I can’t understand why Newt Gingrich is getting such a pass on his Freddie Mac consulting. He claims to have been a historian for this outfit? FHLMC needs a historian like the U.S.A. needs a Department of Education, like Europe needs a common currency, like … like … I dunno, like Michelle Obama needs another $12,000 accessory.
I sputtered about this on last week’s Radio Derb:
Newt’s trying to ju-jitsu the thing, telling us that his experience as a shill for Freddie Mac gave him valuable insider understanding of governmental affairs. Isn’t that what we want in a candidate, valuable insider understanding of governmental affairs? Quote from Newt, on the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, quote: “It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance, and it didn’t work very well. So having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing.”
That’s a bit like a rabbit applying for a management position on a lettuce farm. Why not? He knows all there is to know about lettuce.
Newt’s chutzpah knows no bounds, though. Back during the 2008 presidential campaign, he told a Fox News interviewer that then-Senator Obama ought to return contributions he had received from Freddie Mac and its sister racket, Fannie Mae. Just last year Newt brought out a campaign book in which he argued for getting rid of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Now here he is in Iowa this week defending Freddie Mac. Quote: “Every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities.”
As a conservative Republican, I’d reply that every American should be interested in getting government out of activities where it has no legitimate function, and that would include mortgage lending to home buyers. The phrase “expanding housing opportunities” is pure Democrat-speak, the kind of phrase that drops naturally from the lips of a Pelosi or a Barney Frank. It has no place in the vocabulary of a Republican. An American has a “housing opportunity” when he’s saved up enough for a deposit, and has a good enough credit record to ask a bank for a loan under proper, objective credit criteria, undistorted by political interference.
Mortgage lending has been utterly corrupted by government manipulation, by administrations from Jimmy Carter’s to George W. Bush’s, to the immense detriment of our economy at large. We now know that Newt Gingrich was a willing agent of that corruption. If he can survive our knowing that, the anti-Romney sentiment must be mighty indeed.
I don’t believe it is that mighty. I say Newt’s toast.
Apparently he isn’t; but I still think he ought to be.
Let me try to explain it for you. Nobody cares. What? You're bombshell story is that Newt swam in Washington D.C. circles when he left office? Wow! This all falls into the known "baggage" of Newt's history. If something new and salacious or illegal gets revealed - something really bombshell worthy - then you'll see an impact. Otherwise it's a snoozer...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrump + Bachmann + Perry + Cain + Gingrich + (Insert Next Misfit Frontrunner Here) = 4 More Years of Barry's Crew
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause he said he'd start a war with Iran. That's music to the ears of the NeoCons and bloodthirsty evangelicals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseoh please ... did you just cut and paste that from the Daily Kos ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not just the Kossacks who are noticing that no matter who we have in office, we have a remarkably aggressive foreign policy that uses "humanitarianism" as an excuse for very expensive military deployments.
You don't have to be on the far left to wish for a Constitutionally constrained executive when it comes to warmaking. Do you consider Ron Paul a leftist?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope I didn't. I watched the Thanksgiving Forum in Iowa last Saturday. The loudest applause of the night by far was when Gingrich all but said if he's President he will bomb Iran back to the stone age. The audience went wild.
Remember this was an audience of Evangelical Christians. They're real good Christians that's for sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can understand (but don't agree with) the feeling that Newt ought to be given a pass on his gasbagginess and general sliminess, but I don't understand why tea party conservatives don't seem to care that he is not a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will be supporting Mr. Romney. We would vote for Obama before Mr. Gingrich....he is an egotisical phony that we all see through. NRO you are only fooling yourself and harming the future of this country by trying to "convince" us all that we are wrong. How about a pragmatic intelligent approach to the problems of this country as oppossed to the misguided ideological approach on both sides.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well said. I don't know that I could stomach voting for Barry - he's just too awful. I would vote for some third party candidate. Ron Paul has some warts but he doesn't have Newt's fleas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can’t understand why Mitt Romney is getting such a pass on his Romneycare. He claims to have been a Republican governor? Massachusetts needed state-run universal health care like the U.S.A. needs a Department of Education, like Europe needs a common currency, like … like … I dunno, like Michelle Obama needs another $12,000 accessory.
See how that works?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShows how strong the anybody but Romney feelings are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only scandals the public can comprehend are sexual in nature (Giuliani/Cain). That's your reason for why this story has gone nowhere.
Re: his flip-fop on Freddie: were we all just born yesterday? We know that politicians will say anything in order to protect themselves. Romney is just as guilty of this as anyone. He's shown that he'll say or do anything to get himself ahead. If anyone's been getting a pass, it's him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Romney and Gingrich were kids, I wouldn't trust either one to guard the cookie jar. The difference is Romney would be more likely to give the cookies away while Gingrich would be more likely to take them for himself. In the end I'd rather have the most conservative House and Senate we can get and a personally moral Romney over a moderate congress and a frequently conservative but scandal prone Gingrich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChill out John D. At this point in the election, I don't believe you could see a winner even if you tried. Spinning your wheels about Newt Gingrich's Freddie Mac consulting is old news and adds nothing to the Republican election process. Newt is a warrior and he is taking the fight to the Dems and Obama. Go ahead keep rip into him - it will make him stronger. And Derb we need strength, courage, passion, intelligence among other things to win this election, Newt has and is using them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think everyone has misinterpreted his comment. I'd have to go back to the exact quote, perhaps it was awkardly phrased, but the clear meaning of what he said is not that he was hired as a historian but that his advice was based on his years as a historian. He looked at their problems through his historian lenses and gave advice.
There are many reasons to oppose Newt - his leadership failure as Speaker comes to mind - but we shouldn't distort his comments as a way of defeating him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately we live in a time where the only thing that seems to matter is how well a politician performs when caught up in the latest scandal or contradiction du juor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are times when I could be convinced that Newt could work, but articles like this...
History may be repeating itself, exactly a century later: it's probably going to be another election between two progressives, despite the fact that the country is still center-right and despite the energy of the Tea Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact is, Lawrence, the Tea Party, for all its enery, has only existed for less then four years. That's hardly time to build up a presidential candidate, unless we want to put forward someone as inexperienced as Obama. We have folks like Rubio, Jindal, Haley and many more, but they're not ready for 2012. We need to do what we can with what we've got until then, which will probably mean electing a less-than-perfect president and praying that a slightly more conservative Congress can keep him in line. There are no unflawed, totally conservative candidates in the race. No one like that is going to get in the race this time around. For my money, Gingrich is currently the best-suited, for all his flaws, to take on the MSM/Obama in the general, and the best-suited to make a conservative economic case to the electorate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYup, and that's my first (if wavering) instinct when it comes to the horserace -- but conservatives should be clear that we may be backing a mule instead of a horse, a political animal that will have to be driven to a conservative agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this is right. We can't disqualify every candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse