Posted on 12/07/2011 7:45:51 AM PST by xzins
General Ulysses S. Grant was denounced by rivals as a man who drank far too much. Many called him a drunk. They insinuated he really shouldn't be in command.
In response to that, one source says:
With Halleck out of the way, Grant gained command of the Union Army in the West. Grant had valuable support from several members of Congress and, more importantly, from President Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln was urged to fire US Grant due to charges of Grant’s drunkeness, careless and bold style or typically large casualty figures, Lincoln said of Grant, “I can’t spare this man. He fights.”
Lincoln had had his taste of generals who had trouble fighting and winning. He'd endured the huge problem of General George McClellan who never had enough troops, never had the right edge, and, therefore, seldom found a good time to actually get to the fight.
Grant, on the other hand, would take the fight to the enemy. When finally given the leadership of the union army, Grant determined that Lee was the tipping point of the South. His plan was to hound Lee until Lee could fight no more. Grant's plan succeeded, but only because Grant was a man, as President Lincoln said, who actually could and would fight.
That is Newt Gingrich. Newt has the tools to fight, he has a very keen-edged ability to fight, and most importantly, he has a burning desire to get into the fight.
Does Gingrich have weaknesses? Sure. Everyone acknowledges that. At the same time, they watched as candidate after candidate went down in flames because of their basic inability or unwillingness to defend themselves. The line of easy or self-inflicted casualties: Pawlenty, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Paul and....Romney. (Does anyone really want quiet, don't-rock-the-boat, metro-Romney, even if they could tolerate a liberal masquerading as a Republican? Wouldn't that just be the "Second Coming of John McCain"?)
Conservatives aren't saying these were bad people. They are saying they now realize these other candidates had too much Dole/McCain in them: when the fight came to them they proved they either couldn't or wouldn't fight.
So, why Gingrich despite his flaws?
Because he is a bulldog. Because "We can't spare this man. He fights."
Excellent !
Newt would be my choice for President, IF I thought I could trust him. I still cannot.
Comparing Newt to Grant may not win you that many votes down here in the South. Just sayin’. :)
(At least you didn’t compare him to Bill “The Arsonist” Sherman, though...)
}:-)4
Can your choice beat Obama?
Newt is as morally vacuous as he is intellectually superior. Unfortunately, he may well be the last best hope for democracy.
BINGO. Exactly. Newt is the one in the pack that you can COUNT on to kick Zero and the liberal media RIGHT in the teeth if they get in his face. And he will EAT Zero in debates and have that little Kenyan wishing he’d never been whelped.
Trust me, if Romney does get the nod, all the duffus press will talk about is: ‘Well, you know, Mitt belongs to a religion where he thinks he can eventually achieve godhead.’ that’s ALL it will be about. And Mitt wouldn’t kick them in the teeth the way Newt would. Mitt would NEVER have the balls to say: ‘Me? Zero thinks he IS God already!’
Grant was one of the worst Presidents in history.
Great analogy, perfect infact.
"""""That is Newt Gingrich. Newt has the tools to fight, he has a very keen-edged ability to fight, and most importantly, he has a burning desire to get into the fight."""""
And I have the burning desire for NEWT to get in there and get it done. GO BULLDOG NEWT. love it.
Hooah chaplain
ping
I don’t see this as a positive comparison. While Grant was a successful general for the North in the War Between the States, his presidency was a disaster and one that is still remembered for its corruption.
See excerpt from http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=429335
A new book by presidential scholar Alvin S. Felzenberg, The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn"t): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game places Grant in a tie for seventh place among Presidents Zachary Taylor, William McKinley, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Felzenberg argues that Grant "was the last president before Dwight D. Eisenhower to send federal troops to the South to protect the right of blacks to vote." He also destroyed the earliest version of the Ku Klux Klan, Felzenberg says, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.Although Grant"s administration was plagued by scandals, "when compared to scandals of more recent vintage, those that transpired under Grant were of short duration, inflicted no long-term damage on governmental institutions, did not involve Grant personally, and did not encroach upon the civil liberties of other Americans," writes Felzenberg.
A recent C-SPAN poll of 65 historians moved Grant up from 33rd place to 23rd. And although few would place Grant in the top ten, the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in 2011 is certain to focus more attention on the Galena, Illinois leather merchant who led the Union Army to victory and was twice elected our Chief Executive.
see post #14 for the counter-view
I do not see any of the current crop of candidates beating Obama. Newt is may come the closest. But I cannot vote for a man I do not trust because of what he says.
“Grant was one of the worst Presidents in history.”
And what is your basis for making that claim, esp with Jimmy Carter and, hopefully, Barak Obama in our rear view mirrors?
See post #14
“I don’t see this as a positive comparison. While Grant was a successful general for the North in the War Between the States, his presidency was a disaster and one that is still remembered for its corruption.”
So we’ve been told by the New Deal/Southern agrarian coalition that ran our country and its education in the 1930’s. Prior to that, Grant was admired just about everywhere, except for the South.
Fine. Don’t vote.
Quite the bulldog alright, like when he was Speaker and got whacked on the nose with the newspaper.
I see Obama losing to Gingrich just as last week’s poll said.
I also see Gingrich fighting. He won’t go gently away as John McCain did about a month into his campaign and as Dole did from the onset of his campaign.
Both of those two decided they were court jesters with a mandate to “be nice”....drove poor Sarah Palin absolutely bonkers trying to figure out why the old man was out making nice with the enemy.
The history of his Presidency. Read about it.
Is this your own original idea or are you a blog thief?
When you get into a fight, you get hit back. One of the charms of the democrats is that they actually fight back. How many of us have lamented that the republican party has perfected the art of rolling over.
When Gingrich got hit by Clinton on the government shutdown, Gingrich came roaring back with welfare reform and tax relief, including a capital gains tax cut.
It’s my own. Wrote it about an hour ago sitting here at the computer and have never seen what you linked, which honestly is nothing like this except for the reference to US Grant.
And that reference, as I look at the link, is not by the author but by some republican in a group of Iowans.
If one of us “unwashed masses” can come up with a Grant parallel, then surely another of us unclean ones can make a similar connection.
The comparison to Grant comes readily to mind. I doubt he is trying to plagiarize an idea. It seems as natural a comparison as Zero to Carter.
To me three intelligent, powerful, flawed, dangerous men are comparable to Newt.
Ben Franklin, Churchill and Grant.
All three were both imperfect and called by history to lead in a time of crisis.
Flashback:
Gingrich: ‘Strategic Blunder’ for Palin to Mock Obama as ‘Community Organizer’
McCain/Palin lost.
Maybe Gingrich was right. If McCain/Palin had won, then you’d have a case.
Could this be the beginning of a list of all the famous people Newt is compared to?
It seems to me that a lot of folks, in their desperation to find someone---anyone---who can beat Romney and Obama, are trying to project Palin's aggressiveness and fighting qualities onto Newt, which is ridiculous.
Just six short months ago, the vast majority of FReepers, including most of his recent newfound supporters, were ridiculing him for his backstabbing and RINO fecklessness. And now he's suddenly U.S. Grant?
Give me a break...
What about that whole impeachment thingy?
Nope. I was among those comparing Gingrich to Churchill....before the Churchill/Gingrich article came out, btw.
This Grant connection makes sense, though, given Grant’s supposed flaws regarding alcohol. Those were probably trumped up charges against Grant, but aren’t political charges almost always trumped up?
Gingrich did his duty on the impeachment. The House voted the articles of impeachment, and the Senate didn’t convict.
The articles were forwarded for the right reason: subborning justice.
As I’ve said before, Newt got “Palinized”, long before Sarah ever did.
He’s got some scores to settle !
“The history of his Presidency. Read about it.”
I have. I’ve read several. Sure, he had bad judgement in his choice of political allies, but, so do most Presidents. Have you noticed that the history book agree that the two most corrupt presidencies were Harding and Grant? Have you noticed that they are both Republicans and that the Democratic 1930’s loom between us and those administrations?
Both administrations came during difficult times - Grant in the wake of the Civil War, and Harding in the wake of the War to End All Wars. Both ended with things pretty much back top normal, and the country back in growth mode.
His life story to me is amazing and unexpected considering my preconceived notions.
Most historians also agree that Andrew Jackson was a terrible man and a terrible President while at the same time acknowledging him as the father of the modern democrat party.
There's no doubt Grant loved cigars (he died from throat cancer), but the charges of alcoholism seem to be no more than rumors started by jealous men.
Democrats still name their annual banquet the Jefferson Jackson Dinner.
Better than a Chicago, Illinois feather merchant.
You know, R69, I hadn't thought of that, but you are 100% correct.
And come to think of it, so did Clarence Thomas.
Pretty good analogy.
Thanks, Walrus.
Maybe rightfully so? I think Newt’s just another run of the mill politician. His spinning on the beck program yesterday was a hoot. If he’s the nominee,I will vote for him while holding my nose once again.
I read the transcript. I didn’t think it was spin. I thought it was exactly the way he thinks.
For example, he sees a difference between Obama’s mandate and his demanding that a hospital patient have a means to pay the bills before he walks through the doors.
(So do I, but that’s not the point.)
Well then, according to the way he thinks, you must have health insurance whether you want it or not, correct? He likes big gubmint as long as it’s his.
Nope, he believes you should have insurance or post a bond IF you’re likely to be taken to a hospital.
I suppose I’d be fine with anyone who feels like signing some kind of affidavit that demands they never be taken to a hospital. That person should not have to have insurance or post a bond.
So, it’s not about “gubmint”. It’s about folks paying for their own bills. That’s a very conservative thought.
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.