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."
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.
He can twist it anyway he wants but if it’s a law, it’s government.
Oh, thanks for your service to our country.
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.