(emphasis supplied)
We read no further to know this is a hit-piece.
This is unfortunate because the article has been good journalism up to this point. It accurately recites our conservative complaints about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leading to the great recession. If these complaints had been properly aired as we tried to do here on Free Republic, perhaps a few of useful idiots would not have been manipulated into occupying Wall Street; the Tea Party would be held in higher esteem by the public and that would be reflected in the polls; the public at large would see the problem not as a failure of capitalism but as a failure of big government.
So the question legitimately is raised, what was Newt Gingrich's role and what did he do for the $300,000 he allegedly received from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Gingrich says he gave them advice and told to change their business model. The allegation, or more properly the rumor, says according to this piece:
However, according to the Associated Press, Gingrich talked and wrote about what he believed were the benefits of the Fannie and Freddie business model.
Well, if Gingrich wrote or talked about the "benefits" of the Fannie-Freddie business model why haven't these talks or writings been produced? Gingrich has flatly stated before millions of people, as this piece accurately reports, that he told Fannie and Freddie that their business model was, "unsustainable." He states they did not take his advice.
Instead of challenging this and saying that Gingrich is not telling the truth this hit-piece resorts to the discredited technique of citing the misgivings of anonymous critics, "has reformers wondering." What reformers?
The piece is further dishonest. Gingrich says that he told Fannie-Freddie that the business model was "unsustainable." Yet the article asks us to distinguish Gingrich's position from Ron Paul's, who wants to abolish these institutions. The article is written as though Paul has articulated the intelligent position but Gingrich is somehow off the reservation. That is dishonest because there is very little difference between a desire to abolish and an observation that a business model is "unsustainable."
This hit-piece continues, resorting once again to the disreputable practice of citing anonymous commentators:
It is also fueling speculation that has been circulating in conservative circles that Gingrich may have more fondness for big government solutions than he claims.
Really?
Shall we try for strike three?
Most importantly, it has Conservatives wondering if Gingrich’s financial interests would trump his conservative ideology in other matters of critical importance to the United States.
I long ago called for Gingrich to explain his relationship. He has done so. I've also called upon his detractors to produce evidence about what he did in that relationship. So far absolutely nothing but innuendo and hit pieces appear. If Gingrich has lied before millions of people, let the smear machine come forth with some evidence.
Until then, the matter should be closed.
