Going to repeat myself here believing it should have been addressed by Newt, but Bachmann’s accusation of Newt influencing top Republicans went unanswered. Not that I am opposed to Newt, but he has been thorough in countering/clarifying any points against him, and he missed this one completely.
If Newt was just consulting, fine, if he was using his contacts in Washington to get a favored status for his client(s), that should be clarified by Newt first, and not coming from another source to be used by the media against him at a later time(think October Surprise).
That’s the one thing that Newt did not have a good answer for, either in the debate or now.
But I guess nobody’s perfect.
I am not familiar with his influencing senators while he was a private citizen nor what kind of power he had. Nor do I know what side of the table he was on.
He did say he encouraged more regulations during that time.
Newt's said he never lobbied anyone, he was never a registered lobbyist. No one--including the despicably deceitful and demagogic Bachmann--has names of who he tried to influence in Congress and they should be pretty obvious looking at the committees.
He can't get into details of what he did for Freddie because of confidentiality agreements so he can only talk in generalities that he provided a historical viewpoint, that he discussed how to frame the concept of GSEs when talking to conservatives, that Freddie's pursuit of loans for people who can't pay won't work, that he offered strategic advice on communicating on housing and what he's seen work and fail as policy.
He goes back to his time as Speaker to show he did not block Fannie/Freddie reform attempts and the key former chairman, Rick Lazio, backs him up.
Bachmann is shoveling something and, as she once put it, "there's no pony in what (she's) trying to shovel." Over a ten year period, what the Gingrich Group--not Newt as a individual--got, about $160K per year, was modest by consulting standards.
Ron Paul trying to claim Newt lived off tax dollars is bogus. Fannie and Freddie were solvent, independent and did not draw on tax dollars for a bailout until the very end when put under receivership where they remain even now.
Both Paul and Bachmann refuse to accept those GSEs "failed" because of what they were required to do by the Congress in which they serve.
Bachmann in particular acted in the debate as if they never worked despite the decades they clearly functioned as intended.
She is a shameless, bomb-throwing demagogue whether it's "Gardasil causes brain damage" or hiding behind a staffer's empty claim Newt must be paying off Tea Party groups. She's a hypocrite who lies about her own income sources and her benefit from farm subsidies she decries even when her own disclosure documents shows she was lying. She lied about her opposition to raising the debt limit because she did sign the Cut, Cap & Balance pledge which set out conditions for raising the debt limit. She says she "will not rest until ObamaCare is repealed" yet when its funding was up for a vote she's no where to be found.
Campaigns should focus on their ideas. Can anyone articulate Bachmann's "everyone pays something" tax plan? Is her plan to deal with illegals already entrenched markedly different than Newt's? No, it isn't. I think she gets a pass from those mesmerized by her 23 foster children and husband's clinic that "treats" homosexuality. Her candidacy is another con game and hats off to those who saw the signal of hiring Ed Rollins as a bad omen.
When this circus started in the spring she was my choice for VP.