« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt was paid hush money by Freddie Mac

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2011 at 02:19 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it. …Someone else said “All that needs to happen for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

In the Election of 2010, tea partiers and conservatives sent the loudest message associated with the Grand Old Party of Lincoln since 1948. Hence, the aversion to nominating another McCain Establishment-type named Mitt Romney as the Republican Party standard bearer to replace President Barack Obama after next year’s election.

That aversion is so strong that even the man that lead the GOP out of a forty year Mosaic-like exodus from control of the House of Representatives was an afterthought when the campaign began several months ago.

Sadly, those with the best tea partier credentials in the race have proven such great disappointments that master debater Newt Gingrich now stands as the leading anti-Romney front-runner, despite his numerous non-conservative machinations (Attack on J.C. Watts, embrace of Jesse Jackson, Era of Reagan is over, Cap and trade Pelosi partnership, Paul Ryan as right-wing social engineer, etc ad infinitum) that have accumulated since his ascension to the Speakership in 1995.

That Newt rose to his present lofty poll positions in Iowa and nationally despite the above, even before the revelations of his Freddie Mac ties were revealed, is a testament to just how stark have been the flaws exposed in Michelle Bachmann(reckless with the facts), Rick Perry (foot-in-mouth disease) and Herman Cain (gaps in knowledge).

Tea partiers hold out hope that one of the above can earn a second chance at a first impression, but in the meantime, what are conservatives to conclude about a Gingrich that was paid over a million dollars by a major contributor to the housing bubble and ongoing Great Depression II?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored entities (GSEs) that distorted the housing market at the behest of President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party beginning in the mid to late 1990s by requiring banks and other lending institutions to lower mortgage loan standards so that lower income families could buy homes.

Many of us have wondered why Republican control of the White House and Congress for six years in the 2000 naughts didn’t reverse the policies. Yes, Democrats led by Representatives Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate fought against change, including filibuster threats. Yes, Republicans including President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain warned of the danger of Fannie/Freddie policies that also included the mortgage-backed securities that later became the toxic assets that TARP never removed, but we don’t recall any conservative cacophony of opposition before Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and the financial crisis in late 2008.

Now we know why: Fannie and Freddie paid hush money to Newt Gingrich and other Republicans.

There is no problem with one cashing in on their name, power and influence, perse. There is no problem with “lobbying”, i.e. exercising one’s First Amendment rights, per se. There is no problem with giving advice in exchange for monetary compensation, per se.

But what one is being compensated for does matter.

Newt declares that he didn’t lobby for Freddie Mac. Fine and dandy. Voluminous are the things that most people don’t do. Newt declares that his advice to Freddie Mac was to stop guaranteeing bad loans. Wonderful.

Problem is that we can find no evidence that he ever uttered  a word in public against his GSE benefactor before the housing bubble burst.

Newt was not paid to give advice to Freddie Mac nor to lobby. Democrats were paid to lobby for them. Newt was paid to prevent him from lobbying against Freddie Mac as he earned his exorbitant fees.

Oh yes, I know that inside the Beltway his fees are considered reasonable. Problem is that the Beltway isn’t reasonable. Hence the tea partier movement that Newt has never been a part of.

Payments to Newt gave cover to Freddie Mac.

Now Newt wants conservatives to trust him to get rid of Freddie Mac?

Open letter to Rick Perry: Get your A-game on and but quick.

Mike DeVine

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Unified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Newt was an idiot for taking Fannie Mae’s cash…..

    Newt should have been beating the drums for the dismantling of Fannie Mae,
    not greasing the Republican skids in DC for propping it up.

    This is just one reason why Newt cannot be our nominee….

  • andystone

    If any sitting members of Congress took money from Freddie Mac and then sabotaged the legislation in question, that’s corruption. Gingrich was however not in public office while he consulted for them and had no legislative power.

    If you’re suggesting there were members of Congress in 2000-2008 whom Gingrich persuaded to support Freddie Mac, where’s the proof for that? Not even the NYT, who “cited” anonymous sources within Freddie Mac for its story, said anything about Gingrich doing more than working on a couple of white papers (which were never finished).

    >Newt declares that his advice to Freddie Mac was to stop guaranteeing bad loans. Wonderful. Problem is that we can find no evidence that he ever uttered a word in public against his GSE benefactor

    If you don’t have a problem with him consulting them, I don’t see why he absolutely needed to hold public speeches against them at the same time. A consultant is asked to advise on specific issues, and not given full access to financial statements, business plans etc.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I pray that he can gain traction and make a comeback.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    when he should have been.

    Would it have been alright for Newt to accept consulting fees from Planned Parenthood? ACORN? eh?

  • independentmike

    Newt is the guy who was largely responsible for forcing Clinton to hold spending below revenue for the last 3 years of his presidency, enabling us to balance the budget and to start paying down the national debt. Newt also led the charge on welfare reform, cutting taxes, and several other conservative initiatives. Just look at the ratings he received from major conservative groups while he was in Congress:

    – Received 100% rating from National Right to Life Committee for 1997
    – Received 100% rating from National Tax Limitation Committee for 1995-1996
    – Received 90% rating from National Taxpayers Union for 1995-1997
    – Received 100% rating from National Federation of Independent Businesses for 1995-1997
    – Received 93% rating from Christian Coalition for 1995-1998
    – Received 85% rating from American Conservative Union for 1996-1998
    – Received 100% rating from NRA for 1993-1994

    I don’t mind Newt’s support for an individual mandate for healthcare because he’s talking about a market-based approach that would include individual vouchers, deregulation, and tort reform. That is very different from Obamacare.

  • andystone

    Freddie Mac and Planned Parenthood: PP is aiming to kill the unborn, Freddie Mac is supposed to help people get a mortgage.The problem with Freddie and Fannie was not what they were trying to achieve, but how they went about doing it (with a good prodding from Democrats to do things wrong).

  • wbf

    I agree with Gamecock.

    Here is another take: http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/11/21/you-see-the-thing-about-newt/

    One of the posts under this article at damdirtyrino surprised me with information about Newt Gingrich that I had never heard that disturbs me very much.

  • izoneguy

    What have you done for me lately?

  • Scope

    Here is a pretty extensive article proving that the budgets during the Clinton’s years in office were not in fact balanced. The last Clinton budget passed, which ended on October 1 of Bush’s first year in office, ended with a deficit, and is partly why Bush gets blamed for squandering the so-called Clinton surpluses.

    If I am not mistaken, Gingrich has been taking credit, on the campaign trail, for helping to “balance the budget” in his role as Speaker, but as you can see from the above article, the budget was never balanced. It was made to appear that way through accounting gimmicks and tricks.

  • lepelerin

    is he sounds too much like Bush 2. People can’t get past that impression. It might be his accent but he sounds like a Bush clone to this northerner.

    I’ll bet in Newt!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    before he was a traitor.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Your same argument re Freddie re intentions vs operations could be made to defend all liberal government spending.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I don’t believe Northern bigotry trumps pocketbooks.

  • independentmike

    Regardless of one’s views about the genuineness of Clinton-era balanced budget, the fact remains that Newt played a key role in holding spending below revenue. Remember that Newt forced a government shutdown to get Clinton to make more compromises on spending.

    Thanks in large part to Newt’s efforts, spending under Clinton rose by only 9%, the slowest rate of spending growth in the 50 years (slower than under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., etc.).

  • independentmike

    Regardless of one?s views about the genuineness of the Clinton-era balanced budget, the fact remains that Newt played a key role in holding spending below revenue. Remember that Newt forced a government shutdown to get Clinton to make more compromises on spending.

    Thanks in large part to Newt?s efforts, spending under Clinton rose by only 9%, the slowest rate of spending growth in the last 50 years (slower than under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., etc.).

  • independentmike

    And I might add that I say these things as someone who is NOT a fan of Bill Clinton. I think the Senate should have removed him from office and that he disgraced his office in several ways.

    But the fact remains that under Clinton federal spending rose more slowly than it has during any other presidency in the last 50 years (it rose by only 9% during Clinton’s eight years), and I think Newt Gingrich deserves a lot of credit for that fact–not all the credit, but a lot of it.

  • Scope

    But I have a question? I thought the definition of a lobbyist is to try to effect legislation. If Gingrich was in fact working with anyone in Washington, whether it was to do something, or not do something, isn’t that still working as a lobbyist.

    After the “accounting irregularities” were found at Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae back around 2003, there were at least 5-6 bills introduced to try to rein in the out of control shennanigans going on with those entities, but, not one of them ever made it out of committee. Unfortunately that was when the R’s were in control of the House and Senate, when serious reforms could have but never were enacted. Newt was working for Freddie from 1999 through 2008, in one capacity or another. The years with the highest sub-prime loans given were from 2005-2007, from what I’ve read.

    It is also very interesting that when Bush was pushing for Medicare Part D, around 2002?, Newt was “consulting” for medical related companies, to the tune of $37 million in payments. Some of them were pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer. One of the companies that he did consulting for was GE (General Electric)Healthcare. I’ve read that some staffers in Washington said they did in fact receive phone calls from Gingrich pushing for the entitlement to be passed. He was the speaker at one of the last meetings they House Republicans had right before the vote. Gingrich advised passing the bill.

    If it walks like a lobbyist, and quacks like a lobbyist, it just might be a lobbyist, not matter what you call yourself.

    Watch Perry on the hot seat on Fox tonight at 6PM.

  • izoneguy

    I saw that as well….

    You see, the thing about Newt . . .

    I liked this paragraph:

    And, if you see what Newt?s doing now through the lens of addiction ? which is essentially how he framed the issues he had in his life until he achieved his ?moment of clarity? ? all of his explanations for the troubling aspects in his record have the hollow ring of rationalization and denial. Suddenly, the explanation that he was paid millions of dollars by Freddie Mac for his perspective as a student of history sounds an awful lot like an addict?s insistence that there?s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was found passed out in an alley and that it has nothing at all to do with his heroin problem.

  • Tbone

    Bigot.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the generally accepted understanding. One legal definition of activities requires registration as a lobbyist (I oppose all these laws except for disclosure because lobbying is a glorified name for free speech attempts to have Congress address grievances, ie First Amendment). The demonization of the term lobbyist has mainly been a leftist diversionary tactic to get people to think that Democrats look after regular average citizens and that Republicans only care about so-called “special interests.”

    But all three require overt acts. Newt was an independent contractor hired by Freddie for consultation advice.

    Here’s hoping Perry can make a comeback so we don’t get stuck with Newt or Mitt.

  • andystone

    since 1970, Fannie Mae since 1938, and the first GSE was created in 1916. If they were going to kill the economy, they’d have done it many times over by now. The issue is with mismanagement in recent years.

  • Scope

    for Perry’s hot seat interview. When you see Brit Hume, you can guess what is coming. He has been brutal in some of his commentary against Perry. I believe he is a Romney guy.

  • andystone

    you’re comparing a guy who once consulted for a company that later got bailed out with someone who led armed forces in combat against his own country. Then later you’ll take offence if someone, say, calls your favorite candidate “stupid”.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/11/21/2344/#comment-11572

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Clinton. It was mismanaged via regulations and laws that all could see in the late 90s and 2000s and that many conservatives spoke out against. Newt was mute and paid to be.

  • center77

    how in the world can we spend the last three years complaining about Washington, Obama, and even the Republican establishment, but when it comes time to try and save the country, so many people are willing to support crooked insiders, former lobbyist, and more of the same Republican establishment types.
    Cain is a former lobbyist, who has endorsed Romney, has deep insider ties, and a shaky past we do not yet know enough about.
    Romney is about as insider & establishment as one can get, he is not that far to the right of Obama.
    Newt is the ultimate insider, who has banked millions off being a lobbyist for some of the entities that tanked out economy.
    But then we have a guy who is gearing up to take a real sledgehammer to the insider, establishment, and crooked politician base, he has a plan that sounds like a dream, he has a record of being true to himself, and he has enough experience to make him more presidential than Obama even after Obama serves one term and he has not served any.
    Some conservatives do not like Rick Perry because of some false notion that he gave free stuff to illegals, but they forgive Newt for snuggling with FREDDIE MAC! They condemn Perry for the vaccine thing (even though he admitted he was wrong, and not one person had to take the shot) but they did not see a problem with a man who sat on TV and lied about knowing the Perry camp leaked information his camp should have come clean about in the first place.
    A folk, Perry is the candidate that we have all been talking about, and he can get the independents because he has the record to point to. He has created half the economic activity this country has seen since Obama has been elected.
    Is there something going on that I just do not see? You mean to tell me my fellow conservatives are content to go with a guy just because he is seen as being a strong debater. The Tea Party is now holding the slick politicians to a higher regard than the true conservatives.
    The debates are going to matter little if words are not backed up in past deeds. Perry only has to tell his story to prove Obama is wrong. He started out poor, worked his way to where he is. He has the record on Jobs to show liberalism is not the answer, but some want to go with the guy who spent a good portion of his political life using liberalism to govern his state.

    I feel like this election is the twilight zone, what gives.

  • determinedconservative

    At the debate, or roundtable, or whatever it was, where they had the pumpkins and stuff on the table, he spoke approvingly of John Smith requiring everyone to work if they wanted to eat–even if they had “paid their own way” with money they brought with them from England. That sounded socialist to me!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    his distant past actions.

  • windwaker24

    nt

  • lucasblack

    Perry is a Tom Delay Texas Republican. Newt wasn’t in office during the time you are talking about. Tom Delay and his allies were. When Newt was running the place, there was a balanced budget and welfare was reformed.
    No more Tom Delay Texas Republicans! Support Newt Gingrich.

  • heraklios

    We’re still not voting for Mitt Romney no matter how much you tear down the others….

  • lucasblack

    He sounds like Tom Delay 2 – that’s even scarier to me.

  • lucasblack

    Perry can’t even get support from many Republicans; how are we supposed to believe he can get support from Independents? People could have supported Tim Pawlenty, but apparently he was not angry enough and they were busy chasing after Bachmann instead. Mike Pence could have run (and would have probably gotten my support) but he went for IN-Gov instead.

  • andystone

    sayonara, ’cause you’re not hanging around here much longer with that kind of language.

  • lucasblack

    John Smith was trying to save the colony from starving to death, if you know the history of Jamestown.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    And I am for anybody but Mitt-Newt-Paul-Santorum as of 5 minutes ago and wished Perry well in this column!

  • andystone

    Perry is in cahoots with Al Gore, Cain is a sexual predator, Romney belongs in the wrong party, and you might as well go vote for BHO.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    have been anathema to conservatism. We don’t give people the nomination as a reward for distant past acts, no matter how great. And Newt was a great conservative leader at one time that achieved historic, good results.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    rule, they had operated as a commune. Many men were not working because they got an equal share. John Smith changed policy and divided up the land between families and production increased so much that they had a surplus and even started feeding the Indians!

    Rush Limbaugh reads this story every Thanksgiving week btw.

  • andystone

    what Newt is saying. The concept of GSEs is valid, and he wants to undo what Clinton did and get Fannie and Freddie working properly again. He says that his consulting advice was on those lines (stop subprime lending, help people learn how to budget and save instead), and I haven’t seen anyone contradict it, not even the NYT’s anonymous sources.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    himself. Newt has moved to the left.

  • center77

    its the media, insider, establishment that has screwed us time and time again, but they sell these candidates to us, they have that kind of power whether people want to admitt it or not, my problem is people know whats going on, but still choose to go with the above metioned bad guys. But I would argue, they said the same thing about Reagan, but not only did Reagan gain the trust of the Republican establishment, he gained the so called Reagan Democrats. People have to stop looking to the polls, Carter was destroying Reagan before he was nominated, but Reagan landslided him. Perry has the record, and experience to get the independents, he only runs 4 points behind Obama in some polls, and thats without at leaste the right behind him. If he is nominated, and the Republican establishment would get behind his take it to Washington message, we would see a 1980/84 type landslide. The thing Obama wants most is to run against Romney, we know this because he the democrats say they fear him. They cannot stand Perry, because they do not want to run against his successful job record. Its that simple.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    at the time when many conservatives were trying to stop what Freddie was doing that led to the Great Depression II we are still in. It doesn’t matter what his advice was. It was the fact that Freddie could blunt Republican attacks in Congress by pointing to Newt on their payroll.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    And yes, the grass (Pence) is always greener on the other side. Perry used to be the greener grass. Patience. Indies have abandoned Obama in massive poll droves and in election 2010. Our nominee will get compared to Obama’s depression economy and will win.

  • txpat

    Newt paid for his Tiffany line of credit?
    What was arrogant was thinking you can play Washington games and expect conservatives to vote for him.
    Wake up conservatives, slick talkers doesn’t mean they make a good President.

  • wbf

    nt

  • andystone

    And go look at Newt’s website, I don’t see anything leftist up there.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    How the Beltway defines smart is that one is good liar contemporaneously.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Perry is clearly the most reliable conservative in the race. He needs to give written speeches laying out his vision and policy Rx’s. He isn’t very good speaking off the cuff. So? Moses needed Aaron!

  • andystone

    over Freddie Mac, not to end it. And let’s be serious, nobody foresaw the housing crisis (except for a couple of analysts that nobody listened to), so it’s quite unfair to blame Newt for it. Especially since, if Freddie Mac would have followed the advice he says he gave, they’d have stayed out of the subprime crisis.

    I mean, in general your argument is based on what Newt did not say, and the very big, unproven assumption that he’d have said something different if Freddie Mac wasn’t among his clients.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Pretty sure I made the smart choice now backing Perry, who I will be maxing out for this cycle, most of it going into the primary given the hordes of candidaters playing the goldilocks routine while Romney runs his hands together and slithers “ehhhhxcellent”.

    Look past the distractions and Perry is clearly the man to defeat Romney.

    Any of our candidates will defeat Obama; Romney is the real threat to conservatism.

  • jakeofalltrades

    which I adopt by reference.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Could the South Carolina Gamecock finally lean to Perry or even endorse him for the duration? Column coming soon.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    God bless

  • onemovoter

    It’s on the personal side of Perry. I’m inviting everyone else to read it and comment.

    The Private Life of Governor Rick Perry

    Enjoy

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Newt and many others. I don’t. Many factors coalesced to cause the housing bubble and subsequent Depression and I have written extensively about it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    His public silence against Freddie should he have had the notion, and whether such a beltway denizen can change his ways and end the GSEs. The whole tea partier movement insists on reliable change agents.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I did wait 3 days to write this column because I don’t like primary fights, but I really do not want another Ford, Bush41, Dole, McCain or even Bush43 (The latter on domestic issues) that would squander the tea partier movement, 2010 election and a chance for the radical change we need to save America’s economy. I don’t trust Newt nearly as much as Perry but we must beat Obama.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    comment soon afterward.

  • texabama

    that anyone would be buying this Washington outsider schtick that he’s currently touting. He acts like he’s been a university professor and is just giving us history lessons on Washington and how it’s supposed to be run. Just forget that he was the ultimate Congress critter (Speaker of the House!), lobbyist and think tank contributor. Next he’ll be telling us is primary residence is in Kansas.

  • texabama

    Too many people are just plain scared of Texas and Texans. Yeah, it’s a whole other country!

  • heraklios

    Anyway, Newt is the strongest conservative left who has a chance to get the nomination so let’s not tear him up now because any alternative will be much worse.

  • texabama

    I’m tired of hearing how smart Newt is and how well he debates. Who exactly will the President be debating? From what I’ve seen all the President needs to do is stand at a podium with a teleprompter. How about we choose someone with real beliefs and genuine concern for people and their economic well-being.

  • determinedconservative

    …but I’ll admit I don’t know much about that history. Sure seemed though when Newt was talking like he was kind of playing class warfare, talking down rich “aristocrats” because they wanted to use money to buy food instead of working for it. I believe in honest hard work, don’t get me wrong; but if we start saying people who are wealthy can’t use their wealth to buy food but have to work for it, that just makes me uneasy, like it’s going down a socialist road.

    I will admit though to already being wary of Newt after the loveseat cuddle with Pelosi, the “right wing social engineering” crack, the longtime support for a health care mandate, and now the revelations about Freddie Mac. This just seemed more confirmation that he is more into controlling people’s lives and interfering with the economy than I am comfortable with.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Beat Obama!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Its just that many were not carrying their load as many were starving to death.

    They all paid their way to fund the trip from Europe. So he is not talking about taking from the rich.

  • theredrider

    Seriously?

  • theredrider

    that he wanted there to be an individual mandate for health insurance. He wrote about it in his book, “Winning the Future” and spoke about in a videotaped interview.

    Newt has been a flip-flopper since 1974 when he ran for Congress as an environmentalist (more liberal) alternative to a conservative Democrat. He’s flip-flopped on nearly everything in his Contract with America. He’s switched religions, changed out his wife a few times.

    Total flip-flopper.

  • heraklios

    We wear blue and lost 54-3 to the ‘cocks but wait til next yr.

  • theredrider

    He was a part of Washington. The Freddie Mac connection is going to bite him hard once the information trickles down to the average Republican voter, who still thinks of Newt as a conservative.

  • 1bunny

    what is going to be dug up on him. This video was in a US News article referencing a Politico story. It is set to Old MacDonald Had a Farm. It is hilarious. I was surprised at what was in the video. I knew he bounced checks (that has been mentioned) but to the IRS? I think the more people find out about him the more they will be surprised. We think we have heard it all but we haven’t. I think his arrogance will wear on people.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68524.html

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the above. We stink.

  • snowshooze

    Being under contract as a Consultant.
    I would think any Consultant probably is required to keep his trap shut for some period of time.
    Just a wild guess though.

  • andystone

    in the ’90s, and that he was wrong:

    http://www.newt.org/answers#Mandate

  • andystone

    following the second part of “gamecock” with what follows it doesn’t sound that great to my ears. If that’s how Gamecocks opponents usually refer to them, then it’s fine, I guess…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    He knows the beltway game and that Dems were paid were more than him to lobby. He knows that they were paying him for bi-partisan cover and he let himself be a tool of a leftist entity.

  • lucasblack

    I don’t want an ‘outsider’, I want someone who knows that the hell they are doing. Newt knows Washington, but I don’t think he’s captured by it – certainly not based on the way the elite in the GOP punditocracy are reacting to the thought of him getting the nomination.

  • lucasblack

    I’m not scared of Texas, but I have no use for people like Tom Delay, George W Bush and Joe Barton who have so badly damaged the GOP’s brand. Send some better Republicans to Washington, Texas! I don’t mind your Senators at all.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

    “Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ’60s and ’70s out in California ? and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.” There’s no question they were organic vegetables. “Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That’s right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work!” They nearly starved!

    “It never has worked! What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years ? trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it ? the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future,” such as that we’re enduring now. “‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition…’” this is Bradford. “‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing ? as if they were wiser than God,’ Bradford wrote.

    “‘For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense,’” without being paid for it, “‘that was thought injustice.’ Why should you work for other people when you can’t work for yourself?” That’s what he was saying. ” The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford’s community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

    “Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? ‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.’ … Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph’s suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the ‘seven years of plenty’ and the ‘Earth brought forth in heaps.’ (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.

  • 1bunny

    after the Family Forum emphasizes the addiction referenced in “You see, the thing about Newt”…

    Quote…”Gingrich?s biggest strength as a candidate is his understanding of history and his ability to relate it to modern day issues. It also doesn?t hurt to be full of witty one-liners like the one about Occupy Wall Street. The problem is that, when you take those things away, do you really know why he believes what he says he believes? When you add that to the latest controversy over his consulting company receiving millions of dollars to consult organizations like Freddie Mac and a number of healthcare companies, you are left with doubt.

    When talking about one of his weaknesses, Gingrich informed the audience that a friend of his had given him two books that Alcoholics Anonymous uses in their recovery program. Gingrich said that he never had a drinking problem, but found himself empty even though he was very successful in life.

    While one would have to read between the lines to realize it, Gingrich admitted on Saturday night that he was drunk on power. While the books may have helped transform him, one has to wonder if the office of the presidency is the best place for someone who has personally struggled holding such a powerful office. It would be like a recovering alcoholic owning a liquor store or becoming president of a beer company.

    After the Family Leader forum, I?m not really sure what Gingrich?s worldview is. Does he have a phenomenal grasp on American history? Yes. Is he a gifted debater? Yes. Do I know why he believes what he believes? Not really”…
    end quote.

    I am even more convinced that Newt can’t be trusted to stick to conservative principles. I don’t know what his core convictions are or if power would go to his head again and he would betray conservatives once more.

  • gator_hoo

    Even though it looks like both of our teams are on the wrong side of SEC history this year, glad to have you on Team Perry.

    I agree with your comments. People like to focus on Perry’s inability to debate (which while true, is overplayed to some extent, even early on he had good moments as well as bad ones), but I am focused on Romney’s (and also Newt’s) inability to be conservative.

  • Tbone

    Texans scare.

    No hats, all prattle.

  • gator_hoo

    There are 2 big hits on Perry

    1) His debate gaffes – which if he wins the nomination will be well behind him when it comes to the general election. Also, there is plenty of ammo to use against Obama if they try that attack.

    2) His immigration stance. This one is a bit silly because he overall has the best record and the strictest stance on illegal immigration. In-State Tuition for illegals will be a feature, not a bug, in the general election.

  • avagreen

    Gives me hope that people can change their minds with the right information. At least those with open and honest minds.

    Thank you, again. Gives me MUCH hope.

  • texabama

    and that’s what he was counting on. He also thinks he’s the only student of history. He might even have forgotten some of the things that others have “archived” about him.

  • kcdude

    and I can’t read as fast as you type. :)

  • ripusa32110

    Ron Paul foresaw the housing bubbile in 2002! He introduced the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act in July of 2002. This bill would have repealed the special privileges for housing government sponsered enterprises (GSEs). This is why I get so frustrstared when people say nobody predicted the housing bubble bursting when Rep. Paul accurately predicted it years in advance.
    I’d never support Newt Gingrich because he did lobby for Freddie and Fannie and forget the rope-a-dope Newt is laying on us. Gingrich helped give us the prescription drug bill, too. He did the bidding of his employees, ie, big Pharma and got the job done.

  • iidvbii

    budget. Our armed forces where cut in half. Sure Newt can claim welfare reform but the lions share of those cuts came from DOD. To add insult to injury Hillary and the dems later critized W for sendimg our troops to war without the proprietor equipment and body armor. Turns out the Clinton-Gingrich army wasnt equipped or prepared for an actual war. Dont know how much i would be bragging about his cost savings in the 90′s.

  • iidvbii

    years, makes his money there and spends his days and nights with its inhabitants but certainly not “captured” by it. By the way I have this highway for sale. Got the deed right here think of all the toll money you could make on the section of I35 that runs through Dallas that I can sale you the exclusive rights to. $5000 right now, once in a lifetime offer what do you say?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile

  • lucasblack

    John Smith was in Jamestown, Virginia. You are talking about Plymouth up in Mass.

  • lucasblack

    I actually have no problem with his immigration stance, I just have no confidence in his abilities as a candidate.

  • quill67

    First, it was not like there were not alarm bells. President Bush tried 17 times to bring accountability to FM and FM. Would Newt’s voice made any difference?

    From what we know, Newt was trying to take actions to rein in Freddie. For example, he wanted FM to issue subordinated bonds. For those who do not know, these are bonds that are not guaranteed by any of the firms assets until all other bond holders are paid. People who buy these bonds have to be very careful. If it looks like a company has made bad decisions, these bond prices collapse very early and prevented Freddie Mac from issuing all those crappy loans. Newt’s proposal would have prevented the collapse. Banks would not have been able to buy these bonds and our banking system would have not been in this mess.

    So for all the talk, Newt was giving the right advice.

    I also view this as an attack to help Perry. I had supported Perry but we need someone who can defend conservative ideas. Newt can do that. My hope is that Perry shows he can do that too. But destroying Newt with BS is not going to show people that Perry is capable of fighting our fight. All that will happen is that we will end up with Romney.

    Let Gingrich destroy Romney and then let’s hope that Perry can show he would do a better job fighting our fight than Newt. Until then, I support Newt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    This “attack” that factually recounts Newt’s admitted action re Freddie and natural consequence thereof was inspired by my preference for a tea partier/reliable conservative instead of another beltway creature so that we might actually solve the problem of modern liberalism in American law and policies.

    Newt is not what the 2010 landslide was about.

    btw, got any links that verify Newt’s position re housing policy advice/positions from 2002-2007 or until he stopped being paid by Freddie to not lobby?

    I wait…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283755/newt-s-friend-freddie-rich-lowry

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Freddie needed to be reached out to by conservatives and eliminated.

  • Scope

    and had plenty of time to reflect upon his wrong doings, Jack Abramoff puts Gingrich’s statements that he was a “consultant” in proper perspective. After all, it takes one to know one. From Abramoff-

    “Many- like Gingrich- try to disguise their role in the lobbying monolith by declaring themselves “consultants.” They cry they are not “lobbyists”, they are merely providers of strategic advice. I have news for them: that’s what lobbyists do.”

  • clowngirl

    Just to confirm : this is for Newt’s entire time in Congress – not just for his time as Speaker?

    And Newt acknowledged that he was wrong to support any individual mandate.

  • kcdude

    born and bred.

    I just have a laugh sometimes when a regional bias spews forth. I figure I have an SEC team to cheer (my Commodores) and some poor soul out there has such a shabby existence that he or she may never get the opportunity to cheer for a real team. I will just let that person to be pitied know that I know what is driving their pain and their need to disparage a group they envy but can never really join. Of course, football is just one example. I could go on and on but why pour salt in a wound. Therefore, I have a little fun and move on.

    BTW – I figured you would eventually be headed into the Perry camp.

  • clowngirl

    Mr. Devine,
    If I’m following your argument correctly: You don’t have a problem with Gingrich being paid to give advice to Freddie Mac, you have a problem with the fact he wasn’t making the same criticisms publicly at the time. So — that would make this – in your view – basically a sin of omission.

    What — and this is not a rhetoric question — what, if anything, were the other candidates doing publicly to expose problems with Freddie Mac during the time frame when Newt was on their pay roll?

    NONE of the candidates running — or anyone who has ever held elected office- measures up to a puritanical view of conservatism.. So the argument that Newt is not perfectly conservative and therefore shouldn’t be the nominee doesn’t hold water.

    Comparing apples to apples: Which, if any, of the other candidates were making substantial efforts to expose the problems with Freddie Mac long back in 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 or 2007?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Texas famously avoided the worst of the housing bubble and precipitous drop in housing values.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that taxpayers fund and/or subsidize, “back” and/or bail out. We oppose Government Sponsored Enterprises that distort the market and leave taxpayers vulnerable.

    Newt sold out to them as is normal inside the Beltway.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that he was a lobbyist or consultant. I lobby everyday for conservative causes and institutions. Newt’s main function was to BE paid so that Freddie could repel criticism by saying: But Newt is on our payroll.

    Rich Lowry echoes my “hush money” claim and adds juicy detail here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283755/newt-s-friend-freddie-rich-lowry

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    error born of high speed blogging! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, he must improve his debate and off-the-cuff statement abilities. Its the second inning of the baseball game. Abilities for late innings remain to be seen by all candidates and we know that Mitt couldn’t even beat McCain.

  • 1bunny

    article he also stated that to be a registered lobbyist when you leave congress you have to wait 2 years to start work (rake in the money) but if you are a consultant you can start raking in the money right away. I thought that was very telling. I believe that may be one of the reasons Newt never formally registered as a lobbyist. He was doing the work and getting paid but not as a “formal” registered lobbyist and now he can try to parse the meaning of his job and hope to snow the voters.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    try again

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    no text

  • clowngirl

    but was he a particularly outspoken critic of Freddie Mac, crusading against them in the National media?

    That seems to be what you expected of Gingrich.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    knew

    I pull for Vandy and all geek schools when not playing my USC Fighting Gamecocks.

    And yes, the most surprising and disappointing thing I discovered here at Redstate after my 2000 conservative epiphany is the level of bigotry so many non-Southerners have against Southerners.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Bugs is my favorite cartoon character of all time…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of terrorists thru weak responses to the repeated killings of Americans overseas?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Kuwait.

  • Scope

    of a problem with his $37 million from medical associated companies paying him for “advice” on how to get the Republicans to pass the Bush Medicare Part D entitlement. I’m sure you’ve read those accounts.

    Yes, we all can claim to be lobbyists or advisers in trying to promote conservative causes, but we are not raking in millions by doing that. We do it because it is the right thing to do. I don’t like any special interests paying anyone to influence Washington legislation, or even state legislation. If we say it is OK to lobby for conservative causes, then how do we say, but the liberals can’t lobby for their causes? It must stop.

    I am just absolutely perplexed that so many are pushing this guy to the top, who has such a long long history of being a Washington insider, when that is what we, and the Tea Party people, all have screamed so loudly against. So, Perry has the record we have been craving, but because he isn’t a great debater, he gets thrown under the bus. Gingrich has a record many would run away from, but because he can BS very well, he is sent to the top of the heap. I will never understand this, but feel confident that the Grinch will not last long at the top.

  • andystone

    Even if he knew the answer to life, the Universe and everything, he would still not be worth your vote. Why? Because for the life of him he could never get a single significant bill passed:

    http://goo.gl/E56HJ

    You may listen to him talk and think he’s great, but all the difference that his 15 years in Congress have ever made was that his district got a little more pork than others.

  • Scope

    on exactly the same thing. Gingrich started working for Freddie Mac just 5 months after he resigned from Congress. Remember a part of why Gingrich resigned not only the Speaker’s position, but from Congress completely was because of the ethics charges. There was something like 84 of them. I don’t believe he was found guilty on all of them, but lying to the investigating committee was a part of his guilt. He admitted he lied, he admitted he did wrong, and he accepted the $300,000 penalty. The vote on his guilt was something like 328 to 24, he had little chance of escaping it. The House was threatening to have a vote of no confidence in him, and to remove him as Speaker, if he didn’t resign first. And now this very same guy is at the top of the GOP polls? And, simply because he is an expert BS’er and can stand on a stage a BS with the best of them?

  • quill67

    In 2001, according to one person familiar with the work Gingrich performed, company officials asked him for feedback on their plan to publicly embrace ?six voluntary commitments.?

    The six items included a pledge to periodically issue subordinated debt, manage liquidity, undergo capital stress tests and expand various types of risk disclosures. Gingrich applauded the ideas, saying they would enable Freddie Mac to demonstrate benefits to the taxpayer, the person said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html

  • ripusa32110

    Gingrich was a lobbyist and he can forget about the phony Washington game of how they define lobbyist. We in flyover country are hopefully smarter than these wiseguys who play their darn semantics games on the American people.
    Gingrich reminds me more of Bill Clinton every day. A slimy, duplicitious insider who thinks that he, Gingrich, is smarter than the human race. Clinton and yes, Obama, are like that too. Gingrich, you were on the gravy train of big Pharma and Freddie and Fannie and I pray people won’t allow this slick talking debater to cause their brains to shut off.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Gingrich has managed to fail to meet even low expectations on many issues beginning with his attack against JC Watts in the late 90s and defense of Jesse Jackson.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    when it was evident that Freddie’s actions were costing the taxpayers a bundle?

  • clowngirl

    n/t

  • quill67

    You say “We oppose Government Sponsored Enterprises that distort the market and leave taxpayers vulnerable” but who will cancel Fannie/Freddie tomorrow?

    If mortgages were based upon market, not Fannie/Freddie, interest rates and/or deposit requirements would soar and home prices would in the short term collapse. More borrowers would”walk away” from their now hopelessly “underwater” homes and many banks would be driven out of business. Obtaining credit for new homes would be very difficult for a while. And what would a market rate of interest look like for a home even if home prices got back closer to their “real values” We would also then have a banking crisis to deal with as well.

    Sadly, once the government gets involved in markets, it may take time to untangle that influence without causing even greater pain. (I can make the argument that this great pain might get the housing market back on its feet more quickly but that must wait for another time)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    privatizing Fannie and Freddie. I will research this and get back to you.

  • donald_24

    shielded Texas from the housing bubble. In Teas, there are strict laws about how much equity one can cash out of their house. Another factor that shileded Texas from the housing bubble are HIGH TAXES. Texas has relatively high property taxes, which suppresses the value of housing. So this premise that “limited government” prevented a bubble in Texas, as some have argued, is simply not true.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/04/06/did-consumer-protection-laws-prevent-texas-housing-bubble/

  • Craigpennsylvania

    Newt was the only politician in 40 plus years to balance the budget.

    He took money from Fannie and Freddie because he told them what they need to do to fix them.

    This site might as well support Obama.

    My biggest shame is ever having a profile here in the first place.

    Red State will give Obama at least 5 points in 2012. Congrats.

  • seth90212

    But that’s not the real reason they’re attacking him.. Anybody that stands in the way of Perry gets eviscerated here.

  • federalfarmer1

    And smearing good conservatives is smug romney supporters slandering real conservatives who actually fought and suffered for it. Perry at least didn’t sell his party down the river like romney did repeatedly in mass.

  • seth90212

    For me the Fannie and Center for Health Transformation episodes absolutely disqualify Newt Gingrich from ever holding any elective office ever again. The man is scum.. This is corruption of the worst kind, no better than the graft and kleptocracy that happens in the third world. In fact Newt should be thrown in prison.

  • center77

    Perry’s record is barnone better than whoever your supporting. If its Newt then I will just stop, because that guy is exactly why Washington is the way it is. The insiders dream. Cain, wow what record. Bachmann, same thing. The other rick, wait he cant win his own state in the gen. Perry, half the jobs in this nation since 2009. That alone is hard to match, but thats why all others attack him so quick, they knew if he got his footing the race would be over. So before you post some more weak points, pay attention to the truth, it matters.

  • center77

    and 200 plus other people. The idea Newt balanced the budget is a joke, all he was doing at that time was racking up ethic charges and cheating on his wife. Newt is a crook, and the idea of a Washington insider. Who cares he can debate and knows history, charles manson is consider smart by some, but he is still wrong for this country. He has made millions at the our expence. That is enough, period.

  • federalfarmer1

    Or kos

    Tell me, how many budgets in the past fifty years have been balanced that didn’t involve Newt? Hmmm.

  • theredrider

    This is not Newt’s time. Seeing how he wants to get rid of child labor laws, I’d say that his time was the late 1800′s. Too bad he was born 100 years too late.

    I keep trying to think of ways that Newt could alienate more Americans than by stating in a televised interview that “child laws” are “truly stupid”. Propose re-instituting slavery? Repeal the 19th Amendment? Re-negotiate the Missouri Compromise? (I can just picture him arguing that Maine should have never been admitted to the union.)

  • federalfarmer1

    Return to your masters.

  • theredrider

    How did Romney “sell his party down the river” in Massachusetts?

    His record as governor was a conservative record. He did not raise taxes. He kept his health insurance plan as a private sector solution, despite pressure to create a single-payer plan in Massachusetts.

    Massachusetts Republicans love the guy. That’s not “selling his party down the river”.

  • theredrider

    Your basically accusing center77 of being a troll. I’m sure that’s against the rules.

    You should read up on the rules before you post.

    I like you and I don’t want to see you get banned.

  • theredrider

    You’re running around accusing people of being trolls.

    It is not a good idea here.

    Seriously. You can get banned for this.

  • nathanalbright

    …because I was raised in Florida people I’m debating with from California (where I also lived for four and a half years) feel fit to play deliverance clips to make ad hominem attacks, as if the place where I was raised makes me incompetent to make a rational contribution to a discussion. That sort of thing really upsets me personally as a proud Pennsylvania-born Lincolnophile. The regional bias against Southerners is shocking when one isn’t prepared for it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Minn-St Paul and instinctively knew that I would have to work harder to win over some of the jurors. I did!

  • nathanalbright

    …I don’t even have a southern accent (my accent is a mixture of Pittsburgh and Ontario, as I was born in Western Pennsylvania just outside of Pittsburgh and I was raised in the household of my grandparents, and my maternal grandmother was born in the small city of Peterborough, Ontario). In my case it is strictly the place where I was raised that led to the prejudice, not even the drawl. I’m glad you were able to overcome the prejudices in your own legal experience, though.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    defense

  • texasref

    This really gives me pause to reconsider whether to switch my support from Cain to Gingrich. I know you prefer Perry.

    It worries me that the conservatives in Iowa conspiring against Romney have eliminated Cain from consideration but kept Gingrich in consideration.

    I further worry that Gingrich and Cain (or, if you prefer, Gingrich, Cain, and Perry) will split the anti-Romney vote in the Iowa caucuses, and that many liberals will caucus for Romney since their nominee is already set, leading to an unexpectedly high vote total for Romney in Iowa.

    I understand that the conservatives in Iowa want to rally behind one man right now to stop Romney cold in Iowa (not including what I am sure will be an equally expected and meaningless win in New Hampshire). However, to eliminate Cain makes it more likely that Gingrich will be the one they pick.

    Your diary and some of the comments following it that added value actually shifted my 2nd choice, at least for now, from Gingrich to Perry.

    All I know is, as Erick has said, a Romney nomination guarantees an Obama Administration until 2017.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    as would most any GOP nominee (except Paul, Huntsman or Santorum, and maybe Cain….but even Cain and some of these could rehabilitate themselves and win) given this Great Depression II and that voters understand that Obama hasn’t fixed it and had all the laws he wanted passed. Plus Romney’s campaign skills, prior vetting, good character, many examples of past exec success, etc

    I have no problem with conservatives in Iowa coalescing around one anti-Romney. It seems to me that they would choose someone that is not the most like Romney of all the others!

    more later…thinking

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of those that remain. But we have to deal with reality and absent a big error or scandalous revelation by Newt or Mitt, its hard to see a Perry, Bachmann or Cain comeback…

    We do need to TRY and play down a NH win as an aberration by a liberal state but that has risks in alienating many in NH and others. History since the late 60s says SC decides the nominee between Iowa and NH winners or seconds.

    thx guy

  • texasref

    :-)