Posted on 11/17/2011 1:34:10 PM PST by Fred
Since leaving office in 1999, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has spent much of his time convincing conservatives to support government subsidies for large corporations, reports the Washington Examiner.
In addition to his work as a “strategic consultant” for government-sponsored mortgage lender Freddie Mac, the Examiner reports that tax filings show Gingrich received money from the ethanol lobby.
Green Energy, a lobbying group that works to secure and create government subsidies for the much-criticized ethanol industry, paid the Gingrich Group more than $300,000 as recently as 2009. Unlike most conservative experts on the industry, Gingrich is a staunch advocate of ethanol, an expensive corn-based alternative fuel opposed by many conservatives due to its price tag and incompatibility — at high concentrations — with some modern automobile engines.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
So will I.
But people who think this stuff will just go away if they call it a “hit piece” are dreaming.
Yes, that is an outrage!
I have said REPEATEDLY that I am for none of the above, and that I will be writing in Sarah Palin's name on the ballot in 2012. And then I will sleep soundly that night with a clean conscience.
Will others be able to do so too after they hold their noses and vote for the lesser of evils?
I seriously doubt it.
Might as well vote for obama........prolly your real agenda and vote anyway.
I imagine Newt’s real record, and his LONG history with the American electorate, is a shock to some people who fell in love with him during the debates.
I had become a fan of his as a VEEP, because I thought this was a way to get the Gingrich benefits without all the Gingrich risks. Still do. (And I’ll vote for him in the general if I have to.)
But it’s just wierd how, instead of trying to argue why the facts should not be held against Newt, many just want to act as though the facts don’t exist and as though it’s just mean to tell them otherwise.
No, taking a benign fact, twisting it and implying he did something dishonest or unethical...is taking a cheap shot and throwing dirt.
We won't be stuck with Romney, if Romney gets the nod we will be guaranteed 4 more years of 0bama.
The GOP will be stuck with Romney, not me.
As dwgator says, Cain’s problems are fixable. I’m not quite to the point of swooning over the guy yet, but I’m pretty dam sure he would not have gone blundering about, toppling stable regimes and attacking countries that had come clean about their WMDs, settled with the passengers of the flight they shot down, and kept the al q sitch under control. THAT MAN used to brag about his judgement. THAT MAN has NOT judgement.
Been here two weeks, trashing the entire field and advocating writing-in a private citizen with no interest in being POTUS... smells like OFA.
Same here.
I also think we need to keep Cain viable because who knows if Newt really can take the lead for good.
Seems to me a lot of conservatives are going to quickly get over their inclination toward Gingrich once they step back and start thinking and talking about what his record really is.
If that happens, Newt gets dropped like a stone.
Then what if we’ve also let the media, with the help of some conservatives, kill off Cain’s candidacy?
Actually, he’s only been posting for the last 3 days....24 hours NON STOP.
No.
But that doesn’t mean it’s helpful to ignore what are sure to be major obstacles to one candidate’s election.
Those issues have to be hashed out.
BTW, what is OFA?
Don’t you bow down, with your belly you’d never be able to get back up.
So what you are saying is if you disagree with the author’s analysis and conclusion, his analysis and conclusion is a cheap shot and throwing dirt.
Can’t it just be a difference of opinion?
All “benign facts” (a sort of LOL term in the world of politics, to be sure) are subject to the whole spectrum of interpretations.
If you disagree with an interpretation, say so. But if the facts are what the facts are, the author has done nothing wrong.
No, Palin effectively destroyed her political career when she called in and told Mark Levin that she wasn't running. My vote will be a protest vote, both against the Rats and the RINOs, since I will never EVER hold my nose again and vote for the lesser of two evils.
As for the other candidates, you won't find me attacking Cain or Santorum or even Bachmann, even though I'm convinced that she cut some kind of early deal with the GOP-E to help stop Palin. I may offer some criticism concerning such things as Cain's ignorance of foreign affairs and Santorum's backstab for Specter, but I won't go for their jugulars.
I have no use for RINOs though like Romney, Newt, or Perry. They can all go to the Inferno regions as far as I'm concerned. And they can take the corrupt, decrepit GOP-E with them.
So that's where I stand. Now where do YOU stand?
For example, the headline:
Gingrich cashed in supporting subsidies for big business
Is that factual?
Does that headline in your mind "imply something dishonest or unethical"? If so, how are the author's words responsible for your reaction?
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.