Newt’s past transgressions are history.
It’s never the case in politics, people will smear you with your past acts, regardless of how long ago they were. Obama can already boast of only marrying Michelle. He can also emphasize that Newt has close to nothing in substance past his words to pro-family causes. If transgressions were history, Cain wouldn’t be charged with anything. In politics, they have no limit as to how deep they will dig on you.
The jewelry he bought Calista was paid for with HIS own money..that is his business.
Some things may very well have been bought with his own money, however, he didn’t stand up to charges of corruption, rather he paid off 300,000 and resigned from being Speaker of the House. Not facing up or standing trial to a charge, regardless of whether or not you truly are guilty, raises suspicion of guilt. Obama will, unless he is more foolish than I give him credit for, mention the fact that Newt didn’t face up to the charges, and is likely guilty for ethics violations because he didn’t accept a trial for it, but paid off instead. Obama will also hammer Newt with the fact that Newt should have shown up with nothing to fear if he was innocent, or how should a man who can’t man up to his own charges, and not take responsibility, be placed in a position to veto or sign bills which incur costs on America. If there’s anything Obama does do, he can sling mud. He did it in Chicago, he danced on John McCain, and he can do it on Gingrich, especially for his reckless fiscal behavior, and especially because he can make the demoralizing statement that we selected a man who had three marriages, about a decade or two a pop, and is probably about to start number four. I do love and accept Gingrich’s repentance as a fellow human being, but I do not need to condone him through my vote, to a higher office than he has previously held, when his tendencies for holding political power are terrible, he just doesn’t belong in the oval office. As for corruption, and a bonus to add, he accepted money 1.8 million from Fannie Mae, which raises questions about how willing he could be to face up to whatever is corrupt. Anyways, my concern now is more for congress, just because the presidency is practically screwed.
Newt had 3 consulting firms. He earned his money legally and broke no laws. The amount he received was over a period of years and he had over 30 people working for him. This was all explained earlier. also, on his site..After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.