Skip to comments.Giving Newt a Pass
Posted on 11/21/2011 11:32:24 AM PST by Fred
I cant 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 weeks Radio Derb:
Newts 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. Isnt 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 didnt work very well. So having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
‘Freddie Mac’ without an historian is like a fish without a bicycle.
Historical perspective? Institutional memory? Before the computer and before policy & procedure manuals - employees with seniority were valued for their ‘institutional’ memories. IBM cards without the holes.
Newt, did you pay ANY attention over the last fifteen years? Or are you just trying to perform some damage control?
No pass for Newt. I won’t vote for him.
OK, Newt defenders, defend this Romney-grade flip flopping and situational ethics.
I don’t want Newt as POTUS. Yes I understand she was incredibly brave with an incredibles knack for survival against the Aliens, but Ripley had a big hand in that don’t forget. When Hicks said “Why don’t you put her in chaarge?” I don’t think he was taking about POTUS. Plus Newt (aka Rebecca) is still too young for the office.
“Isnt that what we want in a candidate, valuable insider understanding of governmental affairs?”
That’s what I want. Someone who has shown us how to ramrod a balanced budget, help create jobs, know where to cut government jobs, cut welfare, kick ass and take names. You know, useless shit like that. Things they have already demonstrated IN THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
Or we could disqualify them for what they have allegedly done OUTSIDE the office they held.
Orrr...we could let someone have a few years of OJT. And hope for change.
Like u were really goning to wink! wink!
u obama boys are good.
How would you know, newbie.
Consider the alternatives.
I think the question few have really failed to consider asking is;
“After conservatives are through destroying all their options as well as chances, who will be left standing?
The answer to that one is; “The one who was most overlooked.” (Romney)
Listen to all the General public pundits, it’s almost unanimous. Even on FOX.
They can't and they won't try. All they will do is flame us that see through the hypocrite.
This is nothing compared to what's coming if the idiot should get the nomination.
John Derbyshire... Isn’t he the pro-aboprt guy who supported Giuliani in ‘08 and is an admirer of Ron Paul?
Well whaddya know, he is! But I’m sure he has no agenda. /sarc
Look at all the Mittwits coming out of the woodpile to hate on Newt.
McCain was considered down and out and he came back. One of those who peaked early in this race will probably come back.
I just don't see Newt as the candidate we need now.
You calling me a Mittwitt, jackass? Call me that directly. Or slink off...
Because standing in line on the GOP Establishment plantation for 40+ years is WAY more important then leadership skills, Conservative principals or ethics!
It’s pretty obvious for the money Newt got from Freddie Mac that he wasn’t a “historian”. The guy was a defacto lobbyest. That said, I could really care less because I’d still support him over Romney 1000 times if he were the nomineee.
I say this as a Cain supporter.
Newt is a liar and a creep.
It merely annoys the Newt Cult to have any hint of reality interfere with their worshiping at the Shrine of St Newt
“OK, Newt defenders, defend this Romney-grade flip flopping and situational ethics.”
Let me start by saying that you not only changed the quote to suit your purpose, but only an intentional liar and bum would do it this way. You wouldn’t know what ethics were if they bit you on the ass.
YOU wrote that Newt said “Every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities.
That Looks like a complete sentence. First word capitalized, period at the end. It was meant to though, wasn’t it Skippy?
Here’s the quote;
Well, first of all, if you can do it in a way that is financially sound, every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities for people whether theyre African American, or Latino or of any background so the idea that youre thinking about how can we help people learn how to budget, how can we help people learn how to save, how could you help them learn how to maintain a house on a low income would strike me, for more people, would be good things to do, not bad things to do and Im happy to say I made public speeches to the National Association of Home Builders.”
Why the cheating, lying, low down rotten change in what he said? And what’s wrong with what he REALLY said?
There’s your answer, Skippy. Newt supporter or not, let’s not play with the truth like that, OK?
So is Romney waiting outside in his car.
What I cannot figure out is why does anyone in the GOP think nominating either of the two candidates, Romney or Gingrich, the 0 Campaign PR machine can most credibly paint as part of the DC Establishment in the minds of independent voters is going to work?
With the vast majority of Americans angry at professional politicians of both parties, why would the GOP want to nominate either of the two candidates an incumbent President can most easily position himself as the outsider against?
You are just so blinded by Newt's alleged brilliance that you overlook the stench of the Beltway opportunism around him. Some of us are still conservative enough to have a problem with that. You apparently are not.
Oh, and maybe you could try providing a link?
This could either be a good thing or the precursor to a disaster. Which would mean record low turn out at the polls.
Can we afford to be so fickle this time? Absolutely not. And I see you in particular, are well aware of the consequences and are more engaged than I have ever seen you in quite some time. Hopefully that will run off on others.
You owe me an apology, sis. I cut and pasted FROM THE ARTICLE. If you take issue with the article, POST A LINK so we all can compare.
I absolutely see no problem for Newt the citizen. If we are stupid enough to elect politicians who rush to give our (Not Theirs) money away. Why should citizens not participate. The amount of money Newt received over 8 years is less than a weeks wages for the Democrats (Gorelick for example) who were not producing anything except more ways to fleece us.
I can’t see why Ron Paul isn’t institutionalized.
Because standing in line on the GOP Establishment plantation for 40+ years is WAY more important then leadership skills, Conservative principals or ethics!”
THE STORY OF THE 1990s JOBS AND PROSPERITY BOOM IS THE STORY OF THE FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR TURNAROUND IN THE U.S. FISCAL OUTLOOK THANKS TO NEWT GINGRICHS LEADERSHIP
When Newt Gingrich was sworn in as the first Republican Speaker of the House in forty years in January 1995, the Congressional Budget Office projected that over the next decade the cumulative federal budget deficits would total $2.7 trillion. Shortly after Gingrich left office in January 1999, CBO projected that over the next decade that federal surpluses would total over $2.3 trillion a four-year turnaround in the financial outlook of the United States of $5 trillion. A comparable improvement in the U.S fiscal outlook today would total over $8 trillion (as % of GDP).
THE RESULTS OF NEWT GINGRICHS FOUR YEARS OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP:
Eleven Million New Jobs Created By the American People. In four years, the national unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.2%
Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year).
Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s.
Dynamic Entrepreneurial and Investment Growth from the Biggest Capital Gains Tax Cut in History.
Venture capital spending grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs.
Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty. Within five years of the passage of bipartisan welfare reform, child poverty had dropped by nearly a quarter, child poverty in single-parent households reached an all-time low, and nearly two-thirds of those who left welfare were gainfully employed.
Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down During the Balanced Budget Years.
During his four year Speakership, Gingrich led a reduction in the share of the public debt for every worker in the amount of $2,484. (Compared to an increase of $26,302 per worker under Obama.)
He basically has feasted at the Beltway trough since leaving the House, and we are supposed to believe that he cares about reforming it?
WHAT?? Newt single-handedly changed the nation with the Contract with America in 1994. Listen, you have a right not to support him, but don’t you dare minimize his contribution to the Republican Party.
The eager wide-eyed expression on Newt's face is priceless.
I’ll wait for your apology. Man up.
Newt’s a doer not a talker. He’s the only person who actually pushed through balanced budgets.
I just don’t see Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, etc. being able to deliver.
I’m attending the GOP debate tomorrow night, so I’ll see what I can get out of the candidates.
I posted from it. Your issue is with it.
It’s just like the cartoon upthread. And look out the window in the cartoon to see how it ends.
“READ. THE. ARTICLE. I posted from it. Your issue is with it.”
I suppose I should have expected weasel words.
if you can do it in a way that is financially sound, every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities for people
We have BANKS to figure that out, or at least we used to until the government started telling them to lend money to people who did not meet bank standards in the name of the racial fairness that Newt is extolling here. We don't need Washington wonks or NGOs to expand home ownership - they made the problem worse. Newt takes a government-centric view of things, and that is exactly the opposite of what we need.
Not true at all. Both are smart guys but when it comes to politicking Clinton rolled over Newt like he was an amateur just brought up from the town council. Newt's own personal failings at the time didn't help things but even without that he still got rolled. I wouldn't vote for Newt unless I was so convinced staying home would turn the election that I would vomit and drag myself to the polls.