Newt's failure to make the Virginia GOP primary ballot reminds him of...the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Huh.
Newt Gingrich's campaign director said the candidate is viewing the setback in Virginia, in which he failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the state's primary, as an "unexpected setback" similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
"Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941," campaign director Michael Krull wrote on the Gingrich Facebook page. "We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days - but in the end we will stand victorious."
It's a strange, somewhat uncouth analogy, as it implies Gingrich is the victim of some sort of evil plot designed to intentionally kill his chances of winning the nomination -- though, of course, he isn't the only presidential hopeful who has been booted from the ballot.
Ed Morrissey of HotAir offers some exceedingly prescienct alternative analogies for Newt's camp to consider:
As any historian of any consequence could attest, “Pearl Harbor” isn’t synonymous with “unexpected set-back.” It’s a deeply ingrained cultural reference for sneak attacks and shameful acts of aggression. Dieppe was an “unexpected setback.” Gallipoli was an “unexpected setback.” And both Dieppe and Gallipoli were self-inflicted unexpected setbacks, which makes them a lot more analogous to Gingrich’s flop in Virginia.
Gingrich missed the best analogy for this failure, which was the collapse of his own campaign earlier this year. If he wanted an example of an “unexpected set-back” followed by a revival, Gingrich simply could have used that … but I doubt he wanted to remind anyone of that particular set-back.
Ed makes a great point: in the end, Newt isn't a victim. He has no one to blame but himself.
