The American Spectator : Obama's Churchill Dilemma

Text Size

Obama’s Churchill Dilemma

By Jeffrey Lord on 5.3.11 @ 6:09AM

Hitler’s suicide, victory in World War II could not keep legendary British leader from political defeat.

Osama bin Laden is dead.

This is a great moment, one long sought by a nation that suffered such incredible savagery at the hands of this man.

President Obama and his team deserve a major high five. Not to mention President Bush and his team and all those Navy Seals and military and intelligence officials who patiently worked to bring this moment about.

As might be expected, it didn’t take long for the media to start suggesting how the killing of bin Laden would help re-elect Obama in 2012, as with this Reuters story.

There was no mention of what might be called the Churchill Dilemma.

The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton this weekend surfaced an image that, in the wake of Osama’s death, becomes more than just a piece of wedding trivia. That image is an important historical moment — now so long gone few remember it — that should serve as a cautionary tale for the Obama campaign and the campaigns of all those prospective GOP candidates warming up to run against him. Cautionary because the photo captures not only an important moment of World War II history but an equally important political moment.

When Kate Middleton stood on the balcony of Buckingham Palace for those kisses with her new royal husband Friday afternoon, waving to a crowd of tens and tens of thousands jamming the streets below, it was noted that she was the only commoner to have stood on that balcony since Winston Churchill stood precisely in that spot almost exactly 66 years earlier.

On May 8, 1945, after making a radio broadcast announcing the end of the European half of World War II — the part of the war, obviously, that most impacted the people of Britain — Churchill was whisked to Buckingham Palace.

As was true this weekend, the jubilant crowd massing in 1945 was delirious with cheers and applause. The object of their devotion was not a pretty 29-year old bride and her handsome prince, although the popular royal family of the day — including the young Princess who is today’s Queen Elizabeth — was standing on that balcony along with Churchill as well. What was driving the excited crowd wild was the presence of the 71-year-old, unfathomably popular, legendary British Prime Minister. This was the man who had famously spent almost a decade fruitlessly warning of the horror headed England’s way, the man finally made head of government as war raged. This was the man who, warnings belatedly heeded, was given the reins just two months before bombs literally were dropping on London in a reign of savage murder that would take the lives of 20,000 Londoners and another 20,000 across Britain itself.

Standing on the Palace balcony gazing out at the emotional scene Churchill would later recall the announcement of the Nazi surrender. It was an announcement that followed the suicide of Adolf Hitler by mere weeks, and served as what Churchill called “the signal for the greatest outburst of joy in the history of mankind.” The crowds stretching out below Churchill that triumphant May day were every bit as rowdy as those seen for William and Kate the other day if not more so. They were, Churchill said, “tumultuous” in their rejoicing.

Yet a little over two months later, on July 26, the British people stunned the world by rejecting Churchill’s bid for re-election. Winston Churchill, one of the first great wartime leaders to emerge in the successful war to defeat Adolf Hitler and a genuinely beloved hero, lost. Worse, for Churchill fans, he lost to one of history’s more colorless Labour Party leaders, Clement Attlee.

Why?

Because with the war over, with the hated Hitler dead and Allied troops occupying Germany, in a blink the British people moved on. Effectively thanking Churchill with that massive rally outside Buckingham Palace — then brusquely asking, in effect: “What have you done for me lately?”

Churchill, unhappy at having to contest for his job so quickly, especially before the Japanese had surrendered, suddenly found himself being asked about his ideas for housing (more than a million homes in London alone were destroyed or damaged in the Battle of Britain), social insurance, health care, labor policy, economic policy and more. In other words, not only were the British people done with the war, they wanted to know about something else altogether — Churchill’s domestic policies.

The dichotomy between the reality of the substantive debate and Churchill’s personal popularity was striking. As he set out on his election tours he was mobbed by crowds that cheered him on, wrote biographer Martin Gilbert. In one instance, spying Churchill’s passing car as he was being driven past a crowd exiting a greyhound race his car was slowed and stopped by an exuberantly enthusiastic and presumably supportive mob of happy people. Says Gilbert: “It was if the leader of the nation during the war years, and the leader of a party deep in an election struggle, were two quite separate men.”

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.3.11 @ 6:15AM

While the exultation and liberal jubilation that surrounds Obama, which has resulted from the demise of Osama Bin Laden is understandable and even praiseworthy, the incident may prove more perilous for Obama then many in the media have foreseen or, if they have realized the implications, few will mention it.

With a big target like Osama out of the picture, there are many Mini-Me Osamas running around just chomping at the bit to give fortuitousness to Murphy's Law as it relates to Obama.

The first problem the Obama administration has to defend and perhaps hide, is if Obama is so tough on terrorism, then why did he choose Eric Holder, a known terrorist defender, to head the Justice Department, and further, why did he allow Holder to staff the highest levels of the Justice Department with other known terrorist lovers? If you recall many Democrats called for ACLU representation for terrorists while Bush was President.

Another side bar on this issue is the trial of Major Hasan, who committed the greatest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11 murdering 13 soldiers and wounding 32. If you notice he's not mentioned by the White House or the press. In fact, the administration is doing everything possible to cover up the fact that Nidal Hasan was a terrorist, trying to equate him more in line with workplace violence.

Secondly, now that America breathes a sigh of relief, the great wizard Obama needs to take more certain action on the economy. The economy is strewn with the bones of what can only be viewed as economic terrorism by a White House who clings to proven failed concepts in an effort to improve things.

The real effect is that the economy continues to falter and real GDP is slowing down, perhaps leading to the often talked about double dip recession. In the meantime the Obama White House continues to push mercury laden light bulbs, green energy in all it's failing forms and continues to let Gaffing Joe Biden handle budget considerations.

If that doesn't scare you consider a danger greater then Osama Bin Laden, at least to Obama's political future. Real income continues to plunge, right along with house prices. The only facade holding Obama's reputation up is the stock market, and the only thing holding that up is cheap money. And cheap money may be coming to an end. Perhaps Obama will learn a lesson from Ludwig Von Mises, “All easy credit ends badly.”

In the meantime the facade of jubilation over Osama's well deserved demise will be forgotten as Obama continues to blunder his way to destroying the economy and perhaps America as well with his weak kneed response to second tier terrorists. The real irony is that the Justice Department should be shut down because it's a terrorist protection racket, and GITMO should remain open.

Supporting comment 1:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010.....nders.html
And contrary -- yet again -- to Obama's campaign promise of transparency, the Holder Justice Department so far has released the names of only three of them. These include Tony West, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, who once defended the Marin County Mujahid, American Taliban John Walker Lindh, a convert to Islam who was captured in Afghanistan in 2002, fighting alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda against American troops; and Neal Katyal, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, who defended Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. If Holder thinks that he can safely reveal that the Justice Department is now the place of employ for the defenders of one of the foremost American jihadists and one of Osama bin Laden's personal lieutenants, what is he concealing?
Even aside from the secrecy, however, the fact that any of these attorneys would be working in the Justice Department is bad enough. Everyone is entitled to legal representation, but no attorney is "entitled" to work in the Justice Department, and few - none of these included - should be entrusted to devise or implement policy regarding terrorist prisoners.
The whole problem smacks of what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) calls the "ACLU mentality" toward terrorists that pervades the Obama administration.
One wonders just how committed these nine legal eagles will be to prosecuting people from the same group as those whom they were so recently defending.

Supporting comment 2:
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331.....m_to_d.php
Backed by a slate of prominent legal figures, including former Attorney General Janet Reno and former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director William Webster, the ACLU has assembled a team of top civilian attorneys to supplement the military defense counsel assigned to represent Guantanamo's "high-value detainees." …
The effort significantly adds to the legal forces that over the past seven years have challenged the administration's plan to run an offshore court that provides defendants fewer rights than civilian trials or courts-martial. The addition of the ACLU in particular, with its large financial resources, is a major shot in the arm for those who oppose the tribunal system.

Pat Spooner| 5.3.11 @ 6:30AM

And why might we ask does the Obama administration refuse to release any photos of Bin Laden's Islamic burial at sea but was all to willing to allow photographs of the returning coffins of deceased American's killed in service of their country to be released? Why must the public be prevented from seeing photos of the "appropriate Islamic burial" of this terrorist while allowing protesters to attend the Christian burial of Americans killed in service of their Country and allowing these personal services and their protesters to be aired on the MSM?

Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 7:56AM

Pat you nailed it.

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 11:30AM

Pat, it as if you read my mind.

Purpleguy| 5.3.11 @ 1:24PM

Really? You don't know what the difference is? The word is respect. Respect for your fallen comrades is not a shame, it's the last respect the nation can give to fallen heros. You expect the same respect to be given a terrorist? Really? Are you an American?

Mimi| 5.3.11 @ 7:12AM

Bill...Great job writing Section II of Jeffs article.
Holder should definately go, and right away.
If the "O" really intends to defeat terrorism....Our Justice Dept with those sympathizers enjoying a nice paycheck...must END. Also we should go back to calling the enemy by their name....enough with the P.C. crap!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 7:54AM

Bill good post. Thank you.

Pecos Pete| 5.3.11 @ 9:05AM

Bill, thank you for a well thought out comment.

Alan Brooks| 5.3.11 @ 9:37AM

If you really want to defeat Obama then you almost certainly will; you defeated Carter in '80; Mondale in '84; Dukakis in '88; Gore in 2000; Kerry in '04.
I haven't trusted the GOP at all since '96, but do as you will-- it is your country.

Dagny Taggert| 5.3.11 @ 10:38AM

Congratulations on your new conservative government up north, Brooksie. Apparently your liberal views are being marginalized north of the border as well as here on this board. Hopefully a foreshadowing of events in 18 months.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 11:09AM

When I returned from New Zealand, I had two job offers for a position in psychiatry to consider (I could have had hundreds, but it is time consuming to apply)---one was the one I took. The other, the lesser paying one ($260 K plus yearly) was to be as a treating psychiatrist at a Military Hospital on a base outside Killeen, Texas.

This Jewish kid felt the Angel of Death brush by the day he opened his newspaper to read about what his potential colleague had done.

Obama deserves to be done in for his witlessness on National Defense. However, $6.00 a gallon gas will suffice.

Great article, Mr. Lord.

The Silver Bear| 5.3.11 @ 9:49PM

The only reason Obama was "tough on terror" with respect to Osama bin Laden, is rememberance an event that has largely gone unconnected in my many observations across the media write-ups and comments: the bombings of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya 13 years ago.

Say what ever you will about his NBC status, it is quite obvious (to this observer, at least) Obama does exhibit a kind of empathy/kinship with the people in Kenya - going so far as to continually snub the British for their colonial policies, actions, and rule there. It would not surprise me to find that Obama had distant kin either injured or killed in that bombing.

The facts are still in flux with this raid...it has been reported that Obama watched it all unfold - other reports sat Osama was unarmed at the time of his demise. The leader of the world's superpower...watching his unarmed enemy get shot like a feral dog?

That doesn't sound too much like a determined terrorist fighter. It sounds more like a man with a grudge, relishing the moment the object of his revenge gets taken down...much like a Chicago crime boss taking down a competitor.

As you pointed out, Bill...where's Obama's tough stand on all the rest of terrorism??

c. j. acworth| 5.3.11 @ 6:41AM

As happy as I am that bin Laden is dead, the truth is that I was more than half convinced that he died some time ago. If a significant fraction of the electorate was similarly incorrect, then they have already "moved on" to other issues, most notably the economy. Bin Laden ceased to be very important in the war on terror a long time ago. Getting him now is sweet revenge, but things haven't changed all that much. What did the government of Pakistan know, and when did they know it?

Alan Brooks| 5.3.11 @ 10:15AM

Ahmadinejad, Assad, have the big guns, the rest are as novices.

Mattled| 5.3.11 @ 7:42AM

This liberal jubilation, probably not even noticed by the AA crowd ( choose whichever you like, Affirmative Action or African American), will be short lived.

How short lived?

The next trip to a gas station or grocery store.

Obama Bin Laden is dead. So what. I was filling up my tank at the BP Sunday and it cut me off at $75.

THAT is the big news.

Alan Brooks| 5.3.11 @ 9:39AM

Do you know what Peak Oil is, Mottled? Google it.

Dagny Taggert| 5.3.11 @ 10:43AM

Try to prove that or any negative, numb-nuts. "Peak Oil" is simply a theory--can't be proven--and clung to because it fits your silly left-wing narrative. A close cousin to global warming. One theory falls under the locigal law that it's impossible to prove a negative, and the other conveniently forgets that it simply a well-sold (to the uninformed) prediction.

Purpleguy| 5.3.11 @ 1:33PM

Gravity is a theory, so is the existence of Atomic power. Do you need an apple to fall on you to believe in gravity - or how about an atom bomb up your nose to prove it.

Simply because you don't believe facts, doesn't disprove a theory. When the overwhelming evidence points to a theory being a reality, it becomes accepted as truth - unless some facts appear to disprove it.
Do you have any facts to disprove the theory of climate change? How about the theory of Peak Oil?
Otherwise, you're simply engaging in belief systems or put another way - opinion. And you know what they say about opinions .. have a nice day

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 11:11AM

Deaqr Alan:

do you know what Political Party won't allow new refineries to be built in weather/geology stable places (like New Mexico)? Google it.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 11:12AM

Sorry.

Dear Alan, no "q." By the way, I think you argue well (although I duisagree mostly), and I don't like when people hijack your ID.

The Grey Piper| 5.4.11 @ 12:14PM

Johnny One-Note sings again.

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 11:23AM

Under Bush, Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their investment savings. And you’re complaining about gas prices?

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 11:37AM

Well then lets not forget the Democratic Congress critters that were in charge during that same time, Vtwin. And under Obama, those Americans are still unemployed (actually more so), are still losing their homes (even after goverment intervention of a housing market killed by Democrat policies) and Investment savings still have not come back (so says my 401K). Top that off with higher inflation, weaker dollar, and higher gas and I think we have a pretty good right to complain.

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 12:31PM

I don’t disagree. Since the end of the cold war the economic destruction of America has been a joint effort by both the Republicans and the Democrats. We are spending in excess of a trillion dollars per year on the military industrial complex, we have cut the top income tax to levels not seen since before the Great depression, and we are exporting jobs and importing illegal aliens while millions of American are unemployed and receiving unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing subsidies, and government provided healthcare. And, we are unable to find agreement on a national energy strategy, our national infrastructure (transportation, education…) is crumbling, and…
American is going the way of Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and other failed empires because our “leaders” cater to well funded special interests.

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 2:13PM

"because our “leaders” cater to well funded special interests."

Yes, but we disagree on "who" those special interest are. Europe is a welfare state.

Steve A| 5.3.11 @ 2:50PM

Hey vtwin, Be careful, you are starting to make sense:)

Steve A| 5.3.11 @ 2:23PM

Bush drove the car in the ditch. Now, Obama is at the wheel & we are out of gas with the hazard lights flashing. Bush was terrible on fiscal issues but Obama has taken it to a whole new level of incompetence.

Drilling bans + $5.00 gas = 1 term for Obama. Simple as that.

Sid Vicious| 5.3.11 @ 4:28PM

To the contrary: That One got the car out of the ditch, alright. Then he pegged the gas pedal and smashed it into the nearest concrete wall at 100 mph.

Sam Levi| 5.4.11 @ 2:25PM

Uh, I lost my job, my home, and my savings as a direct result of the current Pretender and Thief.

figusja| 5.3.11 @ 7:45AM

I think we have enough people with good heads on their shoulders. We will not let a little thing like a FORMER leader of a gang that has had no power or decision making for the last ten years, distract us. We still know Prez. Hussein has no real leadership skills. Says mine, me and my more than any President in history. We will keep our minds on track of the real goal. We are not the fickle crowds of Rome or should I say Europe. Tea party take over of the Republican guard in Congress. The career politicians and statist must go!!!!!

John Navratil| 5.3.11 @ 7:51AM

"The disposal at sea was a particularly excellent touch."

That statement is also an excellent touch in a fine article.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 7:58AM

A big thank you to the CIA interrogators with enhanced techniques of interrogatin, the NSA for spying on terrorist phone calls and the USN SEALS (despite Obama giving you the lowest pay raise since 1973) for being awesome. BRAVO ZULU brothers.

Dee See| 5.3.11 @ 8:04AM

---Yet more dubious, years stale, sideshows.

Meanwhile, as the RED China economic and
EUGENICS sellout and TREASON op is
unmentioned

AS the greatest world nuclear disaster in history
isn't even being reported (BTW Berkeley's
monitors read 181X radiation in the water
there and was afterwards shut down)

AS just months ago David Rockefeller called
publicly for MASSIVE and RAPID world
depopulation (ie genocide) "by ANY means"

AS the borders dissolve, 'stealth' franchise
slum integration powers forward, and as
Napolitano secretly signs agreements extending
'trusted traveller' (ie Green Card) status to
80 MILLION Mexicans (30 MILLION already
here)

AS there's NO mention of
DEFAULTING on the absurd debt to the
taxpayer created and subsidized 'RED China
Miracle'

AS there's NO mention whatever of the
1.4 quadrillion in FAKE derivatives

AS there's No serious mention of investiganting
and ENDING the FED ----or the 'benny violent'
TAX FREE, ultra rich, EUGENICS driving
'chair-IT-Abel' foundations

-----------------WHO CARES about Bin Laden's
on ice corpse?

Louis Jenkins| 5.3.11 @ 8:18AM

Bin Laden is dead. Now let us get on with running the country, or more appropriately, the destruction of the country. Almost ten years have passed and we're finally getting around to killing the man. Approximately 3,000 people died, smoldering in bits and peices, and revenge, albeit a bit tardy. Osama has seen this nation go down the tubes since 09-11-01 and it took a president to do it. Perhaps he should have just waited, as Obama has done more damage to country than Osama could have ever dreamed of. And by the way Mr. Lord, a great article.

Purpleguy| 5.3.11 @ 1:38PM

Interesting how you completely ignore the mess that Bush left this country in - and he couldn't get Osama. Obama got Osama.
As usual, your perception of a Democratic President does not match reality...

Steve A| 5.3.11 @ 2:27PM

Purple, Its always comical to see the hard left thump their warmonger chests when a leftist administration kills female human shields & blows a terrorists skull to bits, then dumps him to the sharks. You must be so proud. I will eagerly await your next Rambo post when the GOP is running the show & pops a bad guy.

Purpleguy| 5.3.11 @ 4:18PM

SteveA - and your problem with blowing away a terrorist and those that harbor him? It really rankles that a Democratic President is strong on defense, doesn't it? The difference is he is competent too ... have a nice day

Steve A| 5.4.11 @ 9:32AM

No problem at all with it. High five for Obama. The problem I have is that guys like you & your pals volunteer themselves as human shields when Bush is in office & wants to kill bad guys. Obama gets in & you turn into Rambo. Its a joke & so are you.

The Grey Piper| 5.4.11 @ 12:18PM

The way I'm hearing it, the CIA had to twist Sock Puppet's ba11s a bit before he gave the go-code....

Wonder why it was more than an hour after the announced press statement time before he got to the teleprompter? He couldn't stop crying over the SEALs icing his hero.

Sid Vicious| 5.3.11 @ 4:31PM

Why shouldn't we ignore "the mess that Bush left?" After all, you and President Flounder are sure to keep bringing it up over... and over... and over again.

The Silver Bear| 5.3.11 @ 10:05PM

Bush left this country in a mess, yes. Purpleguy, what has Obama done to correct that? Absolutley nothing!

The line of "Bush started it!" is beginning to wear thin. Obama's had over 2 years to begin correcting it, and nothing positive has emerged. Reagan, after inheriting Carter's mess, was much further along in recovery in 1982, even though hampered by a Congress dominated and controlled by your favorite party!

Obama had complete control of the government, the Repubs were completely unable to stop anything he wanted done...and still nothing was done but the enhancing of the train wreck that is only now unfolding across this country!

And STILL...all I see from people like you is the blame Bush line. Bush has been out of office for over 2 years now. He wasn't on the ballot in 2010, when the Dems got shellacked hard for their record. Bush won't be on the ballot in November, 2012, either, when those still pushing the "It's Bush's fault!" line (as well as those refusing to belt up and make the hard leadership choices) will get shellacked again.

Obamanomics doesn't work. Trickle-up poverty is what we're getting out of Washington these days, and Obama has done nothing to reverse that process.

The Grey Piper| 5.4.11 @ 12:22PM

"Blame Bush!" (TM)*

*Trademark of Hussein Holdings, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros Int'l.

Anthony| 5.3.11 @ 8:19AM

It's been quite the experience watching the LSM and the leftist drones fall in love with the American military since the death of Osama. Welcome to the club, how long will this love affair last with the left? I'd say about one week, when Obozo, Hillary and the gang get all they can from milking the death of Osama.
And how about all the hand wringing over "torture" and enhanced interrogation, not a word since Osama swam with the fishes. GITMO is suddenly not a four letter word with the left. (using Joe Biden math)
And the concerns over the "Arab Street", that phrase has disappeared from the lexicon of the LSM along with carbon footprint.
Of course, all this is seen through the prisim of how this will benefit Obozo, as the leftist cultists are wont to do with their hero.
But Obozo and the left will overplay their hand once again. The graceless and shameless president, who gave no thanks to the real force behind this kill, George Bush, will now come to NY's ground zero for a victory lap.
The question is whether he will still be insisting on placing the corner stone on the ground zero mosque, or if that issue has disappeared in his quest for a 2nd term. Certainly the LSM will not ask the question.
But absent getting Quadaffi for another campaign moment, the 5 million Americans soon to lose their 2 years of unemployment benefits will not be celebrating much longer, not to mention those who can barely pay $5.00 a gal gas.
Reality bites, and soon it will be back to Obozo the Marxist burying America at sea.

The Bishop| 5.3.11 @ 8:27AM

Another reason that Commander-in-Chief Obama needs to be realistic in his bump in the polls because of bin Laden's death: George H. W. Bush had a 91% approval rating immediately after Desert Storm. And then he, a little over a year later, he was retired to Houston.

Hope Barack's lawn service in Chicago is keeping things spruced up for his return in less than two years.

The Bishop| 5.3.11 @ 8:30AM

By the way, great article, Mr. Lord. History is, indeed, instructive.

Kevin Dunn| 5.3.11 @ 8:28AM

Churchill's defeat in 1945 had several causes. One was that while the Tories had been fighting the war, Labour had been running domestic policies, plus, crucially, the Army Education Service, and from the day the coalition was formed in 1940 had been preparing for the battle which really counted for it - the election of 1945. Churchill could not do much about this - he was busy fighting he war and the other Tories lacked the vision to see what was happening. Churchill was also the victim of history - ever since the Enclosure Acts - perhaps ever since the Norman Conqiest - the British working classes had been badly treated. now at last they had a chance of revenge, or at least, as they saw it, to rectify things. To take one example: before the war a British factory might offer its labour-force an annual "works outing" - a day at the seaside riding donkeys on a cold, shingly beach. German companies offered them cruises abroad in dedicated cruise ships. Although the British upper classes had given selflessly of themselves in the war, they seemed to have failed their trust.

Dave| 5.3.11 @ 8:48AM

Good points, Kevin. Thanks.

Richard Baker| 5.3.11 @ 8:49AM

Interesting how the furball in the White House's situation is compared to Churchill. All Churchill did was win WWII and save Europe within the Allied coalition. The Kenyan has done what in comparison?

Pecos Pete| 5.3.11 @ 9:20AM

Mr. Lord: Good article, thank you for the historical perspective.

England has a long history of overturning those in power in the Parliament. The 1600's was a particularly interesting period with the rise and fall of King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell.

BTW, King Obama and King Charles I have many similarities.

The economy is a freight train headed down the hill at an ever greater speed toward a dead end.

PolishKnight| 5.3.11 @ 9:34AM

GBushI's baggage was considerable. He bluntly promised to not raise taxes and then did just that. The rest of the time, he was a political moderate at home. Even so, he lost by a only few percentage points even with a third party candidate in the race.

Lessons of history: After 8 years of Clinton openly pushing for socialist policies, the Republican congress squandered an opportunity to provide America with an alternative and then put in GWBushII, basically a copy of his father.

Obamaflation is a serious matter and it will be hard for Obama to brag about his accomplishments that haven't really done much. Health care? Nobody's saving any money and the happiest people with the plan are his political cronies in the unions who opted OUT of it! Green energy? Isn't it kind of funny that despite us hearing that the left is made up of geniuses, that they're waiting for the USA capitalist free market to come up with a solution? So much for the research labs of Europe, eh? People are NOT happy with 4 dollar gasoline and only the Republicans can pick up a VERY easy win with one word: DRILL! Drill for oil. Drill for natural gas. That ONE thing alone can win a lot of elections.

Gordon W.| 5.3.11 @ 9:36AM

The article gave historic milieu, but not the reason which historians use for those leaders being ousted. Most historians say that the Churchill and Bush were good for aggressive policies and not for the domestic. Churchill, at the end of WWII rolled up his sleeves and said we must prepare for the Red Army. Bush lost because, like Churchill, there were claims that he was out of touch with the common man.

If you honestly want a Republican President, there will have to be a departure from tax breaks for the wealthy. You can scream about it all you want, but when it comes down to it people see it for what it is, Voodoo economic. Bush said it, not me. For some reason he abandoned his logical intuition from his race against Reagan. Apparently two recessions in 4 years doesn't really sell that you care about the lower class. Oh and the war for oil didn't either.

You need to attack him for things that don't have a honest answer. Being born in the US is not one of them. Maybe attack him for bailing out the banks and not for trying to provide everyone with health care. Maybe attack him for not regulating the markets even though that is the clear reason we had a Housing Bubble and not for taxing corporations in a similar fashion to the rest of the industrialized world.

Pecos Pete| 5.3.11 @ 10:44AM

The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world.

Except for the chosen few, like GE.

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 11:40AM

"Oh and the war for oil didn't either."

That statement alone shows you are a fool.

Gordon W.| 5.3.11 @ 3:07PM

You don't think that we went to war for oil? That's great. I still have no clue why went into Iraq then. The highest ranking general in Iraq said there was no WMDs, but we listened instead to two unknowns.

Hope we don't have more of you Drunken Sailors, otherwise we are in more trouble than we know.

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 3:25PM

So where is the oil? Who got it?

And as for WMD, I guess all those Kurds in years past just fell over dead of natural causes. Even the darling of the left, Julian Assange released documents that they found items. True much was degraded but still dangerous. Even with all that aside it still amazes me how Saddam brutally tortured and killed his people and the left said we were wrong to go after him, but Ghaddafi does the same and the left goes nuts to get him. Please explain this logic to me.

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 3:26PM

Almost forgot since you like Wiki leak documents. Here is a article referencing them.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroo.....g-results/

Gordon W.| 5.3.11 @ 3:04PM

Its pretty easy to check this stuff, why do you even make stuff up? I said that we are on par with those in the industrialized world... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ountry.svg

And there lies the problem. No one is actually taxed...

The Silver Bear| 5.3.11 @ 10:15PM

The highest corporate taxes in the world only make for another layer of taxation passed directly to the US consumer.

Every tax paid by a corporation gets passed directly on to the consumer as an added business expense.

That's elementary business practice. It is attached nomatter if it is a corporate income tax, or a regulatory fee - it still gets passed to us.

I see it every week I pick up my dry cleaning - a sign saying there's a 3% environment impact/clean-up "fee" added to the cost of my dry-cleaning that comes out of my pockets.

Everyone who buys from a taxed corporation is taxed.

John | 5.3.11 @ 9:43AM

The roots of inflation are Bernanke printing monopoly money coupled with our dependence on foreign goods. America is no longer self-sufficient thanks to the sellout cheap labor and oil policies of both Parties. The Republican talk-radio guys at least are right on the need for us to drill for oil for the long term but offer no short-term solution. Trump does -- threaten OPEC.

But these same GOP talking heads are dead wrong on championing free trade giveaways, which strengthens communist China (and other Third World nations) both economically and militarily while weakening America. We are now held hostage to foreign powers for expensive imported goods since we no longer make anything. Only Trump gets this but these so-called conservative pundits are calling him a liberal protectionist, thus they are confusing the base about conservatism. It is not liberal to protect the industrial might and middle class of the USA.

Free trade was set into high gear by Clinton / Gore pushing NAFTA and Karl Marx is a proponent, yet the GOP pundits are lambasting the patriotic Trump for putting America and its citizens first instead of last. They should be rallying the conservative base behind his America-first policies instead of promoting anti-American economic globalism. If they do that Trump crushes the free trader Obama.

Gordon W.| 5.3.11 @ 3:11PM

Bush set NAFTA in motion, what are you talking about. NAFTA isn't even of major concern. What about the four other free trade agreements that Bush set in motion which Obama was bound to complete.

You also have major logical issues, considering we have reached the highest level of exports in recent years. Manufacturing is almost irrelevant. The trajectory in industrialized countries is the service sector. If we keep pushing for more manufacturing jobs, it is like people pushing for more Agricultural jobs, it is so past century.

George S| 5.3.11 @ 9:49AM

Winston Obama did not win the war; he may have in fact escalated it by his brilliant foreign policy.

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 11:38AM

There is is no “winning,” you don’t kick a man’s door in and start killing his family and then expect to tell him how to live.

Stammon| 5.3.11 @ 12:56PM

There is is no “winning,”
Huh??
If you kick a man's door in and start killing his family I bet he would either fight back or kiss your ass. His choice would depend on whether his government had the second amendment or not.
Oh, and V-whatever, if he did neither he would be dead, so I guess you might be right. In a stupid sort of way.

Storage Steve| 5.3.11 @ 1:26PM

But you can tell him how to die. If you just let him kill your people then say why can't we be friends all you get is more dead Americans. Strength is what is understood.

George S| 5.3.11 @ 2:50PM

I think I follow you, but anyway...

kicking down the door and killing him was the only politically feasible option for Winston Hussein Obama. If he were captured, he would need a lawyer. And Eric Holder would have to recuse himself as AG since he and his law firm proudly defended the likes of bin Laden. Also, the only acceptable outcome of said capture is execution, a la Saddam. While that wouldn't cause too many people to lose sleep here at home, it would create a Muslim cry to arms around the world which will only confuse liberals. That is, the "Citizens of The World!!" that our president is a proud member. What to do... what to do? Put him on trial in NYC? No, that didn't go over so hot. Imprison bin Laden "indefinitely"? Only place for that is Gitmo, but that would take the space reserved for Sarah and Trig... Return him to Pakistan and "contain him" as the Left suggested of Saddam? Wait... two shots and a splash. Problem solved -- except for the fact that the system put in place by the Rumsfeld - Cheney - Bush Axis made all that possible in the first place. With just a touch of water boarding.

Gordon W.| 5.3.11 @ 3:12PM

Churchill didn't have to do anything. Germany was gearing up for war the moment the allied powers forced tribute after WWI

ann| 5.3.11 @ 9:53AM

Right! Americans are still unemployed, we still have to feed our families, we still have to fill our gas tanks and try to keep a roof over our heads. The excitement will die and reality will hit.

Derek Leaberry| 5.3.11 @ 10:14AM

Not to quibble, but Churchill was at the Potsdam Conference with Stalin and Truman when the British election results came in. Yalta took place in February, 1945 and included Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill.

Churchill and his Tories were beaten badly in the 1945 election by something like 48-39 percent. The mood of Britain was that of a socialistic disposition reinforced by war socialism, the Beveridge Plan and austerity. The Communists even won two seats in the 1945 election. Also remember that the Tories ran Britain on its own from 1935 to 1940, a time of economic recession and a failed foreign policy that led to World War Two. The Tories were also part of a unity National Government from 1931-35 in coalition with right-Labourites with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister. The Tories were politically exhausted and the British people seemed to blame them for the bad time of the 30s and 40s.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.3.11 @ 11:44AM

Derek...

You are 100% right...and I knew it. But the magic fingers typed Yalta when it was Potsdam. Somehow the mind drifted...associating Obama foreign policy with FDR at Yalta...Poland...etc. How could that happen???!!! Thanks for the correction.

Derek Leaberry| 5.3.11 @ 1:34PM

I know you know. Deadlines do that to any writer. I make a mistake like that about every hour.

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 10:23AM

The flawless elimination of terrorist numero uno does not assure Obama’s reelection but once again Obama is seen as effective Commander-in-Chief by the American electorate especially when contrasted with Bush who failed on to prevent 9-11, failed to find WMD, failed to “mission accomplished” in Iraq, failed to defeat the Taliban, failed to defeat al-Qaeda, and failed to get Bin Laden the “mastermind” behind the murder of nearly three thousand Americans.

Dagny Taggert| 5.3.11 @ 10:46AM

Or the left's failure to improve social metrics despite the trillions wasted in trying to do so since the "let's spend money and hope for" Great Society.

But you know VT--keep fighting THAT war.

Pecos Pete| 5.3.11 @ 10:56AM

The O ain't seen by this veteran as an effective Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I'd rate him as a zero. What has he done for the military?

Just one instance of his "brilliant" leadership: He's instituted rules of engagement that totally prevent winning ... instead, these ROEs cause long wars and unnecessary casualties.

Yeah, and you gotta love his leadership on the economy. $5 gasoline, related higher other energy costs, rapidly rising food costs and approaching hyper inflation.

Not to mention his leadership for providing us with sun and wind energy based on faulty science. Didn't work in Spain, won't work in the USA.

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 11:15AM

Hello, McFly, how many wars did Bush’s rules of engagement win?

Jive Bomber| 5.3.11 @ 1:05PM

Hi V-Twin!
Gosh, you sure are a smartie! Here we are discussing an article about the irrelevancy of past deeds when it comes to future elections, and you bring up the doings of an ex-president.

Yes, a smartie indeed. Your timely introduction of former president George W. Bush to this discussion reminded us all of GWB's relevancy in the forthcoming elections of 2012, 2014, 2032, etc.

Why, the Dems could have won in 2010 if they could have only convinced more americans to focus less on their worries about the future and focus more on their hatred of a former president

Well, the Dems have learned that lesson and are now ready for 2012. But.....unfortunately for them and their strategy so astutely espoused by you, Vtwin, this just came over the wire:

FLASH! Bush Will Not Seek Third Term in 2012....Democrats Will Be Forced To Run Against Real Man, Not One of Straw....Election To Be Be Referendum on Current President..... Election Results Will Hinge On Economy..REPEAT...Bush Seeks No Third Term...

vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 2:00PM

Nice attempt at deflection of the question but the answers is ZERO!

Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 2:20PM

So your saying if a man is president when war begins and doesn't win before his term is up he failed? Does that also go for Kennedy and VietNam?

Jive Bomber| 5.3.11 @ 5:47PM

Pssst...v-twink,

It's obvious here that you let yourself get pulled in way over your head. Best thing now is to declare victory and then run like hell.

And....Don't forget to tell your liberal friends: George Bush will not be running in 2012!

Steve A| 5.3.11 @ 2:34PM

vtwin, Newsflash for you. Obama is President. Going on 3 years now. Bush is out of office. I am still waiting for the sea level to fall. Any ETA on that??

edgard| 5.3.11 @ 11:56AM

The media seems to bait the terrorist to retaliate, like they keep harping on that theme. Daring them to take revenge? That is the impression I have been getting from CNN, npr etc. This is not gone be helpful to their "wunderkind" bid for reelection. ED

Sid Vicious| 5.3.11 @ 4:40PM

Well, since Uuhhhhbama failed to improve the economy as promised, failed to become the "post-racial" president as promised, failed to foster and to lead the most transparent administration ever as promised, failed to reduce the deficit as promised, failed to rein in Wall Street and the banks as promised, and failed to level with the American people about That One's "laser-like" focus on jobs as promised, that makes two failed presidents in a row.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Bill Carson| 5.3.11 @ 10:27AM

Yep, I was running my mouth about Churchill and the elder Bush the night the bin Laden announcement was made. I notice the NY Times this morning is trying its best to pump up Obama. Like this writer, I think they're wasting their time. All that time between now and Nov. 2012 will soon seem like an eternity for Leftists hoping that the killing of bin Laden will propel their messiah to re-election. Ain't gonna happen!

solidground| 5.3.11 @ 10:28AM

Obama's Bin Laden moment won't last nearly as long as Churchill's Hitler moment. By next week it will be old news, dead and buried under the avalanche of headlines about inflation, oil and food prices, national deficit and debt, and Obama and his party's unflagging devotion to taxation and spending. Of course, Obama will still be beating his chest. I suspect he still will be croaking about "his" victory as the country slides into stagflation and his poll numbers keep dropping--all contrary to the bleatings of Barbara WaWa and her progressive posse.

Pete| 5.3.11 @ 10:40AM

"The disposal at sea was a particularly excellent touch." - Why?

And why, if Osama didn't return fire or use one of his harem as a shield as is now being reported, didn't they capture and interrogate him? Surely he knew things of great value? The liberal media would be skewering Bush if he has executed Osama in this fashion.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.3.11 @ 11:50AM

Pete...

The burial issue was separate from the killing issue. I simply accept the fact Osama was dead...and they needed to figure out what to do with him burial-wise. Removing any possibility of a grave-become-shrine...forever...was a very, very good idea. Already I've seen some jihadist types outraged at the insult of a burial at sea. Too bad. He was treated a lot better than anyone who died on 9/11.

Pete| 5.3.11 @ 12:32PM

Jeff,

Separating the two:
1) Why the kill instead of capture? Yes, circumstances may be nothing like is being reported, but they have never mentioned attempting to capture to interrogate. If this was simply retribution, eye for an eye stuff, then the liberal media is being hypocritical indeed. Not that I mind, dead is dead and that is what he richly deserved.

2) Burial: I wouldn't mind dumping him like raw sewage in the ocean just to be rid of the stench, but that is clearly not what happened (or reportedly, anyhow). They washed and wrapped and prayed and slid ever so softly into the sea within 24 hours, making sure all Islamic custom was followed. That is straight up pandering to Islam, and an outcome far better, as you note, than that for 3000+ Americans he slaughtered.

Daniel Myers | 5.3.11 @ 12:28PM

Mr. Lord made the same, typically American mistake as many others. Winston Churchill did not lose the election in 1945. In fact, he handily won re-election in his constituency. The conservative party lost their majority in Parliament and, hence, the labor party won a majority and their leader, Clement Atlee, became Prime Minister. One must recall that there had not been an election in England since 1935, and that the conservatives had been in control for several years before that. Thus, the people were ready for a change in direction; they were not rejecting Churchill, but they were rejecting foreign affairs in favor of a focus on domestic issues.

Jeffrey Lord| 5.3.11 @ 2:38PM

Daniel....

I disagree, respectfully.

I do indeed understand how the British parliamentary system works. So do the British. They understand full well that if Party X loses its majority the leader of Party X is no longer Prime Minister. Possibly he or she will then be removed as party leader, although that is a separate decision made by the elected members of Party X in Parliament themselves. But the British knew perfectly well in 1945 that to support Churchill for prime minister they had but to elect a conservative majority. They declined. Hence, Churchill was rejected. He was the face of the Conservative Party. The British said no.

Bob K.| 5.3.11 @ 8:36PM

The British had been in 2 World Wars from 1915 to 1945. So had the rest of Europe and like the rest of Europe the results of these 2 wars used up most of the fight still in them. They were war weary and they still, like the rest of Europe, have not recovered. They have for the most part over those years voted accordingly.

And over the past 70 years the USA has been the standard bearer of freedom and, in effect, the policeman for the world and I fear that we, now, like Europe in the recent past, have become weary of that role.

ABNCP| 5.3.11 @ 1:08PM

Pete are you out of your mind? Capture OBL with an AG like Holder? Let's see the first thing that would be done for OBL, when he arrived in the U.S., he would had to have his Miranda rights read to him. Than he would be assigned one of Holders terrorists loving attorneys. Then there would be the big public discussion about not being able to put him into Gitmo because of the negative reaction of the Arab steet. And on and on and on.
There still are sane people in this country making some of the decisions.

Who Knows?| 5.3.11 @ 1:22PM

Be HERE-NOW, squawks Narcissus.

By inherently BEING here AND now, we each necessarily focus, at least fleetingly, on the daily NEWS---and, for the next few instants of NOW = time, it’s the death of OBL.

This TOO shall---pass.

So, just as only a wildly unasked for memory of Bitburg and Reagan sometimes pops up, for some of us, by the time HERE-NOW as November 2012 arrives, the revenge assassination of Osama by Obama will likewise have become a minor aspect of reality.

Markets, the ultimate judge of economic actions, if left to do their truth finding thing, serve us all in expressing the basic urge of humans to---survive.

As Susan Hayward screamed in an old movie---“I Want To Live!”

Perhaps after two years of Obama’s “I want to die” shtick, a majority of American voters will be repelled, and “for the children”, realize they DO “want to live!”

I’m not sanguine about this, in our present HERE-NOW, given what is regularly in view when wandering around in the public realm. So many FAT people, ALREADY expressing the “I want to die” attitude, even as they righteously, like a well-trained Pavlovian dog, rest solidly on their “It tastes good, so EAT IT” bottom line belief.

Gaia forbid anyone tries to open his or her eyes that high fructose corn syrup is a killing poison!

IT TASTES GOOD!

As a matter of spontaneous fact, actually, right HERE-NOW, one can honestly proclaim that such a base and basic sentiment animates supporters of Obama bin Barrack.

Excuse my repetitive DUST, but I can’t help sharing probably the CORE dietary insight all humans would be “I want to live!” wise to chew, swallow and digest—in their higher mind:

The tongue distinguishes only four tastes---sweet, sour, salty and bitter.

Objectively, WHY is sweet the overwhelmingly dominant addictive one?

Part of the thrown-from-momma HERE-NOW, ongoing, controlling aspect is that we were all FIRST sucking at mother’s SWEET MILK nipple---and, no matter how old we may get, we are always tending to want to return to that state of SWEET oneness NATURE.

Obama TASTES GOOD!

HA HA!

Well, the American body politic, if allowed to run like a free market, could very well reach a state by November 2012 that has become overwhelmingly SICK, in all dimensions---physical, emotional, mental, and even spiritual---after having had to suffer through the NON-FOOD, indeed the POISON, of Obama.

Yes---November 2012 could be AMERICA VOMITING!

BHO is truly indigestible, and maybe after four years of trying to absorb his poison qua “sugar”, too-fat America will be unable to keep from RETCHING him out—

The DAMNED BLACK SPOT!

Jeff Krasney| 5.3.11 @ 3:13PM

The American people know that President Obama is generally hostile toward the fighting parts of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies. He just happened to be president when actionable intelligence developed enough to kill Osama Bin Laden. This intelligence was largely developed because of President Bush's leadership and willingness to endure being publicly excoriated for alleged human rights abuses.

President Obama deserves praise for not dismantling most of President Bush's policies as he vowed on the campaign trail in 2008 and for giving the green light to attack Osama Bin Laden's compound near Islamabad, Pakistan. This is about as much credit as President Nixon deserves for not discontinuing NASA and allowing the 1969 moon landing to go forward.

cicero| 5.3.11 @ 3:50PM

Burial at sea . . . I am so glad that we respected bin Laden's muslim traditions. How nice of us. After all, we all know that dragging American bodies through the dusty street behind a pick up truck, or cutting off their heads are both time honored Western Judeo-Christian traditions. For my money, it would be better to take the game out of this. When a juhaddi is killed, his head should be stricken, and his body wrapped in a pig skin and thrown to the sharks or crows. Now we have a win/lose situation. By giving these psychotics their wish for honorable martyrdom, we put all the chips on their side of the table. See how many of these nut cases will be willing to engage once they are certain that death means the garbage heap rather than paradise.

As for the next election, all will depend on whom the Repubs run whether Obama wins. If they run a candidate from the current generation who can relate to the majority of the voting age population, and stayed awake during Econ 101, they will win. If they run another old war horse just because if is his turn (see Dole or McCain), they will lose.

The One Who Runs Like A Duck| 5.3.11 @ 4:19PM

We've got the Obama got Osama t-shirts and the GI O dolls in Walmarts all across America, Vtwit, Purplegay and the rest of my gay trolls. The Republicans can't recover from this body blow. Just ask George H. W. about it. I went in there single handed without backup and went mano y mano with Osama. The constant golf and basketball training paid off finally. Osama and his wife couldn't stand to my verbal trash talking assault and actually killed themselves when I started in on global warming and the Chevy Volt. It was really no contest. I didn't even have to get into Obamacare or wind farms. Oh well, you know how it is being an action hero. I guess you don't really. Remember I need your money. Remind people of what we do here, rendition, water boarding, assassination squads, no bid Halliburton contracts, Predator attacks on innocents. Dick Cheney has got nothing on me. Lots of golf this weekend. I earned it. Death squads forever, baby. Remember we are men of principle. Not you, you are gay trolls who defend whatever I do.

A.M. Mallett| 5.3.11 @ 6:03PM

Osama was shot in Pakistan? .... blame Bush!

Jeff Perren | 5.3.11 @ 6:38PM

" The disposal at sea was a particularly excellent touch."

I respectfully disagree. He should been brought back for public display in the U.S. And by no means should he have been given any sort of Muslim rituals. The U.S. Government has no more business doing that than it should have giving a Nazi leader a Wotan funeral pyre in WWII.

Sam Levi| 5.4.11 @ 2:50PM

I think that whoever actually shot him should have been allowed to take the head to a taxidermist and have had it mounted.

firebrand| 5.4.11 @ 2:36AM

Congratulations to Obama - he hit the jackpot on George Bush's nickel.

And you thought Bill Clinton was slick!

Does anyone think it was odd that Obama ordered OBL "waterboarded" for his final rites?

Where did I hear he said, "72 STURGEONS? I was promised 72 virgins."

firebrand| 5.4.11 @ 2:53AM

Did you hear Obama thanking the celebrants in DC and NY for their "spontaneous" reaction . . Did you hear the parroting newsies all morning after referring to the spontaneous reaction?

I am all for spontaneous, but I cannot imagine young people, which most of them were, driving around with an American flag the size of a bed spread, folded in their glove compartment just waiting for a patriotic unfurling for a spontaneous celebration to take part in.

Spontaneity such as this requires planning!!! Flag stores are not open on Sunday night. And most of them burnt their last flag .

firebrand| 5.4.11 @ 3:08AM

GORDON W. SAYS, "WE LISTENED TO TWO UNKNOWNS" who said there were WMDs in Iraq.

Was one of the "Unknowns" Saddam Hussein who boasted incessantly about possessing them? Weren't the Kurds he killed a pretty big mass? Didn't he kill them with something that pretty well "destructed" them? Remember the mass graves? They weren't shot one by one with a BB gun.

How big a destruction does it have to be to have been caused by a WMD?

I recall something about WMD being moved from Iraq into a neighboring country (Iran?). But, as all those countries are so trustworthy and up-front, I don't imagine anything like that could have happened.

Rodger West| 5.5.11 @ 10:24AM

I would add that in the case of these events, it was a conservative who lost power due to the resumption of a liberal wave in politics.

firebrand| 5.5.11 @ 1:32PM

Roger that! Roger. Either that or we took the IDIOT CENSUS and after a careful count, assisted by that meticulous organization, ACORN, with the help of LA RAZA we discovered we had more true liberal Americans than we ever dreamed.

The same people who believed in hope and change also believe Publishers' Clearing House is coming to their door with $10,000,000 if they just keep buying their crap.

ONTIME| 5.5.11 @ 3:20PM

The recent insult of denying the Americans to celebrate their heroes by releasing the photo of OBL in a state of room temperature thanks to our US military and their professionalism and then quickly sealing the information to all non government information functions is as good a way to say, you folks needed another slap in the face.

Come the elections combine this insult with the arrogant resistance to producing a valid BC or allow the removal of legal restraint on ordinary records, in addtion to all the other slap in the face incidents suffered means, the odds of this shill in the WH getting re-elected is now percentage wise against.

Brian Richard Allen | 5.5.11 @ 10:49PM

.... (The well-known anglo-American, Winston Leonard Spencer Jerome) Churchill, a genuinely beloved hero and one of the first great wartime leaders to emerge in the successful war to defeat Adolf Hitler, lost. Worse, for Churchill fans, he lost to one of history's more colorless Labour Party leaders, Clement Attlee.

.... Why? ....

Because the 20th-century British electorate, unless by the envy-consumed radical Marxist, Atlee, was never better nor more closely represented than by the definitive appeaser, Neville Chamberlain.

My take is that Mr Churchill [who'd had the Good sense, even, to have the New Zealander, Keith Park, win the New Zealand Battle of Britain ;^) ] was more American than any historian yet seems prepared to acknowledge.

魔术扑克 | 5.27.11 @ 9:24AM

thanks very much ,good information.