Posted on 12/22/2011 9:20:46 AM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich is not our "Next Reagan," the leader for whom we have pined since 1989, but could he be our next Churchill? Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has made the comparison, and it deserves more attention.
Consider all the baggage that Winston Churchill carried with him when he first became prime minister in 1940. His personal life was far from normal. Clementine Churchill had a brief affair with Terence Phillip, and she offered her fourth child with Churchill to a friend. Sarah, the Churchills' eldest child, committed suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills.
Is this a perfect parallel with Gingrich, who was divorced twice, preceded by affairs with the women he would marry, before his current twelve-year marriage to Callista? No, but when we look at great leaders, perhaps we ought not to look for great home lives. Reagan divorced when divorce was rare. His daughter Patti not only took her mother's maiden name, but would pose for Playboy. Lincoln's wife Mary was crazy, and Lincoln himself suffered profound depression. It is possible that the very qualities which produce greatness in political leaders may not produce great husbands and fathers.
Great home lives do not make great leaders. The president Reagan replaced, the hapless Jimmy Carter, has proven a wonderful husband and father, and the president we want to leave after 2012, the closet Marxist Barack Obama, seems to be a good family man. Or, considered another way, Clinton had a dysfunctional family life but will be judged by history as a better president than Carter or Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
By the way, how did John get the secret code to come into these NEWT threads?? heeehee.
Gingrich / Santorum 2012 versus Obama-Soetoro-Bounel-Shabazz / Biden
I'm not that concerned with the fact that he was shagging the congressional aides.
What concerns me is that he supported TARP, Cap/Trade, the federal insurance mandate, and Medicare D, and Fannie/Freddie.
Those 5 issues I listed have a far more reaching impact on my life than his inability to keep vows to his wives.
>>> What concerns me is that he supported TARP, Cap/Trade, the federal insurance mandate, and Medicare D, and Fannie/Freddie >>>
I”m pretty sure you are not interested in any correct information and adult perspective - since you like to live in a “check box” world of negatives. But for anyone who really WANTS true info, here is it:
TARP: no conservative supported TARP as it played out , but many, including some more educated than the average message board troll, supported the bank part WHICH HAS TOTALLY BEEN PAID BACK AT A PROFIT!!!!!!
Cap and Trade: NO, he did not support cap and trade and testified AGAINST IT.
Insurance Mandate: NO< he supported a financial responsiblity mandate that was not necessarily a mandate to purchase insurance.
Medicare D: I think you got one right, but it was in fact the only Federal Program to come in under cost EVER.
Fannie Freddie: to say he “supported” them in the sense that he approved of what they did that caused problems is a stretch.
So you are 1 for 5 in spirit and maybe in a very technical sense a tad better.
But as I said, I’m sure you’re not interested.
Clinton will be judged a better president than Carter or Obama?
Talk about damning with faint praise!
I believe future historians will view BJ Clinton the same way they view Warren G. Harding.
Harding and Clinton are similar in several ways:
- women voters swooned for them (why, I don't know; I am a woman and have always found Bill Clinton loathsome)
- both were presidents during periods of prosperity (though neither had much to do with creating prosperity)
- both Harding and Clinton had sex scandals while in office; Harding's sexcapades were probably less exposed during his lifetime than Clinton's, however
- both Harding and Clinton had sourpuss wives.
To tell you the truth, without the war Churchill would never have been Churchill and it’s not because of his personal life. I don’t know why the author started out in that direction. Churchill and Gingrich are about as opposite personally as you can get.
Two words: OH PLEASE!
Winston churchill was a deeply thoughtful Statesman. He spoke to the benefit of England. Every word out of his mouth so eloquently and carefully carried his exact meaning.
Newt goes on talking jags with many detours and dead ends.
His speech is unedited and his demeanor self serving.
I am interested in correct information. I listen to Newt's own words and watch his actions.
TARP: no conservative supported TARP as it played out , but many, including some more educated than the average message board troll, supported the bank part WHICH HAS TOTALLY BEEN PAID BACK AT A PROFIT!!!!!!
Newt stated he would have voted for it if he had been in congress. I never supported TARP, and I actively wrote and called the switchboards in DC and here in DFW in order to convince members to vote no. The fact is that Newt supported it, and my comment is correct. I stand by it.
Cap and Trade: NO, he did not support cap and trade and testified AGAINST IT.
You are referring to an April 2009 testimony. You are correct that he testified against it. However, he stated he was for it as well. Here's Newt in April 2007: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support."
The same day he stated: "If (President Bush) had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said -- mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology -- I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation."
Newt supported Cap/Trade, and I stand by my statement.
Insurance Mandate: NO< he supported a financial responsiblity mandate that was not necessarily a mandate to purchase insurance.
“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance.” -Newt Gingrich in 1993 on Meet the Press
“Our goal has to be for 100 percent of the country to be in the insurance system...So that means finding ways through tax credits and through vouchers so that every American can buy insurance, including, I think, a requirement that if you’re above a certain level of income, you have to either have insurance or post a bond.” - Newt Gingrich in 2005 on NPR.
“Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be forced to post a bond to cover costs. Allowing individuals to pass their health costs on to others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors that bankrupt the current system.” - Newt Gingrich in 2009 in his book "Real Change: the Fight for America’s Future."
Newt Gingirch supported a federal mandate for me to purchase health insurance. I stand by my statement.
Fannie Freddie: to say he “supported” them in the sense that he approved of what they did that caused problems is a stretch.
""There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," he said. "And it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownerhip and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system that we would have had without the GSEs." - Newt Gingrich
"While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself." - Newt Gingrich.
Newt vocally supported Fannie/Freddie. I stand by my statement.
Instead of 1 for 5, I'm actually 5 for 5.
I don't fault people if they want to support Newt. I just can't support him in the primary for the aforementioned reasons.
Invoking the spirit of Winston C: “Hear Hear!”
The people now judging Newt are like ex-wives.Not the best judges of his abilities.
While there are similarities in their age and return to politics from the wilderness, the similarities end there.
I appreciate that Newt is positioning himself as the responsible and sober elder statesmen that can guide us through these rough waters, but Churchillian, he is not.
OK, I like a spirited informed debate. And I reply:
TARP: if you don’t want to demonstrate a difference between the TARP as proposed and the TARP that happened, then you will forever be upset for no good reason. The TARP as proposed HAS BEEN PAID BACK AND AT A HUGE PROFIT to you and I the tax payer. If you still are ticked about it, so be it. Who knows if you ATM would have told you to “get lost” without it. And FTR, Larry Kudlow and a lot of conervatives wth more cred than you and I supported TARP as proposed.
CAP TRADE: interesting you take the 07 position as opposed to the 09 position. I hate the 07 position too, but to me 09 is more relevant than 07 and it makes your statement that he supports Cap and Trade false now. Also, you equate books to congressional action. I do not.
MANDATE: if you want to think that the existence of HSA and a bond option as no different than Obama Care’s mandates, then you are having an exercise is rhetoric without distinction. Not to support Newt’s or the Heritage foundations mandates - which I am not - but those mandates are based on individual responsiblity and the Obama mandates are based on bureaucratic control. If you refuse to see a difference, then you are just not looking.
FANNIE AND FREDDIE: Newt is not as strong on Fannie and Freddie as I would like, but it is still an over reach to say he supports them existing as they do now and it is very much an overreach to say he supports their loose underwriting standards which caused the problem. Again, you are somewhat right but your problem is that you over reach which obscures the bigger picture.
In short, you are obsessed with finding quotes from NPR and places like that and you apparently are ignorant of what Newt did for all of us in the 90s. Perhaps as GOPYouth, you could look at somethings prior to 2005.
Your nation is defined by some of those events. Perhaps your opinion can one day be defined by some of them too.
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.