Posted on 12/09/2011 6:30:34 PM PST by SatinDoll
THE TWO HAVE MUCH IN COMMON
As one of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics, Newt Gingrich has racked up a huge inventory of pungent criticism of both his ideas and his character — much of it from his fellow conservatives.
National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, notes Newt’s “erratic behavior, lack of discipline and self-absorption” and “need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory.”
But before becoming prime minister, Winston Churchill was often dismissed in similar terms by members of his own party, who complained that “his planning is all wishing and guessing,” that he was “a genius without judgment,” and that he had been “on every side of every question.” His many non-fiction books were even characterized as “autobiographies disguised as history of the universe.” This is not to suggest that Newt is the next Churchill, which would indeed feed Newt’s grandiosity. Rather, it is to prompt us to recognize one important fact and to ask two questions that have heretofore not been asked.
The important fact is this: The example of Churchill (and also Reagan to some extent) shows that we cannot prospectively identify those whom we will later come to laud as great statesmen. Very few leading Republicans thought Reagan would be Reagan, even after the 1980 election, just as Churchill was not a popular choice of his own party in 1940. One of the best studies of Churchill’s pre-1940 career could almost be adapted for Newt, Robert Rhodes James’s Churchill: A Study in Failure.
[SNIP]
“The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me,” Churchill wrote in the 1920s. According to King George VI’s biographer biographer, the king was “bitterly opposed” to Churchill’s becoming prime minister. He remained a figure of suspicion within his own party even after he became prime minister in 1940. The description of cabinet secretary John Colville sounds like much of the Newt-angst of conservatives right now: “In May 1940 the mere thought of Churchill as Prime Minister send a cold chill down the spines of the staff working at 10 Downing Street. . . . Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment . . . so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified.” “This is not the last war administration by a long way,” a leading member of Churchill’s own party remarked. Another Tory MP, Peter Eckersley, wrote: “Winston won’t last five months! Opposition from Tories is already beginning.” MP David Kier wrote in his diary a month after Churchill took office: “The more I think of the position, the more uncertain the future of Winston’s present Government is.” One Conservative-party grandee wrote that “I regard this [Churchill as PM] as a greater disaster than the invasion of the Low Countries.”
[SNIP]
...Newt once told me an instructive story about Reagan, involving an Oval Office meeting he attended late in Reagan’s second term. Newt was among many conservatives who were unhappy with Reagan at the time, and Newt said he complained about things that had been left undone, or that had been done badly. Displaying the patience that was crucial to Reagan’s success, Reagan put his arm around Newt as he walked him out of the Oval Office and said, “Newt — there are some things you all are going to have to do after I’m gone.”
Does Newt understand the lesson of this story, or would he as president attempt to fix every problem at once, chair every meeting and working group in the White House, and move on to the next shiny thing that pops into the idea quadrant of his hyper-driven cerebral cortex? Does he have the patience to focus at length on the two or three most important things to the exclusion of all others, and the discipline to persuade Americans by giving the same speech over and over again?
But mosly I've posted this because of the strong, nearly hysterical negative push against Newt Gingrich coming from the political establishment of both parties. They are terrified of Newton Leroy Gingrich.
After reading National Review's article on Sir Winston Churchill, you'll not doubt be able to understand why.
Well they both are fat
Oh, please.
Newt only wishes he were like Churchill.
Did you both read the article per the link? I don’t think you did.
There are some similarities. But Newt didn’t escape from a prison...twice!
I second that. Newt is nowhere near a genuine conservative, or respectable leader of any kind. Noot is a political prostitute. A person of real low character.
Dead?
LOL!! You support Romney, then. Guess what? They’re all, deep down, political prostitutes. Some, however, less than others.
Repulsive to even suggest such a comparison. One saved Western Civilization. The other whored himself out for Fannie Mae.
"The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me," Churchill wrote in the 1920s. According to King George VI's biographer biographer, the king was "bitterly opposed" to Churchill's becoming prime minister. He remained a figure of suspicion within his own party even after he became prime minister in 1940. The description of cabinet secretary John Colville sounds like much of the Newt-angst of conservatives right now: "In May 1940 the mere thought of Churchill as Prime Minister send a cold chill down the spines of the staff working at 10 Downing Street. . . . Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment . . . so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified."
You know a broken clock is right at least 2 times a day.
I like how the Gingrich supporters hide behind the fact that the GOP Establishment is attacking Gingrich and using that as proof that Gingrich must really be a strong conservative. BS.
If lunatic Ron Paul was in 2nd place behind Romney, the GOP Establishment would be going after him as well. Because in the end, it’s all about protecting their guy Romney.
We know why the GOP Establishment doesn’t like Gingrich. But that doesn’t mean Gingrich is a solid conservative. Many people, conservatives who are doing everything they can to stick to their conservative principles have big issues with Gingrich over questionable statements and actions he made/done in the past decade.
I admired WC. I read two biographies of WC, written by ADMIRERS of WC, and I was stunned. He reminded me on every page of Bill Clinton. If you know anything about WC then you will know why I say that. He was involved with “radical liberalism” on and off for his entire career, and would take, passionately, any position that came along in order to win an election. In WC’s own words, “re-re-rat.” Look it up.
To accuse Churchill of political prostitution is to have no knowledge of the man.
I don’t think Newt could destroy the dominance of western civilization in just three decades and two world wars.
He is no Churchill.
Ward Churchill?
I thought I’d seen this comparison before. There was another article like this posted a few weeks ago. Different author.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/is-newt-gingrich-americas-chur
The same establishment groups that are attacking Gingrich now, have attacked Palin in the past and would, without doubt, attack Ron Paul if he was a nominating threat to Romney. I agree with you.
The goal is to defeat Obama in November 2012. I will not vote for Romney, even if he is the nominee - for he will change NOTHING!
So we’re really in a quandry, aren’t we. Palin has bowed out. Ron Paul keeps stepping on his own crank. And Gingrich is attacked...because he is immoral...not conservative enough...his ideas are crazy...or he can defeat Obama and carry enough Republicans into both Houses of Congress to effect a real change in government?
Because that ‘change’ is the common fear of both Democrat and Republican establishments. It is the fear they had of Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul, and now of Gingrich.
If Gingrich is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him because he would be a fat better President than Obama.
Newt Gingrich isn’t the perfect Republican, but then who is?
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.