On Meet the Press this morning, Newt Gingrich defended himself against the three main criticisms of his candidacy: his involvement with Freddie Mac, his attacks on Bain Capital, and his personal life.
Host David Gregory asked Gingrich how he could win “that inside-outside game” given his receipt of $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac. When Gregory suggested that Gingrich was a lobbyist for the firm, Gingrich interrupted:
David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist. . . . Don’t try to mess these things up. The fact is, I was an adviser strategically, and, if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac, I said, “You need more regulations.” If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress, it was in the New York Times in July of 2008, and I said, “Do not give them any money.” Now I opposed giving money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they should both be broken up into four or five much smaller companies and I’ve long felt that. And so I think that to jump from one to another is simply wrong.
Later, Gregory asked Gingrich about Mitt Romney’s contention that the ex-speaker was using the “weapons of the Left” in attacking Bain Capital. Gingrich responded with equal force:
[Romney] is trying to cleverly hide behind an argument that no high-school debater would ever let stand. Questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate [are] not an attack on business. That’s silly. That would be like saying that my critique of Romneycare as resembling Obamacare means I’m against any kind of government involvement. That would be silly.
After Gingrich broached the topic of a candidate’s character, Gregory asked him, “If voters are going to consider your family values versus the family values of Governor Romney, should they judge your conduct?”
“Sure, of course they should,” Gingrich replied. “And I think the people of South Carolina did just that. And they did it by a huge margin.” He continued:
I’m a 68-year-old grandfather. I’ve done things in my life that I regret. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness and reconciliation. But I have a great relationship with my wife, a great relationship with my children, a great relationship with my grandchildren. And at 68, I think I’m the person best prepared to know how to get this country back on the right track.
Finally, Gregory asked whether the news that Romney would release his 2010 tax return and an estimate for his 2011 return this week would settle that issue.
“As far as I’m concerned, that particular issue is now set aside, and we can go on and talk about bigger and more important things,” Gingrich concluded.
What silly evasive answers. Not near good enough.The bottom line is Gingrich has terrible character flaws and a repeated pattern of dispicable personal behavior well into middle age that cannot and will not be explained away by "I've made some mistakes in the past" line.
The media and Axelrod would have a field day with this, Obama would win reelection in a landslide, Democrats would retain the Senate and likely retake this House if Gingrich should win the nomination.
I hope the GOP and conservatives come to their senses before it's too late, and stop this political suicide.
And this comes from the conservative in the race. Newt still doesn't get it. We don't need a more regulated Freddie/Fannie. We need no Freddie/Fannie - at least not as government sponsored enterprises. THAT is what got us into the mess we're in.
Fannie/Freddie encourages - by their existence alone - lending money to people who don't have the proper ability to pay the money back. Banks aren't going to write paper to people who have horrible credit, or no down payment if that loan isn't backstopped by Uncle Sam. Maybe we should stop backing those loans, Newt.
"Questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate [are] not an attack on business. "
Absolutely shameless. He wasn't attacking Romney's character, he was attacking Romney's success as a private equity manager. He was attacking the very foundation of Capitalism that demands that there must be winners and losers. He knows that Romney won more than he lost, and he used that exactly like Michael Moore would.
"Sure, of course they should,” Gingrich replied. “And I think the people of South Carolina did just that"
I actually agree with Gingrich here. The evangelical, Bible thumping, sanctimonious hordes of South Carolina sent I'll message I'll never let them forget: Character doesn't matter and there really isn't any sanctity of marriage. If a guy can leave two women to whom he swore before God to be faithful to in sickness and in health until death do they part and still be rewarded by the most evangelical voters in the country, then marriage really doesn't mean to these people what they say it means.
Good points Scott. In a twisted kind of way, it's actually amusing to see some voters deceived by Newt and his tired, predictable attacks on the media -- if it wasn't so serious.
Isn't characterizing an entire group of people in a degrading manner the classic definition of prejudice?
Is it just possible that the "evangelical, Bible thumping, sanctimonious hordes of South Carolina" believe that forgiveness and redemption actually mean what they say it means?
Is it also possible that the people of South Carolina are not all "Bible thumping" or "sanctimonious" (no doubt there are some), but for the most part are Americans trying to make the best decisions they can?
The supposedly 'sane and presentable', aisle-crossing, centrist who's main virtue is moving left more slowly and inoffensively than his Democrat opponent has lost its attraction.
So the Grindgrinch has tossed aside the "historian" lie only to replace it with the "strategist" lie. Influence peddling slimeball lobbyist shill, why can't he just admit it, and tell the truth once in his benighted life? Cordially, Bill
Scott, I'm not a Newt booster, but I think you have a couple of things wrong.
First, Gingrich's call for more regulations must be taken in context. It's not as if he could have waved his magic wand and gotten rid of the GSEs at that point. Given the reality of the situation, more regulation was the right call to make. I'm not sure what Newt's overall view on the GSEs is. Haven't read much by him on the subject. I agree with you that GSEs should not have existed. I just don't think it's fair to criticize him by jumping on the word "regulation" given the CONTEXT of his remarks.
Second, he most certainly was NOT attacking Romney's SUCCESS as a PE manager. He was attacking HOW he made his money. Is that not allowed? I was dismayed at how Newt's actual message got so twisted, then this false message was repeated by just about everyone in the media. It was not an attack on capitalism. Nor was it an attack on success. It was a criticism of the way in which Romney/Bain make their money. I think it's fair game (though I disagree). HOW Romney made his money is open to criticism. I have no problem with Bain (I'm an investment advisor & trader), but I also see no problem with Newt bringing it up. It's not at all what the left says. I was extremely disappointed by how many people on the Right criticized Newt for this without really bothering to understand what he was actually saying. Too nuanced for them? Yeesh. What we saw was a knee-jerk defense of capitalism in response to an attack that was *NOT* at all on capitalism!
I hope Newt is not on the GOP ticket. As I said, I'm not a fan. But I try to be fair to all of them. Newt deserves plenty of criticism for various things, but his dealings with FNM/FRE and his criticism of the way Bain makes their money don't strike me as two of the more important ones.
Anyone with a SEMBLANCE of the average amount of brain cells knows that Gingrich wasn't being paid by Freddie as a 'strategic. On the issue of his claims he didn't lobby for Freddie Mac, Politifact calls it only 'half true' and says the following:
Gingrich is technically correct that he was not a REGISTERED lobbyist for Freddie Mac. But it appears he took pains to avoid being subject to the rules. GIVING STRATEGIC ADVICE IS WIDELY CONSIDERED A WAY OF USING POLITICAL INFLUENCE WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER. We rate his statement Half True.
Both Gingrich and Romney would be much better President than OBama. In fact, I do not know a person who can be worse. gingrich tried to run clean campaign based on issues, but Romney fought dirty against any front runner from Perry to Santorum. So now gingrich decided that his only chance ( and our to beat Obama ) is to run as dirty campaign, as Romdey does. This interview is another proof that Gingrich is our only chance to beat Obama.
"Questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate [are] not an attack on business. That’s silly."
I don't know whether this is ridiculous or insulting. It would be silly if Newt was doing what he claims here, but he is going after the very action of venture capitalism not Romney's specific actions or character. The implication of his comments is clearly that because Romney engaged in a process that lead to laying people off, he is somehow someone who is of questionable character. This former High School debate President says sorry Gingrich, but your assumption that everyone listening is so awed by your intelligence as to not use our own is, well, silly.
What silly evasive answers. Not near good enough.The bottom line is Gingrich has terrible character flaws and a repeated pattern of dispicable personal behavior well into middle age that cannot and will not be explained away by "I've made some mistakes in the past" line.
The media and Axelrod would have a field day with this, Obama would win reelection in a landslide, Democrats would retain the Senate and likely retake this House if Gingrich should win the nomination.
I hope the GOP and conservatives come to their senses before it's too late, and stop this political suicide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Newt is extraordinary. I think he is the only candidate who can single-handedly win the DNC another Presidency as he did in 1996.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeparated at Birth: Mitt Romney and...?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I said, “You need more regulations."
And this comes from the conservative in the race. Newt still doesn't get it. We don't need a more regulated Freddie/Fannie. We need no Freddie/Fannie - at least not as government sponsored enterprises. THAT is what got us into the mess we're in.
Fannie/Freddie encourages - by their existence alone - lending money to people who don't have the proper ability to pay the money back. Banks aren't going to write paper to people who have horrible credit, or no down payment if that loan isn't backstopped by Uncle Sam. Maybe we should stop backing those loans, Newt.
"Questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate [are] not an attack on business. "
Absolutely shameless. He wasn't attacking Romney's character, he was attacking Romney's success as a private equity manager. He was attacking the very foundation of Capitalism that demands that there must be winners and losers. He knows that Romney won more than he lost, and he used that exactly like Michael Moore would.
"Sure, of course they should,” Gingrich replied. “And I think the people of South Carolina did just that"
I actually agree with Gingrich here. The evangelical, Bible thumping, sanctimonious hordes of South Carolina sent I'll message I'll never let them forget: Character doesn't matter and there really isn't any sanctity of marriage. If a guy can leave two women to whom he swore before God to be faithful to in sickness and in health until death do they part and still be rewarded by the most evangelical voters in the country, then marriage really doesn't mean to these people what they say it means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood points Scott. In a twisted kind of way, it's actually amusing to see some voters deceived by Newt and his tired, predictable attacks on the media -- if it wasn't so serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't characterizing an entire group of people in a degrading manner the classic definition of prejudice?
Is it just possible that the "evangelical, Bible thumping, sanctimonious hordes of South Carolina" believe that forgiveness and redemption actually mean what they say it means?
Is it also possible that the people of South Carolina are not all "Bible thumping" or "sanctimonious" (no doubt there are some), but for the most part are Americans trying to make the best decisions they can?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe supposedly 'sane and presentable', aisle-crossing, centrist who's main virtue is moving left more slowly and inoffensively than his Democrat opponent has lost its attraction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the Grindgrinch has tossed aside the "historian" lie only to replace it with the "strategist" lie. Influence peddling slimeball lobbyist shill, why can't he just admit it, and tell the truth once in his benighted life? Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, I'm not a Newt booster, but I think you have a couple of things wrong.
First, Gingrich's call for more regulations must be taken in context. It's not as if he could have waved his magic wand and gotten rid of the GSEs at that point. Given the reality of the situation, more regulation was the right call to make. I'm not sure what Newt's overall view on the GSEs is. Haven't read much by him on the subject. I agree with you that GSEs should not have existed. I just don't think it's fair to criticize him by jumping on the word "regulation" given the CONTEXT of his remarks.
Second, he most certainly was NOT attacking Romney's SUCCESS as a PE manager. He was attacking HOW he made his money. Is that not allowed? I was dismayed at how Newt's actual message got so twisted, then this false message was repeated by just about everyone in the media. It was not an attack on capitalism. Nor was it an attack on success. It was a criticism of the way in which Romney/Bain make their money. I think it's fair game (though I disagree). HOW Romney made his money is open to criticism. I have no problem with Bain (I'm an investment advisor & trader), but I also see no problem with Newt bringing it up. It's not at all what the left says. I was extremely disappointed by how many people on the Right criticized Newt for this without really bothering to understand what he was actually saying. Too nuanced for them? Yeesh. What we saw was a knee-jerk defense of capitalism in response to an attack that was *NOT* at all on capitalism!
I hope Newt is not on the GOP ticket. As I said, I'm not a fan. But I try to be fair to all of them. Newt deserves plenty of criticism for various things, but his dealings with FNM/FRE and his criticism of the way Bain makes their money don't strike me as two of the more important ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone with a SEMBLANCE of the average amount of brain cells knows that Gingrich wasn't being paid by Freddie as a 'strategic. On the issue of his claims he didn't lobby for Freddie Mac, Politifact calls it only 'half true' and says the following:
Gingrich is technically correct that he was not a REGISTERED lobbyist for Freddie Mac. But it appears he took pains to avoid being subject to the rules. GIVING STRATEGIC ADVICE IS WIDELY CONSIDERED A WAY OF USING POLITICAL INFLUENCE WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER. We rate his statement Half True.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth Gingrich and Romney would be much better President than OBama. In fact, I do not know a person who can be worse. gingrich tried to run clean campaign based on issues, but Romney fought dirty against any front runner from Perry to Santorum. So now gingrich decided that his only chance ( and our to beat Obama ) is to run as dirty campaign, as Romdey does. This interview is another proof that Gingrich is our only chance to beat Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate [are] not an attack on business. That’s silly."
I don't know whether this is ridiculous or insulting. It would be silly if Newt was doing what he claims here, but he is going after the very action of venture capitalism not Romney's specific actions or character. The implication of his comments is clearly that because Romney engaged in a process that lead to laying people off, he is somehow someone who is of questionable character. This former High School debate President says sorry Gingrich, but your assumption that everyone listening is so awed by your intelligence as to not use our own is, well, silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse