Posted on 12/18/2011 2:29:14 PM PST by Future Useless Eater
Polling Data on December 18, 2011 Poll Date Sample Gingr. Romney Paul Bachmn. Perry Santm. Hunts. Spread RCP Average 12/07 - 12/17 -- 30.5 22.5 9.8 8.0 7.0 3.5 3.0 Gingrich +8.0 Gallup Tracking 12/12 - 12/17 1000 RV 28 24 10 7 6 4 2 Gingrich +4 Reuters/Ipsos 12/08 - 12/12 443 RV 28 18 12 10 12 4 5 Gingrich +10 Associated Press/GfK 12/08 - 12/12 460 A 33 27 9 9 6 3 2 Gingrich +6 Pew Research 12/07 - 12/11 504 RV 33 21 8 6 4 3 3 Gingrich +12
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Contracted consultants work for their clients. Freddie and Fannie were Gingrich's clients and he worked for them, that's why they paid him over $1 million.
I'm getting dizzy from the Gingrich supporters spin.
Since 1999 through 2007, Gingrich was talking up the value of Freddie and Fannie, a time when anyone with a brain could see that they were destructive to our economy. During this entire time Gingrich was also receiving money from Fannie and Freddie.
In 2008, Gingrich bad mouthed Fannie and Freddie. In 2008, Gingrich's 8 years of getting paid by Fannie and Freddie had ended and he no longer received money from them.
These are the facts, interpret them as you will.
Wrong. Employees of companies receive benefits, have the company pay half their Social Security, etc.
He was a contracted expert.
And you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?
Even baseball players’ contracts don’t permit that.
Exactly my response. I don't know why the two polls were excluded from the RCP average, but there are plenty of possible reasons besides pro-Romney bias. Even if you include those polls they just change Gingrich's current margin over Romney from 8.0 to 9.8. Big deal.
He was a contracted expert.
And you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?
Even baseball players’ contracts don’t permit that.
You destroy your argument with your own words. No one said Gingrich was an employee of Freddie/Fannie, he worked for them on contract. Get it? Worked for them.
The whole point is that Gingrich did not say anything about the damage Freddie/Fannie was doing to our economy, even though he must have known, unless you think he was stupid. On the contrary, he was praising them. Why? As you pointed out, because he was getting paid by them. Nothing illegal about that, he could have been working on contract for Planned Parenthood, another enterprise that damages our Country, and it would still be legal. However don't be surprised when someone asks why didn't he warn us about Fannie and Freddie, why did he try to make us think they were valuable organizations, and his answer is "because I was getting paid by them and and do you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?"
That’s excellent and enlightening considering the “influence peddling” attack from Bachmann in the last debate.
ever notice that they ignored Gingrich when he wasn’t the front-runner? They first slimed Palin, then went after Cain and now Gingrich?
RealClearPolitics is a GOP establishment organ.
Naturally that thing is going to cover for and push Romney.
Get a grip.
Ubama and the rats want no mention of Fannie/Freddie. They can't believe the Republicans haven't done a more effective job of tying that disaster around the rats' necks. Sure, Dodd and Frank were told to take a hike because of their insidious collaboration with Fannie/Freddie, but the rats don't want to lose any more. Additionally, the specter of Franklin Delano Raines (one of Holder's people) still looms large. The rats definitely don't want anybody reviving that guy's story.
Do you understand the difference between an employee and a contractor?
Is it reasonable that your lawyer would turn against you in public while working on a case for you?
I’m surprised at those who cannot understand the obligation to support your client, when they understand it so easily when the conversation is of lawyers.
Lawyers have no obligation to "support" their clients. They have a responsibility to represent their clients legal position within the bounds of the law. Lawyers who make public appearances claiming their clients innocence are acting as a "mouthpiece". There's a big difference.
Gingrich publicly proclaimed the value of Fannie and Freddie in 2007, a time when he had to have known it's precarious position. He didn't do this as a "historian" (did he really believe people would buy this?), he did this as a hired gun. The money was more important to him then telling the truth to the American people. If he did, much of the tragedy of the collapse of our economy might have been avoided.
Yep, this is a great record to run on.
Actually, I’ve seen lawyers on TV doing public relations for their clients, trying to paint the most favorable image of them possible. That is a fairly standard expectation, I think.
That does not mean that behind the scenes the lawyer isn’t disagreeing with some things and agreeing with others.
I’m surprised that people are upset that Newt made money off of F&F, but that other businessman who do virtually the same thing (advertising agencies, for example) can make millions doing the same thing, and that’s just fine.
If you learned that some ad agency had a 200 grand per year contract with F&F, would it bother you? It wouldn’t me.
No one cares about the money. Newt didn't tell the American people the truth about Fannie and Freddie. Instead he he tried to convince the American people that they were valuable institutions when he new otherwise. Whether he got money to do this makes no difference. He was not honest with the American people and it could very likely have contributed to the hundreds of billions in losses to our economy. Doing this only to make money makes it worse, not better.
Fannie & Freddie were a business. They bought mortgages from banks/brokers. They wouldn’t have been able to do that if it weren’t economically viable for the banks/brokers to dump the mortgages. That way they didn’t have to service them all those years.
They had a market niche, and in that sense, they were valuable. I’ve probably had 4 mortgages in my life, and all except this most recent was sold. The small country bank I’m with right now likes to service their own.
I thought you understood, many of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought were no good, and they knew it, and Gingrich admitted that he knew it. The taxpayers have had to bail them out with tens of billions of dollars. Instead of Gingrich telling the American people of the huge liability Fannie and Freddie had become, he instead decided to publicly promote them, for money.
That's just part of his history that he has to live with.
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.