UPDATE: Goldberg's gotten some feedback and an explanation:
Please! There is no comparison. As we know from Martin Gilbert's work,
Churchill spent hours and hours crafting his speeches. And he was dynamite
in debate and on his feet when challenged. Bush recites very well what has
been written for him by a team of speech writers and, as far as speaking
"off the cuff" or in taking questions at press conferences he is more often
than not virtually tongue-tied. I love the President, but making this kind
of comparison is apples and oranges.
Me: I'm inclined to agree. Churchill and Bush are obviously very different men. I just thought the rhetorical similarities were "interesting."
Update: More email pouring in to defend the comparison:
The point of the article was not to compare the two men's rhetorical styles but to show that: (i) the UK almost lost its nerve in the middle of WW II but did not because of executive leadership; (ii) we should take a lesson from that; and (iii) we should be thankful that the President is taking action in a manner similar in substance (not style) to the actions Churchill took -- I pray, to the same result.
Let's leave it here.