
eMail by iPad 🙂
Errors by Mike :-/
Daily scoreboard « Don Surber
January 22nd, 2012 @ 6:12 pm

[…] 1. From South Carolina: […]
Anonymous
January 22nd, 2012 @ 6:20 pm

Maybe because they’re part of the Establicans we’re fighting?
ThePaganTemple
January 22nd, 2012 @ 8:05 pm

They’re going to do that to anybody we nominate. At least Newt has the guts to look them in the eye and tell them to kiss his ass.