Via Legal Insurrection:
And to extend a point, here is Steven Hayward parrying the typical arguments against Newt by drawing parallels between Newt and Churchill (they're just parallels; don't come back at me with straw-man arguments about Hayward saying Newt is the same as Churchill 'n' all):
"As to Ramesh’s challenge, did Churchill ever take $1.6 million to side with the enemy, well, if I adopt the rather latitudinarian understanding of 'enemy' Ramesh deploys here, I believe the answer is actually yes. First, as chancellor of the exchequer in the 1920s, Churchill consistently sought to cut defense spending, and also expressed support for appeasement, saying on many occasions that Germany had been mistreated at Versailles. In other words, when Churchill was attacking appeasement and calling for more defense spending in the 1930s, he was assailing policies that he himself had helped set in motion. Yes, circumstances had changed; in this regard, everyone should read Churchill’s essay 'Consistency in Politics' and the complete rebuttal to Ramesh’s premise."
