Posted on 11/21/2011 11:32:24 AM PST by Fred
I can’t understand why Newt Gingrich is getting such a pass on his Freddie Mac consulting. He claims to have been a historian for this outfit? FHLMC needs a historian like the U.S.A. needs a Department of Education, like Europe needs a common currency, like … like … I dunno, like Michelle Obama needs another $12,000 accessory.
I sputtered about this on last week’s Radio Derb:
Newt’s trying to ju-jitsu the thing, telling us that his experience as a shill for Freddie Mac gave him valuable insider understanding of governmental affairs. Isn’t that what we want in a candidate, valuable insider understanding of governmental affairs? Quote from Newt, on the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, quote: “It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance, and it didn’t work very well. So having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
He’s not getting a pass. Consulting is what Newt has been doing for years now. He has American Solutions and another think tank organization. Consultants get paid big bucks. He has not charged any higher fees than the average. If there was anything to this the MSM would be all over him. There isn’t.
Yeah, it takes far more creative accounting to enrich one's self with campaign contributions than it does as a 'consultant'.
You call that a defense?
I swear, it's like being attacked by zombies. Their brains are shut down but they still like to bite.
CAIN/NEWT 2012!!
Consulting for what? How to get ethanol subsidies extended? How to get the prescription drug benefit passed? How to talk to pubbies about how wonderful Freddie is and trying to expand homeownership?
Yeah, I'm sure Newt delivered value to his clients. While helping drive the growth of the federal behemoth.
Bill Buckley is rolling in his grave. The National Review is no longer conservative.
True. But the problem here is that, in the Freddie Mac case, Newt took taxpayer money - my money - to be an "historian".
It kind of reminds my of that old movie "On the Waterfront". The corrupt union boss (Lee J. Cobb) appointed all his buddies "delegates" so they could be paid with union dues.
I suppose “everybody” don’t like the only real conservative Michele Bachmann..
AND most don’t like Newt the only sane candidate in the house.. but he “IS” the devil..
BUT he is “OUR” devil..
Most know Romney is a progressive “shill” you know a synthetic Juan McLaim..
AND Perry talks a good game with good credentials but is too palsy with democrats.. probably can be bought..
Cain is an ex-federal reserve VeeP.. so much for his insider credentials..
You don’t get that job on a whim... the boy is connected..
I am left with Ron Paul.. crazy as a junk yard rat..
You know that might be our best bet!!!!!!..
Nah, SCREAM LIAR AT DIRTBOY! HE’S THE SCOUNDREL!
I never said you were a scoundrel.
Can’t you stop misquoting people?
And for the record, I have never been unhappy with his performance while in office. You have pointed out none.
You have lied and misdirected to achieve your goal...again.
And you have yet to debate one point I have raised - about the problems with Newt's good intentions comments about Freddie, and just the fact that if the story had broke and it would have been a Dem, you would have been all over it as proof of Freddie/DC/Dem corruption.
Why am I not suprised that a Newt zombie can only bite and no longer think?
BTW, I have found that those who try to rely on a hypertechnical defense, as you are here, usually have little else to buttress their case.
Why don't you inform readers which candidate you support with your insults, smarmy name calling, and lies? Aren't you proud to tell us whom you support with your chldish name calling and specious assertions?
Perhaps it has not yet occurred to you that when readers find out whom you claim to be supporting with your personal insults of fellow freepers and your specious assertions regarding supporters of candidates you do not support, you are adding to the negatievs of the candidate you do support or at least claim to support. So, tell us, johnnie, which candidate is it that you are adding negatives to by being such an obnoxious voice for this 'candidate'.
“BTW, I have found that those who try to rely on a hypertechnical defense, as you are here, usually have little else to buttress their case.”
Yeah...pointing out the liars in the crowd is pretty hyper, alright. Thanks for playing, Junior.
A lot of fussing about Newt from the parasites on the left. I suspect the socialists don’t want to see him up against the Kommunity Organizer Kenyan.
Meanwhile, where’s Mitt?
“Love the way the Newt-bots go into screaming personal attack mode the second anyone posts anything critical of St Newt around here.”
Don’t mind the criticism. It’s the liars and fakes that draw fire.
He was a consultant, and many of the things he advised them to do are exactly the suggestions that have been made since (for example, particularly with regard to their increasingly risky lending policy). Fannie and Freddie may not have been good things, but they were established entities at that time, and the only question was how to make them work.
They took none of his suggestions. It was all eyewash to make them look good, and is the usual song and dance of every NGO or agency: hire a consultant, get all sorts of ideas from him, thank him and throw all his ideas in the trash.
Huck, my man, you forgot to add, Herman, Michelle, Rick, Rick, Ron, Mitt and Jon.
Obama, on the other hand, is a man of integrity and outstanding character.
You are pathetic and we don't need your sage advice telling us that every pubbie candidate is a slimy low life and none can meet your high standards.
Surprised to hear someone saying that around here, but if that's what you think, there's probably no helping you.
“how is it weasel words to say I pasted the quote verbatim from the linked article?”
Here is what you said right before the quote: “Now here he is in Iowa this week defending Freddie Mac. Quote:...”
The quote didn’t say a damned thing about Freddie Mac. That is how it is weasel words
It always feels like you’re being attacked by zombies when you haven’t made your case. I have serious misgivings about all of the candidates.
You seem to have a problem with Newt working as a consultant for Freddie Mac. You said “I don’t believe for one minute that Freddie and all of the other outfits that paid Newt hansomely only paid him for advice. They paid him for influence, something a former speaker has in spades.” Did he? I thought he was damaged goods, resigned in disgrace, and only still in the discussion because he can speak articulately on the issues (even if he’s on the wrong side sometimes.)
As I heard it, Newt said he worked as a consultant and was frustrated because much of the advice he gave was ignored. Someone at the top of FM said that’s not exactly true. I happen to believe Newt until shown otherwise. I can see them hiring a token Repub to ensure bipartisan blame for a fall while ignoring his advice. I can see Newt’s ego saying “I can help fix this” and “my advice is worth what they are paying.” (If they used it, it might have been.)
Why should I believe them over Newt? Don’t confuse a poorly articulated point on your part with stupidity on the part of your audience.
Meanwhile, you steadfastly avoid anything remotely resembling a substantive debate. But I guess that's what Newt zombies do. Guess what? Your bites won't gain converts on FR, just drive them away.
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.