Michelle Bachman said everything she said in the last debate about Newt lobbying was true according to Politifact. In fact, they said no such thing.
It’s crap like this that brings Bachman down to a democrat’s way of doing things. That’s why people have lost respect for her, not because she’s a woman, and we’re all sexist. BTW I’m a woman.
Politifact is hardly the arbiter of truth. Michele’s mistake was quoting a “truth” website that is a product of the newspaper industry, namely the St. Petersburg Times.
Michele does deal with the mainstream (left-leaning media), appearing on air and giving them stories. Undoubtedly this is to gain wider recognition and get her message out, and at some point every candidate has to do that, they can’t only appear on Fox. So in terms of building for a general election campaign, mentioning politifact in news articles will score web search hits by independents who are googling for her name. Politifact, of course, calls Republicans liars every chance it can, so every Republican gets the downside of being mentioned by them whether they like it or not.
That being said, there is at least one published news article that describes the well-documented efforts of Fannie and Freddie to woo Republican support.
Newt’s involvement was, in a legal, technical sense, not lobbying. But to say that he didn’t lobby is a tepid pursuit of the truth at best.
It was more what I would call meta-lobbying. He was hired by Freddie to be the brains behind the operation: coming up with written material to circulate to Republicans in DC as well as coming up with lists of potential Republican supporters who could be successfully lobbied (by others, of course).
So yes, he did not personally do the lobbying, he was simply the mastermind behind the lobbying efforts.
Perhaps I should post a new thread which sheds light on this story.
Michele reminds me of so many conservatives in the past who were castigated as lunatics and liars then ultimately validated by history. As a child, I was in a class where everyone else falsely testified against the teacher. None of the students even approached me with the scheme and I simply told the truth when asked - what I had seen with my own eyes. I thought nothing of it at the time, but throughout the years I’ve reflected on those events often. I’m always inclined to take no sides until I hear all sides after seeing firsthand how even seemingly “innocent children” can get caught up in crowd mentality.
Too often today people want to kill the messenger; in politics, finance, law - even faith, when the message is not to their liking.
Conservatives who understand the difference between successfully getting a Republican elected President and electing someone who will reduce the heavy hand of big government should carefully consider each candidate very, very carefully for the Republican primary.
Social conservatives moan in agony over a repressive Executive branch that deals heavy-handedly with families, Christians, homeschoolers, etc. As do free-market conservatives cry over government intrusion and control of business. As do those who are concerned with the legitimization of and increase in power of islam - inside America’s politics, business and even military.
They simply forget that for 8 of the past 10 years, this has all happened with Republicans heading the Federal government.
Sometimes those we think are our friends are not always what they seem to be.
As a master politician and statesman, Newt comes with the pluses and minuses associated with such a person; they can get a lot “done”, which can be both a blessing and a curse.
Whoever wins the nomination, IMHO, let’s keep praying.