Posted on 11/16/2011 4:07:20 AM PST by QwertyKPH
The thought startles. Is Newt Gingrich America's Winston Churchill? The former Speaker has repeatedly dazzled in the ongoing series of GOP presidential debates. He is "the adult in the room," the man Republicans keep saying they would like to see on the debate stage with Barack Obama. The latest polls (Wall Street Journal, CBS, and Marist) have him vaulting into a tie with Mitt Romney behind Herman Cain or leapfrogging Cain to barely trail Romney. This video of a Frank Luntz focus group that appeared on Sean Hannity's TV show following a recent GOP debate is typical of the changing reaction to the Georgian. Gingrich is a long way from the low single digits he registered at the beginning of the campaign. But Churchill? America's Churchill? There are all manner of people -- including some conservatives -- who would faint dead away at the comparison. They shouldn't.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Read the whole article. I think Jeffrey Lord is on to something.
My wife and I are leaning toward Gingrich. We like Cain but Gingrich has the knowledge, the know-how, the ideas and the ability to be a great president. And he would bring Obama to his knees in debates.
The man is a perperual politician and a sleazeball to boot.
Regarding Gingrich, this video at youtube.com tells us a great deal of why he may be the man of the hour...
Newt Gingrich On The Threat Of Radical Islam (VIDEO)
I think I’m going to vote for that sleazeball perpetual politician.
Brilliant and insightful article.
Churchill always filled the void when others were too fearful. His confidence was based on study, knowledge and the righteousness of the British Empire.
Newt’s life story of accomplishment, stumbles, well-earned animosity, intellectual jay-walking certainly parallel Churchill’s. Military and bombast notwithstanding.
Newt did not have the advantage of parental aristocracy as Churchill, so in one way Newt pulled himself forward while Winston was carried.
Gee, do I vote for Newt Gingrich because Jeff Lord says he’s the next Winston Churchill? Or do I vote for Rick Santorum because Glen Beck says he’s then next George Washington? And then there’s Obama who has been called the new Abraham Lincoln. Wow, I really like and admire Winston Churchill but how can you vote against the Father of our Country? And I’ve also been a big Lincoln admirer but he’s not a Republican this time around so he’s out. Sarah Palin has said she’s not running so I guess voting for the next Ronald Reagan is not an option unless I write her in. Decisions, decisions.
And 6 months later you’ll be crying about him screwing you.
LOL
Too bad he doesn’t have the integrity.
Did Winston Churchill marry 3 times? Get rolled by the opposition party leader? Change his views at the drop of a hat?
Newt may be one of the more intelligent, but he is an amoral oportunist. Give him the keys, and we will NOT arrive where he tells us he’s going to take us.
You're right, but Newt's still a whole lot better than Obama (actually, just about everyone with a pulse is better than that evil anti-American communist). If that sleazeball is the GOP nominee, at least we'll be able to tell the difference between his administration and the Obama Regime. That puts the perpetual politician way ahead of Romney, and it's enough that I'll vote for him if he's the best we can do.
**Did Winston Churchill marry 3 times? Get rolled by the opposition party leader? Change his views at the drop of a hat?**
No, Yes, Maybe.
From Wiki:
As President of the Board of Trade he joined newly appointed Chancellor Lloyd George in opposing First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna’s proposed huge expenditure for the construction of Navy dreadnought warships, and in supporting the Liberal reforms.[59] In 1908, he introduced the Trade Boards Bill setting up the first minimum wages in Britain,[60] In 1909, he set up Labour Exchanges to help unemployed people find work.[61] He helped draft the first unemployment pension legislation, the National Insurance Act of 1911.[62] As a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913, although the Act eventually passed rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.[63]
Churchill in 1904. Churchill also assisted in passing the People’s Budget[64] becoming President of the Budget League, an organisation set up in response to the opposition’s “Budget Protest League”.[65] The budget included the introduction of new taxes on the wealthy to allow for the creation of new social welfare programmes. After the budget bill was sent to the Commons in 1909 and passed, it went to the House of Lords, where it was vetoed. The Liberals then fought and won two general elections in January and December 1910 to gain a mandate for their reforms. The budget was then passed following the Parliament Act 1911 for which he also campaigned. In 1910, he was promoted to Home Secretary. His term was controversial, after his responses to the Siege of Sidney Street and the dispute at the Cambrian Colliery and the suffragettes.
Good questions.
NOOT is nothing but a vote splitter for the anybody but Willard folk.
I believe Mr. Lord’s written a very good article here. I am reminded, however, of a discussion I recently read on another forum which aptly used the phrase pyrrhic victory for Mr. Churchill’s role in World War II. While he definitely saved England, it was likewise the end of the empire. One hopes that should Mr. Gingrich eventually become president, that he would somehow avoid causing the end of the country. At this point, I am still impressed with his brilliance and writing, but I do not yet see the candidate I want to vote for.
I’m pretty sure I’ll be doing that regardless of who gets elected. I’m more interested in the outcomes of a handful of senate races than I am the outcome of the presidential race to be honest. furthermore, Newt isn’t an idiot and he isn’t Mitt Romney and that’s more the rest of the Republican candidates can say.
Did Winston Churchill marry 3 times?
Is this, at this point in history, really the reason we should or should not vote for somebody? I believe Obama has only been married once. Is he really a better person for the job? I can't see how. There are lots of things which might affect why I would or would not support a candidate, including Newt, but how many times he has been married doesn't even warrant consideration for me.
It takes an imminent existential threat to your nation, to raise up a politician to the stature that Churchill so achieved.
We’re not there yet, but I believe it is not too soon to bring Newt in out of the wilderness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.