Posted on 12/12/2011 12:02:53 PM PST by nickcarraway
Think what you will of Newt, but he has never practiced capitalism. His consulting contracts, though perfectly legal, were at best rent-seeking, which we now call crony capitalism. It isn't capitalism at all, though.
Newt has improved in the polls but his so called “front runner status” is based on commentary by the MSM. He has not won any primaries. He hasn't gotten any votes.
I will vote for Newt over Obama any day. However, when he was Speaker of the House Newt was in a great position with great ideas and accomplishments and he self destructed because of his ego.
What Romney did was totally fine in a market economy. Buying companies and making them more competitive is useful for the economy.
What Gingrich did with his “consulting” with Fannie Mae is legal but corrupt in the sense that he was fully participating in a corrupt political system. In fact, he is such an expert at maneuvering that corrupt system that he was able to sidestep the regulations by not registering as a lobbyist.
Please don’t be so stupid as to believe that the huge fees Gingrich got from Fannie Mae was for so-called “consulting.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were dishing out money to every politician who would help their cause. Fannie and Freddie had the biggest pig trough the government has ever seen and Newt was feeding on it more than anyone.
There is no question that Newt Gingrich will perpetuate our corrupt political system as he has for decades. He is the poster child. He was the leader of it. He will allow the politicians in Washington D.C. and around the country to continue their unholy alliance with special interests (like Fannie and Freddie.)
As Sarah Palin has said, crony capitalism is probably our biggest problem. Our politicians are serving their sugar-daddy special interests, not the people. Until we clean out the corruption, it will be almost impossible to fix our system, economy and country.
DON’T BE STUPID: NEWT IS CORRUPT AND WILL PERPETUATE A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.
.
“Think what you will of Newt, but he has never practiced capitalism.”
I’m wondering what your definition of capitalism is. He wrote books for sale, spoke at various functions for fees, consulted in various areas, etc., etc.
I’ve done 2 out of the 3 mentioned for a profession for decades. I consider myself a capitalist. Most conservatives I think would agree. What, he consulted for a quasi government agency & all the sudden he’s not a capitalist? You do realize, he made considerably more money in his other endeavors right?
Is it your contention that once out of office, folks are to have nothing to do w/ the government again? That seems very anti-capitalist to me by it’s very definition.
You know, you can’t ask a question AND then pretend you already waited for an answer and didn’t get one. This is the internet, where when you write stuff someone has to read it to respond.
Why do YOU think that Freddie and Fannie paid him $1.6 million dollars. Do you think his degree as a History Major made him particularly useful in helping them figure out how to provide better customer service to their mortgagees? It would be ludicrous to pretend they hired him for ANY reason other than to help them figure out how to best win the legislative game. That was his expertise.
And you don’t have to be a lobbyist to help the company figure out how to work the politicians. He would simply have to counsel them on who to talk to, what to say, how to pull the right strings. He doesn’t have to actually introduce them; he just has to tell them what to do, and then they can drop his name if necessary.
Your assumption that “hooking up” can only mean lobbying is actually silly, since “hooking up” is actually NOT lobbying. Lobbying is if Newt shows up and tries to convince legislators to do something for the companies. Newt could actually introduce the firm lobbyists to the elected officials and never actually lobby. But that’s not what I said — I simply said that he was hired by them to do a job, and he got paid $1.6 million, and the job he would do that would be worth that much would be to help them with their legislative needs, and he apparently was good at it because they paid him a lot of money.
But I’d love to here what YOU think he did for them that was worth $1.6 million to them.
The sooner everyone wakes up to the fact that Mitt Romney has no chance of winning a state he didn't win four years ago, the sooner we can dump a RINO government hack like McNewt Gingrich.
You really don't know what you're talking about. What profit is there to gain by purchasing a healthy, profitable company and destroying it? That doesn't even make sense.
There are a lot of reasons for criticizing Mitt Romney. His work with Bain is not one of them.
“Why do YOU think that Freddie and Fannie paid him $1.6 million dollars.”
I already said what I think. None of my business unless it was ilegal or I see some documentation of allegations of wrong doing. Until then, I can only guess...but I don’t...because I don’t think I know everything, as you apparently do.
In other words, Pal, I Jess Duntno. and neither do you.
No, I really DO know what I’m talking about because I’ve BEEN there multiple times.
Both of them have too much baggage.
“Care to actually add something intellectual and factual to your little rant? If not, go away.”
Blind fool. You’ll find out in the long run.
I’ll take that as a “no, you don’t care to add anything intellectual or factual” to your rant - because you’ve now ranted twice, thrown around terms like duplicitous snake and fool - and have presented zip zero nada to back up your childish rhetoric.
So, I ask again, do you have anything INTELLECTUAL or FACTUAL to back up your claims. Duplicitous snake and fool are words with meaning, and if there is anything to back up what you said, you should be more than happy to provide it.
Now remind you, duplicitous snake does not merely mean an imperfection or a mistake. Fool does not mean merely mistaken. To back up your incendieary rhetoric is a high bar, and I don’t think you’re up to it.
I feel like saying your an unhappy ole prude b-tch - but I would never say that. All I’ll say is that you have made charges you do not seem to be able to substantiate.
I think that it was Russell Kirk in the “The Conservative Mind” who said that ideology is a poor substitute for faith. The one thing that most everyone is missing is that Newt has become a Catholic. And Catholic thought, contrary to popular opinion, can’t be pigeonholed very easily. Everyone is quick to bring up Newt’s past, and that is fair to a point, but it’s what a man’s opinion of everything is that really counts. Has anyone really looked into Mormonism lately?
Isn’t his real religion Tofflerism?
That was a while back, like 1994. And as far as I know there is no such branch of the Catholic Church. Lets’ just imagine for a moment that one of the potential candidates is a Muslim. Would that matter to anyone? I think that it would matter to millions of Americans. So if Willard Romney is a practicing Mormon don’t ya think we should be asking ourselves just what Mormons believe? We know what Catholics are supposed to believe, and it’s not Tofflerism( whatever that is). So lets’ hear about the other planets and how Jesus is not the son of God and some other Mormon stuff before we dig up what Newt is supposed to have espoused 16 years ago.
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.