But it might help Newt - Years in teh Wilderness before being brought back to head a Unity Government, after all.

Reality, history are less important than name dropping.

...he'll probably realize one of these days that Churchill's example won't help Republicans now.

Geez, you ARE an optimist

"... Winston Churchill's role leading the Tories in the late 1930s, a principled minority that was eventually catapulted into power over the Labor Party."
-----

Three "facts" -- all of them wrong -- in just one sentence ... in fact, in just one clause of just one sentence.

If it weren't that it's from the Post, I would have said that was quite a performance.

Professional Journalism™ -- gotta love it!

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home

"Read"? What is this "read"? Republicans would rather just make sh!t up; it's much simpler.

Eric, I read about Churchill, I studied him in college, I admired Churchill's leadership during the war, ....Eric you are no Winston Churchill

I was a child in World War 2 England, Winston Churchill was my Prime Minister.Cantor is a fool, Churchill did not suffer fools gladly. Churchill would not have given Cantor the time of day.

Isn't Cantor the one Steven Colbert is trying to mock?

It should be very telling that when an empty suit like cantor reaches a leadership position that the republican party is truly dead.

Kind of like that talking head moron who went on about Obama being an "appeaser" on Chis Mathews without having a clue what an appeaser was or any basic grasp of history. A talking head doofus with a vast cranial vacancy.

Appeasement! He appeased! I don't know what he did, but it was appeasement! He emboldened the enemy!
.

Eric Cantor is the proverbial sycophantic dimwit who couldn't find his way out of a hottub. Let's thank our good fortune that he's "running" things.

I believe Cantor didn't read Churchill's tenure as Chancellor to the Exchequer and how as such, Churchill's fiscal/monetary policies, ie, with the gold standard, etc., disasterously led the UK into economic depression...

Sorry, I didn't see quotes around that bad history. I suspect this is the WaPo once again showing why newspapers are a dying breed. Of course, you will attribute this to Cantor but he is a sharp guy and I see no evidence he got the history wrong.

I just can't believe the Republiscum are invoking Henry Ford AND Winston Churchill. I'm surprised the collective grave spinning hasn't knocked us out of orbit!

It is ironic that Cantor should invoke Sir Winston, as I have the esteemed PM's collected works in my library---but of greater import is the danger presented to the Republic and its People, should Cantor and his like ever gain power again; a danger identified by a mere quote:

THEME OF THE VOLUME
How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.

Allowing Cantor and his ilk to have any power whatsoever in this Government---power clearly sought by "the wicked" so as to further fuel their already-announced "insurrection" against that duly-elected Government and the People who put that Government in place---would be no less dangerous than the articles of appeasement sanctioned by Mr. Churchill's political predecessor. The rotpublican tribe must, by any and all means at out disposal, be prevented from ever gaining power again in these United States; word for word, threat for threat, and---should the dire need ever arise---act for act. Then, and only then, might they be tamed enough so as to earn a place at the table of open Governance.

*(Cited from The Gathering Storm. The Second World War (vol. 1), by Winston S. Churchill. (1948, Riverside Press.)

Of course, if Cantor is "studying" the former Prime Minister, he'll probably realize one of these days that Churchill's example won't help Republicans now.

Well, yeah. Churchill loses them at "principled."

Takes me back 4 years or so to the Guardian talkboard when I had to continually state that Chamberlain was too a Conservative (big C and small C)and not,in fact, a Socialist, despite their shrieking.

For people who clearly felt the 1930s was deeply relevant to the situation at the time, they were amazingly ignorant of the history of the period.

When assured by one wingnut that he was completely aware of the history of the period, I asked how he thought Spain fitted into his analysis of the period. His reply was "Spain. They fought against the Fascists, didn't they?"

Well,...kinda.

Studying how Churchill led the minority Conservatives and overthrew the Labour Govt of the 1930s sounds remarkably like studying how FDR accelerated the Great Depression with the New Deal.

Of course, you will attribute this to Cantor but he is a sharp guy and I see no evidence he got the history wrong.

Oh, thanks. Steve even wrote: "so it's not clear who's misstating history", but I guess you have the inside scoop. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that SOMEONE got the history wrong. And presumably, the "journalists" are also "sharp guys" too. So they couldn't have botched either. Maybe no one got it wrong! Since "sharp guys" are apparently incapable of being vainglorious idiots and all.

Also: If Cantor is studying Churchill for guidance, one might ask why.

I would put my money on a combination of Cantor's idiocy and the somewhat craven tendency of the American press to not be so impolite as to explicitly point out the idiocy of a national politician.

Actually, as I e-mailed Josh, Winnie wasn't even getting Labour allies. On his most pet foreign policy position, for example, keeping India firmly part of the British Raj, he was sui generis.

Had Hitler not arisen and appeasement failed, Churchill would have topped out as a frustrated Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As for WWII, after Chamberlain rightly resigned, Churchill was certainly better than the primary alternative: Halifax.

But, playing a bit of hypotheticals, was he better than Anthony Eden would have been? Probably not.

Actually, as I e-mailed Josh, Winnie wasn't even getting Labour allies. On his most pet foreign policy position, for example, keeping India firmly part of the British Raj, he was sui generis.

Had Hitler not arisen and appeasement failed, Churchill would have topped out as a frustrated Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As for WWII, after Chamberlain rightly resigned, Churchill was certainly better than the primary alternative: Halifax.

But, playing a bit of hypotheticals, was he better than Anthony Eden would have been? Probably not.

The Post also got wrong that Ramsey McDonald's Labour govt of the start of the 30s was a coalition with what was left of the Liberals. Labour didn't govern free of coalition until 1945.

David, I forgot about the gold standard; yep, he was iffy as Chancellor, too.

Cantor might be studying, but his party no longer offers a so-called consistent philosophy!
Their previous although dubious claim of owning the values based message is gone,
since Barack Obama is the ultimate family man.

Free market degulation are dirty words for them now, given the past eight years of rampant, unchecked Wall Street greed, the compliance of their Republican Robber Baron Party,
the policy of negligence of their hero, GW Bush, their tax cuts for the wealthy----AND they must bear the responsibility of a CLEAR lack of attention to the poor and middle class, who have seen incomes, retirement accounts, and job security greatly decline under Republican Rule.

(Jobs, the stock market, and retirement accounts grew dramatically during the rein of Bill Clinton and the Democrats--an undeniable fact.)

Obama now controls the media message. Back in 2004, the Republicans controlled it.

The McCain/Palin presidential campaign was beyond sloppy and the day to day trotting out now of McCain, McConnell and Boehner as the faces and voices of NO, with Cantor behind them with an evil-looking, opportunistic and impish grin, isn't working for them.

Churchill would have had chunks of guys like Cantor in his stool.

I personally find it outright hilarious that these buffoons try to emulate someone who would laugh at them, or even take pity.

Not certain where I read it (possibly Manchester's "The Last Lion"?), but during his tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill was not originally in favor of returning to the gold standard. He correctly saw that doing so would increase the cost of British goods and further depress exports. Unfortunately he was still under the cloud of the Dardanelles catastrophe and didn't feel he had enough clout to ignore all the politicians and economists pushing for the return to gold.

How do you study, when you're used to making up facts as you go along? The GOP has become a reality-free zone, and as such can make up its own history, apparently.

I say all this as a big Churchill fan. But, I mean, not only is Eric Cantor no Winston Churchill, I'm not even sure he's read a book about Winston Churchill.

Can Eric Cantor actually read? He is both Southern and Republican, after all.

As a naval exec in WW1, didn't Churchill consciously let the Lusitania sail into U-boat infested waters in hopes that it would be sunk and bring America into the war? Maybe W was a student of history.

I don't like to make these things personal - but Eric gives me the creeps. Someone said on another site that his smile doesn't reach his eyes. It may be that but I predict he will be the subject of some front page bad bad stories.

so it's not clear who's misstating history", but I guess you have the inside scoop.

So you put an entire blog thread out based on "It's not clear ?"

Brilliant. I didn't write the post. You did. Your party put up as chairman of the House intelligence committee a guy who doesn't know Shia from Sunni and Cantor is dumb. OK.

I'll raise you one Maxine Waters and call.

And BTW, that old chestnut that conservatives love to quote to you, alleged Churchill quote:
~ "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." etc. - it has been exposed as fake (at least, no evidence he said it!)

Your party put up as chairman of the House intelligence committee a guy who doesn't know Shia from Sunni

Hello -- your party put up as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a guy who didn't know Shia from Sunni! Who didn't know a Kurd from a curd or a whey from where Wales was.

Hell, he didn't know bin Laden was planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil despite dozens of agencies warning him beforehand.

You might think your poker analogy is cute but sadly, misguided goofballs like you bet the entire farm on Bush and the Republicans and we all lost.

The main theme of Republicans these days is that each is going to extremes to show how ignorant they are.

They're just trying to catch up with the mainstream media who have been ignorant for decades.

Um, all you have to do is change late 1930's to late 1940's and Cantor's statement is true. So it's probably just a matter of Cantor or the Post getting the dates wrong. Churchill became opposition leader following his defeat by Atlee in 1945. The Tories regained power in 1951, and Churchill became prime minister again until 1955. Though I wouldn't call that a resounding success for conservativism--Labour managed to build the Welfare State while Churchill was out of power, and he couldn't do anything to roll it back.

Hello -- your party put up as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a guy who didn't know Shia from Sunni!

This, of course, is of a piece with the fake story about George HW Bush and supermarket scanners. It's interesting to see this site decline now that Kevin Drum has moved on. I don't agree with Kevin about much but his world view is at least based on facts.

This, of course, is of a piece with the fake story about George HW Bush and supermarket scanners.

Of course, it is not, as the impeccable sources for this story were former ambassador Peter Galbraith and three Iraqis who met with Bush prior to the war -- all of whom were sympathetic to the invasion. Galbraith wanted Saddam Hussein ousted and still favors an independent Kurdistan, he was just objective enough to see what a clusterfuck the Bush maladministration was creating there.

The revelation that Bush was so dim about Iraq (just as he was about pretty much everything else) are part of Galbraith's broader critique about the mishandling of the war -- much of which was written in the early days of the war while you were still masturbating to fantasies of candy-bearing Iraqis and statues of Dubya popping up on every corner of Baghdad.

Give 'em credit, they're TRYING to learn from history so as not to repeat it.

Should we really be suggesting such things though? It almost seems cruel... Like hiding the ball from the dog after pretending to throw it. Sure it's fun the first few times, but we're going to feel like real a-holes after a while.

The Republican party - truly a confederacy of dunces.

"Um, all you have to do is change late 1930's to late 1940's and Cantor's statement is true."

Actually, Will, Churchill was something of an absentee leader of the Conservative Party in parliamentary terms from 1945 onwards. He only really participated when issues of foreign policy that interested him were under discussion, such as Indian independence (against),hostility to increasing Soviet hegemony in Europe (in which he Foreign Secretary Bevin's position by and large) and Western European economic and pol itical integration (of which he was an early enthusiast, to an extent that would surprise many of his self-styled acolytes on the American right).

This lead to much tension with Anthony Eden, the heir apparent. Many in his party expected him to bow out of active politics much earlier than he did, and much later than many subsequently believe he should have done.

There was nothing particularly ideologically pure or principled about the party he led at the time, either. By British parliamentary standards, it wasn't that obstructive. In stark contrast to the GOP of today, it mostly recognised the shibboleths that it spouted in the 1920s and 30s were dead and gone.

I really would like to know how these errors came about, but my money is still on the gimlet-eyed fixation wingnuts have with the late 1930s with regard to Churchill, and their humpty-dumptyish tendency to invent the history of the period to say-what-they-mean-and-mean-what-they-say, facts be damned.

Actually, Will, Churchill was something of an absentee leader of the Conservative Party in parliamentary terms from 1945 onwards.

Except, of course, for being Prime MInister again.

Quite a bunch of historians here.

"Except, of course, for being Prime MInister again."

We were talking about the accuracy of the quote re the late 1940s, as opposed to the 1930s.

And, your reading comprehension is failing you. The phrase "in parliamentary terms" is actually relevant here.

And even talking about his premiership, the remarkable continuity of economic policy with the previous Labour Govt of his 1951 cabinet doesn't point to his leading a principled ideological stance of any kind against the incipient postwar Butskellite orthodoxy.

From 1952 he was fighting a rearguard action against Tory grandees who were trying to pension him off to the House of Lords. If Eden had not suffered severe health problems at the same time as Churchill suffered his serious of strokes in 1953 (the severity of which had to be hushed up),he would have been replaced. From 1953, he was
effectively a placeholder awaiting Eden's full recovery, if an alternative to Eden or Churchill had been feasible, his health problems would have been acknowledged.

Whichever decade we're talking about, the extract cited makes no historical sense.

Churchill changed parties twice in his life, from Conservative to Liberal and back again. At his first election as a Liberal, his Tory opponent tried to embarrass him by printing a pamphlet of all the rude things Churchill had said about Liberals while a Tory.
He responded: "When I was a Conservative I said a lot of stupid things. And I became a Liberal so that I would not have to go on saying stupid things."

Hello -- your party put up as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a guy who didn't know Shia from Sunni!

Twice in a row, I might add. I really thought trex was referring to McCain, who yes, Mike K, confused the two, repeatedly, on the public record. No myth there.

D'oh....italics fail.

When this period of history comes up, it is always worth reminding people that the much-maligned "appeaser" Neville Chamberlain was in fact leader of the Conservative (Tory) party, not of the Liberals or Labour.

I doubt that one in twenty Americans could identify Chamberlain's party affiliation correctly.