1. Criticizing Obama instead of attacking conservative Republicans.
2. Talking about his own plans and policies beyond bland platitudes like 'Believe in America,' instead of attacking conservative Republicans.
I know it's a crazy, radical strategery. Just making a suggestion.
What could be wrong with that? Lobbying for a gov't agency to prevent them from being regulated as Repbulican wanted them to be. Said gov't agency perpetuates housing bubble and goes bust at a cost of hundreds of billions to taxpayers.
What could possibly be wrong with that? Free enterprise at its finest!
I assume this was covered already, but why is it inherently discrediting for Gingrich to have worked for Fannie Mae? Is it wrong for people to work there? Is it the amount he made on the contract? Or is it something he did while on the clock?
I think it's disgraceful when the Obamas (and earlier, McCain) argued that public service was somehow morally superior to private enterprise, but this argument seems to go the other way, arguing by insinuation that affiliating with these institutions in any way is wrong. It does not seem that removed from the substance of the Bain Capital attacks that many people have denounced in the past two weeks.
Didn't Newt do an op/ed shortly before the housing crash that praised the role of GSEs? This was at the same time that Bush and other republicans were warning of problems at Fannie and Freddy. Sorry. he was paid to keep up their image.
Interesting information. Still, that's not evidence that he was paid to keep up their image, that would be evidence that he has poor judgement. The criticism I keep hearing is that Gingrich "took money from" the GSEs. The reason why that was presumably wrong was that he was paid to lobby on their behalf or not lobby against them. That second part does not follow from the first.
Work there? You make it sound like Gingrich and his enormous lunch box made daily trips to Fannie where he worked in the mail room, or sumthin'.
Gingrich was a lobbyist for Fannie - not in the traditional sense, but in the DC power-broker sense. Fannie was in the middle of trying to fight off reform attempts by George Bush. They were in danger of actually losing that fight. So, what do they do? They go out and find a large, obese and incredibly boisterous Republican and pay him an enormous amount of money to keep his yap shut. That is EXACTLY what Gingrich did.
While the debate raged, publicly and in Congress, about George Bush looking to put the handcuffs on Fannie, Newt Gingrich - the guy who has an opinion on everything and is looking to share that opinion with everyone - said bupkis about Fannie, publicly. That wasn't an accident. That was precisely what they were paying him to do.
When Gingrich is called on to explain what he did for Fannie, he says that he consulted, as an historian, no less. Sure Newtie, that's believable.
Thanks for your response. I'm just trying to figure out why his contract with Fannie Mae is self-evidently bad.
Your argument appears to be that Fannie Mae paid a former House Speaker to be silent on GSE reform in the mid-2000's. Absent any proof, this is just speculation that commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
For this theory to work, you have to (1) assume that Gingrich would have advocated for GSE reform during that time frame otherwise, that (2) Gingrich's advocacy would then be harmful to Fannie Mae, and (3) that there are other former politicians whom the GSEs contract with or attempt to contract with to buy their silence.
Is there even any record of Gingrich effectively influencing a policy discussion once he left office? It's not like "What's Gingrich Think About This?" has been a common refrain inside or outside Congress.
It seems to me that you're taking a fact - that he was paid X for contracted services - and creating an unwritten backstory that attacks him for not doing something. By this logic, anyone who was paid anything by Fannie Mae should be accused of corruption because they did not involve themself in that particular political battle. To include the guys with lunchboxes in the mailroom. Sure, they were paid hourly wages for services rendered, but we know they were REALLY paid to not write letters to the editor advocating for GSE reform.
"I'm just trying to figure out why his contract with Fannie Mae is self-evidently bad."
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are politically radioactive during this election cycle given their instrumental roles in the financial meltdown of 2007, and anyone who took large sums of money from them to do anything other than janitorial work will be assumed by many to be contaminated.
Newt Gingrich wasn't just any politician. He was the first former Republican Speaker of the House in over 40-years. His career - post Speakership - was as a policy advocate. Nancy Pelosi didn't get Newt to sit on that couch because she loved his winning smile and warm personality. She got him to sit on that couch because he was an influential member of the Republican establishment.
You can do a Lexis search on Gingrich and find innumerable subjects that Gingrich wasn't shy about commenting on. And yet, on one of the biggest subjects of the day, you can't find a single public comment from the former Speaker on a during a time when Republicans were at war with Barney Franks and Chris Dodd.
But sure, that's just a coincidence and it has absolutely nothing to do with Newt Gingrich being a paid "consultant" for Fannie - both at the time of those debates and the three or four years prior. I'll just chalk it up to my post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
You have some interesting observations, but you're still basing your criticism on conjecture that cannot be proven (or disproven) that is based on assumptions about motives and requires Gingrich to prove a negative.
You might legitimately criticize him for not having a position on GSE reform in the mid-2000's, but I imagine a lot of people didn't have positions at that time. That's not the criticism that you are making. Instead, you're making a corruption/bribery charge, which should have an actual standard of proof beyond "I think he was bought".
Ronny's argument below makes the most sense - Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are now symbols of Washington excess, and bringing them up is an attempt to smear Gingrich by association.
As an aside, your example of Gingrich advocating for Cap and Trade is not quite parallel- first, in that case Gingrich did something, he didn't just stay quiet. Second, it failed epically, which suggests his influence is much more limited than you would imply. Third, it demonstrates that Gingrich takes positions that are contrary to Conservative beliefs and values presumably without any sort of payola from a GSE. If anything, it undermines the argument that the only reason he didn't publically advocate against Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was due to his alleged payoff.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were well-known to be two of the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism in Washington, given their "government-sponsored" label and countless ties to politicians current and former. Take one of Washington's top influence-peddlers and have him work as a "consultant" for one of the largest beneficiaries of government influence, and have him claim that they merely retained his services for advice on "history"? I don't believe it for a second. It would be like Romney working for Goldman Sachs and Goldman claiming that they were retaining him not for investment consulting, but for fashion advice for their employees. It's total nonsense, incredibly naive at best and completely deceptive at worst.
Has Mittbot ever contemplated a strategy of...
1. Criticizing Obama instead of attacking conservative Republicans.
2. Talking about his own plans and policies beyond bland platitudes like 'Believe in America,' instead of attacking conservative Republicans.
I know it's a crazy, radical strategery. Just making a suggestion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave you watched a single debate? Romney almost always goes after Obama and ignores the other candidates. He's saved the attack ads for TV.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think what he means is winning by being the best candidate to represent the Republican Party, not by simply eliminating rivals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, what you're saying is, Romney attacks Obama in front of Republican audiences, and attacks Republicans in front of general audiences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"instead of attacking conservative Republicans"
Do conservative Republicans call Paul Ryan's bold Medicare reform plan, "Right-wing social engineering"?
Do conservative Republicans take $1.7M dollars from Fannie Mae?
Do conservative Republicans sit on couches with Nancy Pelosi and film commercials where they recite leftist talking points?
Do conservative Republicans produce campaign commercials that attack capitalism and free enterprise in the exact same way that Michael Moore would?
Do conservative Republicans campaign for Dede Scozzafava?
Do conservative Republicans carrying on long affairs with Congressional staffers while their wives battle debilitating disease, twice?
Do conservative Republicans embrace the Dream Act?
Do conservative Republicans embrace amnesty for illegal immigrants?
I know it's crazy, perhaps even radical, but I don't think that they do. Just making a suggestion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you mentioned it in your bill of particulars on Gingrich: what exactly was wrong about Gingrich contracting w/ a GSE like Fannie Mae?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat could be wrong with that? Lobbying for a gov't agency to prevent them from being regulated as Repbulican wanted them to be. Said gov't agency perpetuates housing bubble and goes bust at a cost of hundreds of billions to taxpayers.
What could possibly be wrong with that? Free enterprise at its finest!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're assuming the lobbying, it is not proven. If he did not lobby for them, would he still be wrong to contract with them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, pretty clearly that HAS been his strategy. The problem is that it's not working.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI assume this was covered already, but why is it inherently discrediting for Gingrich to have worked for Fannie Mae? Is it wrong for people to work there? Is it the amount he made on the contract? Or is it something he did while on the clock?
I think it's disgraceful when the Obamas (and earlier, McCain) argued that public service was somehow morally superior to private enterprise, but this argument seems to go the other way, arguing by insinuation that affiliating with these institutions in any way is wrong. It does not seem that removed from the substance of the Bain Capital attacks that many people have denounced in the past two weeks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't Newt do an op/ed shortly before the housing crash that praised the role of GSEs? This was at the same time that Bush and other republicans were warning of problems at Fannie and Freddy. Sorry. he was paid to keep up their image.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting information. Still, that's not evidence that he was paid to keep up their image, that would be evidence that he has poor judgement. The criticism I keep hearing is that Gingrich "took money from" the GSEs. The reason why that was presumably wrong was that he was paid to lobby on their behalf or not lobby against them. That second part does not follow from the first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWork there? You make it sound like Gingrich and his enormous lunch box made daily trips to Fannie where he worked in the mail room, or sumthin'.
Gingrich was a lobbyist for Fannie - not in the traditional sense, but in the DC power-broker sense. Fannie was in the middle of trying to fight off reform attempts by George Bush. They were in danger of actually losing that fight. So, what do they do? They go out and find a large, obese and incredibly boisterous Republican and pay him an enormous amount of money to keep his yap shut. That is EXACTLY what Gingrich did.
While the debate raged, publicly and in Congress, about George Bush looking to put the handcuffs on Fannie, Newt Gingrich - the guy who has an opinion on everything and is looking to share that opinion with everyone - said bupkis about Fannie, publicly. That wasn't an accident. That was precisely what they were paying him to do.
When Gingrich is called on to explain what he did for Fannie, he says that he consulted, as an historian, no less. Sure Newtie, that's believable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for your response. I'm just trying to figure out why his contract with Fannie Mae is self-evidently bad.
Your argument appears to be that Fannie Mae paid a former House Speaker to be silent on GSE reform in the mid-2000's. Absent any proof, this is just speculation that commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
For this theory to work, you have to (1) assume that Gingrich would have advocated for GSE reform during that time frame otherwise, that (2) Gingrich's advocacy would then be harmful to Fannie Mae, and (3) that there are other former politicians whom the GSEs contract with or attempt to contract with to buy their silence.
Is there even any record of Gingrich effectively influencing a policy discussion once he left office? It's not like "What's Gingrich Think About This?" has been a common refrain inside or outside Congress.
It seems to me that you're taking a fact - that he was paid X for contracted services - and creating an unwritten backstory that attacks him for not doing something. By this logic, anyone who was paid anything by Fannie Mae should be accused of corruption because they did not involve themself in that particular political battle. To include the guys with lunchboxes in the mailroom. Sure, they were paid hourly wages for services rendered, but we know they were REALLY paid to not write letters to the editor advocating for GSE reform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm just trying to figure out why his contract with Fannie Mae is self-evidently bad."
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are politically radioactive during this election cycle given their instrumental roles in the financial meltdown of 2007, and anyone who took large sums of money from them to do anything other than janitorial work will be assumed by many to be contaminated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gingrich wasn't just any politician. He was the first former Republican Speaker of the House in over 40-years. His career - post Speakership - was as a policy advocate. Nancy Pelosi didn't get Newt to sit on that couch because she loved his winning smile and warm personality. She got him to sit on that couch because he was an influential member of the Republican establishment.
You can do a Lexis search on Gingrich and find innumerable subjects that Gingrich wasn't shy about commenting on. And yet, on one of the biggest subjects of the day, you can't find a single public comment from the former Speaker on a during a time when Republicans were at war with Barney Franks and Chris Dodd.
But sure, that's just a coincidence and it has absolutely nothing to do with Newt Gingrich being a paid "consultant" for Fannie - both at the time of those debates and the three or four years prior. I'll just chalk it up to my post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
captha: common sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have some interesting observations, but you're still basing your criticism on conjecture that cannot be proven (or disproven) that is based on assumptions about motives and requires Gingrich to prove a negative.
You might legitimately criticize him for not having a position on GSE reform in the mid-2000's, but I imagine a lot of people didn't have positions at that time. That's not the criticism that you are making. Instead, you're making a corruption/bribery charge, which should have an actual standard of proof beyond "I think he was bought".
Ronny's argument below makes the most sense - Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are now symbols of Washington excess, and bringing them up is an attempt to smear Gingrich by association.
As an aside, your example of Gingrich advocating for Cap and Trade is not quite parallel- first, in that case Gingrich did something, he didn't just stay quiet. Second, it failed epically, which suggests his influence is much more limited than you would imply. Third, it demonstrates that Gingrich takes positions that are contrary to Conservative beliefs and values presumably without any sort of payola from a GSE. If anything, it undermines the argument that the only reason he didn't publically advocate against Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was due to his alleged payoff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you serious?
Did you miss the whole Freddie and Fannie thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust saying "Fannie" or "Freddie" does not constitute an argument. Spell it out for me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFannie Mae and Freddie Mac were well-known to be two of the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism in Washington, given their "government-sponsored" label and countless ties to politicians current and former. Take one of Washington's top influence-peddlers and have him work as a "consultant" for one of the largest beneficiaries of government influence, and have him claim that they merely retained his services for advice on "history"? I don't believe it for a second. It would be like Romney working for Goldman Sachs and Goldman claiming that they were retaining him not for investment consulting, but for fashion advice for their employees. It's total nonsense, incredibly naive at best and completely deceptive at worst.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse