« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt speechless on Bain, paid hush money by Freddie but squeals for Bush Rx bill

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  January 24th, 2012 at 10:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Former Speaker finally finds his “big government” voice

The tropical climate of Tampa finally loosened the Newt’s vocal cords for singing the praises of government intervention in the economy and the biggest expansion of government after LBJ’s Great Society, before ObamaCare.

Newt Gingrich is big man with big ideas who helped balance four budgets with capital gains tax cuts, and once again proved at Monday night’s GOP presidential debate that those achievements are not mutually exclusive from support for Government Sponsored Enterprises, i.e. GSEs like Freddie Mac nor Medicare Rx Drug bills.

Finally, some honesty and a contrast with Rick Santorum, who now expresses regret for his support of President George W. Bush’s signature legislation adding drug benefits to Medicare.

This breathe of fresh air from Newt Gingrich was especially welcome after his appearance the day before on Meet the Press, where he still provided no specific allegations of wrongdoing by Romney at Bain:

MR. GREGORY: You’ve raised questions about Romney’s business background, particularly his time at Bain. As he was conceding last night in South Carolina this is one of the shots that he fired across the bow. Listen. (Videotape, last night)

FMR. GOV. ROMNEY: Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow. And let me be clear, if Republican leaders want to join this president in demonizing success and disparaging conservative values, then they’re not going to be fit to be our nominee. (End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: The question, Mr. Speaker, after all of these questions about Bain, is there anything beyond the questions? Where’s the beef, as was once said in politics when it comes to his management of Bain?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, you don’t get any beef because you don’t get any answers. The fact is he is trying to cleverly hide behind an argument that no high school debater would ever let stand. The questions about the character, the judgment, the record of a presidential candidate, is not an attack on business. That’s silly. That would be like saying that my critique ofRomneycare as resembling Obamacare means that I’m against any kind of government involvement. That would be silly. The governor’s trying really hard to avoid answering anything whether it’s on his–the Romneycare, for example, where the news reports are that they cleansed every single computer, we have no real record of how they developed it, and we have no real understanding of the overlap between his advisers and Obama’s advisers, although President Obama says they are the same people. So I think the governor keeps trying to make these kind of ad hominem arguments that even in high school debate he would lose if he can’t do better than that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, by all means bait and switch from Bain to RomneyCare, where one could make specific allegations detrimental to Mitt’s conservative bona fides. Of course, the problem there is that you supported ObamaCare-like individual mandates before Romney and Medicare RX coverage expansions.

We do agree that the “lobbying” allegations against Newt are misplaced. Lobbying is free speech anyway, and we shouldn’t look back now with 20/20 hindsight and blame all who favored federal government mortgage market help as responsible for the Great Recession.

What is instructive concerning Newt’s millions from Freddie Mac for history-based consulting, is his silence from 2003-2008 on the subject.  Now that was historic!

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“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
  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    IMHO anyways was when Romney pointed out that under the Gingrich tax plan, he (Romney) would have paid zero taxes. That isn’t going to play well in the general and is one of many reasons I am not a big fan of Newt as our nominee.

  • ethos

    It is just that Romney’s natural disposition towards pragmaticism and his timely switch to conservatism leaves him vulnerable, which coupled with his bungling of issues relating to his wealth, and his Mormon problem, have allowed Newt’s attacks and personal flair to sink Romney’s favorabilities.

    Newt is flawed at his core, a charactiture of the corrupt Whashington politician, thinking that when he is in power the rules don’t apply to him, that we should care about what he says, not what he does. Mitt is moral as they come, highly principled, and his fruits testify to this; successful missionary, worthy patriarch, loving father with sons that have served missions, married and started families. Earned duel business and law degrees simultaneously from Harvard as a young father, went on to start his own business and revolutionize his industry, then saved the Olympics and Governed Massachusetts.

    Anyway, I think part of those positives for Romney need to stick at some point, but they just have not so far and if they don’t Newt is going to be our guy. Not sure how I feel about that.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Romney cant propose a plan that will personally save him million$
    This plays right into the class warfare themes of the Democrats.

    Newt at least can point out how it will help the economy without sounding self-interested.

    both Romney and Newt seem compromised at this point. Even though, IMHO Romney did nothing wrong and much right at Bain, and even though his offshore accounts are legal, above-board and he paid taxes on time and in full … the optics are just terrible.

    Given that Romney’s not a conservative and the excuse for supporting him was he was the ‘safe’ choice, these items now blow away that raison detre.

  • Juggernaut

    investment income tax would be eliminated, clearly Newt let it go but for over a week Newt has publicly said Romney would pay less under his tax plan.

  • texastaxpayer

    If we are all agreeing that the government is getting completely out of healthcare altogether. No Medicare, Medicaid and no obamacare then by all means complain. Of course there would also be no part d so no debate. However this is not the case now, tomorrow or ever so long as poor and old people vote. So it makes sense to minimize costs. A drug benefit properly done and I am not arguing this one is. Can seriously bend the cost curve down by providing preventive and lower cost non surgical care. Anyone who values tax dollars should support Newt here. Though I will be first inline to vote all of it out if anyone here can get it on the ballot. Until then let’s be intellectually honest in our debates and criticisms.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    and no matter how many threads you repeat this in isn’t going to make you right. Newt’s plan eliminates taxes on cap gains/dividends. It does not make them taxable as ordinary income, it ELIMINATES taxes on them. 0% rate.

  • texashistorian

    Jeffery Lord at the American Spectator has a fantastic article about Newt here:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/reagans-young-lieutenant/

    People want to toss Newt under the bus as a big government, establishment RINO should read this. It’s not that Newt doesn’t have problems, but in the midst of taking his record apart, let’s not forget who Newt was, and why he is in the position he is now in the first place.

    Of course we should point out problems he has, like we do with all of them, but as TexasTaxpayer said above, let’s be intellectually honest in our debates.

  • texashistorian

    Why should Mitt have to pay taxes on money he already paid taxes on? To hell with the Dems and Lib spin and the class warfare rhetoric- it’s coming no matter what. And this is one of my major problems with Mitt: he ought to embrace that plan and call it like it is- “I shouldn’t be double taxed because I made wise investment choices.” Why run from it? Be bold, and make the case that there are many millions of Americans who will benefit from the policy, if not degree then in kind.

  • bluerose75

    Boy playing God are we? Newt at his core is flawed….what a joke. Romney is nothing more than a moderate say all do all just to get elected. That sir is just blantant dishonesty. He is moral…I see so running around like Bruce Jenner in a marathon telling everyone how conservative he is when he is barely more conservative than Obama is not lying? I guess you have Selective Lying Selection hey? When your guy does it….Oh that is just White Lie…according to your analysis Newt’s faults are disqualifying and fundamental and cannot be disgarded?? Are like lost with GPS or what?

    Lying is lying buddy and Mitt’s false pretense as a conservative is pathetic and it LYING!! He is educated great…Harvard I see and what if he would have graduated from Missouri State…do that mean anything less because it is not Harvard? Who heck cares if he has a degree from that liberal piece of junk? Harvard? Failes businesses are full of Harvard/Yale graduates who could not hack it!!

    So Mitt’s pedigree…means nothing to a true conservative. He is NOT conservative….he will not fool anyone with his attacks on Newt about not being liked as House Leader…

    If he wants to get about 25 percent….then he had better show where EVER in his governance he governed as a conservative. Newt has some conservative credentials and Romney has ZERO!!

    And this Washington Insider argument is like a bad joke on Leno. Romney is getting ALL the support from inside the beltway buddy! The lovely stick in the mudd Establishment candidate like McCain that will never excite the conservatives!

    Newt is flawed and my concern with him is that he had better keep to the conservative principles!! PERIOD! Romney has not one conservative bone in his plastic body!

  • lapert

    You might want to check out Quinn Hillyer’s piece in American Spectator as well. It’s not so much that people say he had no role in the 80′s – just that he overstates his role by orders of magnitudes.

    There was one answer he gave last night where he basically listed every conservative event or policy from the mid 60′s forward and took credit for it – the immediate image I had was him as Forrest Gump in the background pictures of history.

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

    justifiable on many grounds.

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

    on the Rx bill was overblown for the very reasons Newt cites. I also agree that Fannie and Freddie did acceptable work for many years before Johnson and the Dems took it off in the socialism direction in the 90s.

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

    that we can all take a deep breath about what “big government” is in the context of the 21st century and the level of addiction We the people are under. One of Newt’s best qualities is understanding this fact and that we must have transition phases as we reduce entitlements.

  • In The Hook

    Or has at least adopted the language of understanding that.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    dividends and cap gains taxed as regular income with the caveat being that deductions are eliminated, the base is broadened, and rates as a whole are lower (ie the Simpson-Bowles option 1 plan). I agree on corporate taxes though, they should be substantially less, if not zero (but zero is probably unobtainable).

  • texashistorian

    really ought to stop running away from his success, or soft-selling it. It is a compelling argument can make, and one we’d all like to hear. I just don’t think he has it in him, and it’s too bad. He just seems almost embarrassed when he ought to be telling folks that he wishes the same success and opportunity for them and will work hard to see that it happens to the extent he can as President. Stand up and be counted, man!

  • In The Hook

    And that’s his biggest problem. Not the flip-flopping, not the somewhat liberal record, none of that. It’s that he’s an intensely private person and is worried about offending people, especially the base. He ran a “dont make the base mad” campaign and thought he could run out the clock. Well now it’s time for him to open up and say “here’s who I am, take me or leave me.” It’s going to be tough for him because he just doesn’t want people in his private life, which is sad because his private life is actually the best example of conservatism he can hold up when it comes to his record.

  • texashistorian

    like to see a return to America’s best days (The Coolidge and Harding Adminstrations) in terms of liberty and economic opportunity (Jim Crow aside) if it ever .happens it will take years and years.

    Good point GC, and while we can all beat our Madison, Jackson, Jefferson drums about big government, we also need to be practical in the approach. Newt brings that level of understanding. Look, if we cut off Medicaid for example, just yanked the rug out it would be politically disastrous. It can be reduced through the weaning process, however, and that is what we should go after. Newt’s “big ideas” are often concerned with just that approach.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Big government conservatism doesn’t exist. If it does, it’s in a vacuum somewhere between galaxies and a black hole.

    Now if you’re arguing that GSE’s can provide a framework that creates innovation, I get that… but I can’t see how any “government solution” is proper, when private solutions are tenable, or local government is better suited to implement their own solution.

    Spending alone isn’t the problem by itself.
    Taxing private wealth isn’t the problem by itself.

    Solving spending deficits by over-taxing wealth, and spending our way out of recessions while risking hyper inflation…on the backs of the middle class is a damned dangerous game. It’s a cycle that needs to be broken. It’s a cycle that wouldn’t be necessary if the Federal Government would stop finding ways to overreach and attempt top-down solutions that are designed by lobbyists that can be manipulated later on by lobbyists. But if we’re taking that “deep breath” at that point we’re arguing different shades of gray.

    We The People can either utilize self-discipline and by representation, correct the behaviors of Washington D.C.

    D.C. chips away at the personal liberties of the people by taking on responsibilities that were never granted to the federal government in the constitution. We allow the greatest society to fall prey to utilization by survival… rather than by retelling the American Dream, and voting as such.

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

    The history of America since WWII is simultaneously the history of the greatest prosperity for the greatest number in world history and the gradual increase of federal government activity in the economy. Like I have said before, Social security had a pretty good run of 70+ years until we stopped making babies.

    Then there is the federal v state dichotomy that the Founders saw as allowing states more economic intervention and the whole matter of interstate commerce regulation that was a major part of abandoning the articles of Confederation under which states acted as nations against other states.

    The Framers meant for us to have a national economy that was regulated. The issue is the degree of same.

    We shouldn’t ask our candidates to be for cold turkey laissez faire. Rick Perry himself was for opt-in programs for this very reason.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    We shouldn?t ask our candidates to be for cold turkey laissez faire.

    But that doesn’t mean we condone Federal intervention at every turn…nor do we claim that Medicare Part D and other attempts were “successes”.

    I’m not indicting the Fed Reserve here… I’m not putting our monetary policy on trail. I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be legislation that addresses the Social Security program and other entitlements that have ballooned and are going to be unsustainable.

    I’m suggesting that until we get Washington D.C. to consider some real constitutional amendment style cut, cap, balance, then real entitlement reform isn’t going to happen. We’ll get more ‘kick the can down the road’ business as usual. That much we can demand from our candidates… but we don’t. We demand rhetoric and red meat… we do our own damage as an impatient “gimme now” society. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion in “what ‘is’ and what ‘ought’ to be”.

    My point is… I can’t take the deep breath that Newt’s “Freudian slip” or “momentary lapse in campaign mode” as admitting he’s not the conservative he wants us to think he is… because I think Newt is a political chameleon with some guidelines rather than actual principles… but hey… that’s just like my opinion man.

    I’ll take the deep breath when a Sen. Majority Leader says… Hey Mike Lee’s BBA plan deserves a look.

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

    turn. Amen!

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

    That is the issue. Of course, we all favor all kinds of other choices that are better than Obama, Newt, Santorum and Romney. But that Obama be defeated is paramount just now in the millieu of the American people as they exist now. That is the subject I write about in these times.

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

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/marco-rubio-mitt-romney-no-charlie-crist

  • Risky

    Why on earth do Americans need the goverment so involved in the mortgage business? Here in the uk I get a mortgage with no goverment backing from a privately owned bank and the interest doesn’t get a deduction on my tax return. Home ownership rates in the UK are roughly the same at the US.

    Conservatives need to look to remove governemnt involvement from our daily lives and limit it’s scoep to what is needed. Leftists will always want to create univeral entitelments and subsidies in the hope of having everyone bough into their plan.

  • Risky

    Why on earth do Americans need the goverment so involved in the mortgage business? Here in the uk I get a mortgage with no goverment backing from a privately owned bank and the interest doesn’t get a deduction on my tax return. Home ownership rates in the UK are roughly the same at the US.

    Conservatives need to look to remove governemnt involvement from our daily lives and limit it’s scoep to what is needed. Leftists will always want to create univeral entitelments and subsidies in the hope of having everyone bough into their plan.

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

    The system worked pretty well after WWII until the mid-90s. Read Reckless Endangerment for the ull story on the transformation of Fannie and Freddie that led to the housing bubble that led to the Great Recession.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Well Mike… where do guys like us go to feel like we’re understood?

    Personally I think both Newt and Romney can defeat Obama and handily… I think Santorum would fight a boy scout fight, and lose in tremendous self-righteous glory.

    I have to agree with Sarah Palin’s assessment that steel sharpens steel and iron sharpens iron… We’ll get a better candidate, and a better campaign team. We can learn a lot from Hillary V. Obama.

    What matters most when it comes to beating Obama is reminding all the “i voted for the other guy” Republicans, that

    So, let’s sit back and watch this thing play out…

    In the mean time, I suppose we can go back to the non-election subjects, and focusing on herding folks into the conservative side of the tent.

  • Juggernaut

    Newt’s plan makes all income sources pay the same 15% rate. read about it because the facts are written.

  • Juggernaut

    So it was and still is anti-capitalist for Romney to demand Newt pay back the money.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/new-freddie-mac-contract-prohibits-lobbying-activities/

  • ethos

    You nailed it.