Newt Tells A Big Lie...Again

[LoneLaugher]

You are not reading every post, it seems. I don't blame you for that. But you should probably make sure you know what you are responding to.

No charge for that advice.

 

[del]

You are not reading every post, it seems. I don't blame you for that. But you should probably make sure you know what you are responding to.

No charge for that advice.

worth every penny, too.

 

[Avatar4321]

CG.....don't you wish that Romney had more positives? You think he has fewer negatives than Newt.....but why can't he seem to get folks to buy in?

Buddy Roemer...........he's got more positives.

I hate saying this, but seeing what people have been able to forgive Newt for, the only real conclusion I can come to is Romney is Mormon.

I mean the biggest issue objection to Romney is Romneycare. I completely understand that. But you dont like Romneycare so instead you support someone who not only backed the individual mandate, but tried to enact it at the Federal level, and was stating that Romneycare was a success until he filed papers to run for President?

That doesn't make any sense. There is a disconnect there that I'm just not seeing. Either Romneycare isn't the real problem they have with Romney, they aren't aware of Newt's long term positions concerning the Individual mandate, or there is a disconnect

Or you support Small government? How is Newt better at shrinking government? He's voted for and lobbied for big government entitlement programs. He voted to create the Federal Department of Education. He supported a Federal version of Romneycare almost a decade before Romney did.

I just don't get it. I understand not liking Romney. But then liking Newt when he has alll of Romneys issue weaknesses times 10 and some more of his own doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

And then there are people who just want to see Newt flooring Obama in the debates. But the debates aren't really relevant. You can "win" every debate. You can humiliate your opponent. But that doesn't matter jack if you dont with the election, or if when you do you do the exact opposite of everything the voters are expecting.

 

[g5000]

We created Newt. The longer a person's history, the more likely they will fail some or all of the multitude of litmus tests we put them through.

So a person with a long history has two choices. Either grow a spine and stand up and tell the Party why he disagrees with a particular platform plank, or lie his ass off and hope most people don't look into it.

Newt is particularly adept at the latter. He is a populist. He has been a politician for so long he knows exactly where all the buttons are in the rube demographic. So he takes the easier way and just pushes those buttons.

I detest Newt. He has too many character flaws. But if I were on his side, I could easily make the argument he tried the former. He tried to grow a spine but had it broken over the knee of Extremist Dogma.

We have let the extremes take over. The zombie zealot mob mind. We have let the parroting mindless idiots of the sound bite capture the Party.

So Newt adapted. He says what they want to hear. He chucked whatever principles he had out the window and went full populist.

It is time this stopped. Well past time. Who the hell are we any more?

 

[candycorn]

November 9 Debate Transcript:

HARWOOD: Since -- since you mentioned Fannie and Freddie, Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds to you, your firm was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac in 2006. What did you do for that money?

GINGRICH: Were you asking me?

HARWOOD: Yes.

GINGRICH: I offer them advice on precisely what they didn't do.

(LAUGHTER)

Look -- look, this is not -- this is not...

HARWOOD: Were you not trying to help Freddie Mac fend off the effort by the Bush administration...

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: No. No, I do -- I have never...

HARWOOD: ... and the -- to curb Freddie Mac.

GINGRICH: I have -- I assume I get a second question. I have never done any lobbying. Every contract was written during the period when I was out of the office, specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice.

And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, "We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do," as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible. It turned out, unfortunately, I was right and the people who were doing exactly what Congresswoman Bachmann talked about were wrong. And I think it's a good case for breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and getting much smaller institutions back into the private sector to be competitive and to be responsible for their behavior.

Now I want you to take particular note that he is speaking with respect to his part as a consultant, er, "historian" in the year 2006.

2006.

And he fails to mention he actually worked for their top lobbyist for seven years.

Take note, too, how he also concocts this heroic story of himself. He is told by Freddie Mac they were being forced to make bad loans and Newt the Wonder Horse rides into town and declares this is insane. He says "this is a bubble".

And just to drive the point home, he says the GSEs should be broken up.


Well, I missed last night's debate, but I have been perusing the transcipt, and it appears Mitt Romney has read the same Q&A session Newt had with Freddie Mac that I have. He made a passing reference to it:

Newt Gingrich=
I was a consultant.

Mitt Romney
It doesn't say that you provided historical experience, it said that you were as a consultant. And you were hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac, not the CEO, not the head of public affairs. By the chief lobbyist at Freddie Mac.

You also spoke publicly in favor of these GSEs, these government- sponsored entities, at a very time when Freddie Mac was getting America in a position where we would have had a massive housing collapse. You could have spoken out aggressively. You could have spoken out in a way to say these guys are wrong, this needs to end. But instead, you were being paid by them. You were making over $1 million at the same time people in Florida were being hurt by millions of dollars.

As happens every time more information comes to light about him, Newt begins to subtly change his story:



What a pathetic attempt at a diversion!

He continues:



Now I want you to note he says "in the early years".

Okay.

But what things did Newt have to say about the GSEs in the later years? What did he have to say on the very eve of the destruction of our economy?

What did he say in 2007?

This:

Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs, but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

Market-Based Models Are Key to Transforming U.S. Government to a 21st Century Organization - Freddie Mac

Read that. Over and over. Let every sentence sink in and see if each one is not EVERYTHING conservatives have been screaming about. See how each one completely contradicts his hero story. See how he favors the GSEs keeping their charters. How he praises their model! On and on.


Think about every rabid raving about Freddie Mac you have ever heard from conservatives. How it was the Democrats and their desire to get more people into homes that killed us. How they did it by forcing the GSEs to make loans. How the GSEs completely destablized the economy and how dear Dubya tried to stop them.

Look how Newt tries to cash in on that in the November debate. "It was insane!" I told them! I donned my cape and tried to stop them, BUT NOooooooo! They didn't listen!

What a scumbag piece of lying shit.

He heaps glowing praise on Freddie Mac and the bang-up job it is doing getting people into homes. He was being paid to advise their top lobbyist how to lobby lawmakers to keep the GSEs growing and going.

He loves GSEs so much, he says there should be more of them in the paragraph preceding that one.

I like the GSE model because it provides a more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We obviously don't want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when private enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose. I think private enterprise alone is not going to be able to help the Gulf region recover from the hurricanes, and government will not get the job done in a very effective or efficient manner. We should be looking seriously at creating a GSE to help redevelop this region. We should be looking at whether and how the GSE model could help us address the problem of financing health care. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be seriously considered – I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.

This is one lie he won't be able to laugh off.

Just ask yourself....would you pay millions for historical advice? The idea that he wasn't peddling his influence is laughable but really: Everybody does it in Washington--Daschle included. The difference is that Daschle isn't asking a plurality of voters to vote for him.

 

[Dot Com]

CG.....don't you wish that Romney had more positives? You think he has fewer negatives than Newt.....but why can't he seem to get folks to buy in?

Buddy Roemer...........he's got more positives.

I hate saying this, but seeing what people have been able to forgive Newt for, the only real conclusion I can come to is Romney is Mormon.

I mean the biggest issue objection to Romney is Romneycare. I completely understand that. But you dont like Romneycare so instead you support someone who not only backed the individual mandate, but tried to enact it at the Federal level, and was stating that Romneycare was a success until he filed papers to run for President?

That doesn't make any sense. There is a disconnect there that I'm just not seeing. Either Romneycare isn't the real problem they have with Romney, they aren't aware of Newt's long term positions concerning the Individual mandate, or there is a disconnect

Or you support Small government? How is Newt better at shrinking government? He's voted for and lobbied for big government entitlement programs. He voted to create the Federal Department of Education. He supported a Federal version of Romneycare almost a decade before Romney did.

I just don't get it. I understand not liking Romney. But then liking Newt when he has alll of Romneys issue weaknesses times 10 and some more of his own doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

And then there are people who just want to see Newt flooring Obama in the debates. But the debates aren't really relevant. You can "win" every debate. You can humiliate your opponent. But that doesn't matter jack if you dont with the election, or if when you do you do the exact opposite of everything the voters are expecting.

Who are you and what have you done w/ Avatar4321?!!!

 

[g5000]

Just ask yourself....would you pay millions for historical advice?

Yeah, you have to be incredibly gullible to believe that line.

Gingrich was advising their top lobbyist how to keep bipartisan support for the GSEs. He was the ultimate insider and got the ultimate insider paycheck.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who would you rather have a few drinks with? Romney, Newt or Santorum?

 

[Avorysuds]

CG.....don't you wish that Romney had more positives? You think he has fewer negatives than Newt.....but why can't he seem to get folks to buy in?

Buddy Roemer...........he's got more positives.

I hate saying this, but seeing what people have been able to forgive Newt for, the only real conclusion I can come to is Romney is Mormon.

I mean the biggest issue objection to Romney is Romneycare. I completely understand that. But you dont like Romneycare so instead you support someone who not only backed the individual mandate, but tried to enact it at the Federal level, and was stating that Romneycare was a success until he filed papers to run for President?

That doesn't make any sense. There is a disconnect there that I'm just not seeing. Either Romneycare isn't the real problem they have with Romney, they aren't aware of Newt's long term positions concerning the Individual mandate, or there is a disconnect

Or you support Small government? How is Newt better at shrinking government? He's voted for and lobbied for big government entitlement programs. He voted to create the Federal Department of Education. He supported a Federal version of Romneycare almost a decade before Romney did.

I just don't get it. I understand not liking Romney. But then liking Newt when he has alll of Romneys issue weaknesses times 10 and some more of his own doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

And then there are people who just want to see Newt flooring Obama in the debates. But the debates aren't really relevant. You can "win" every debate. You can humiliate your opponent. But that doesn't matter jack if you dont with the election, or if when you do you do the exact opposite of everything the voters are expecting.

No, the reason Mitt does not do as well as Newt is because while Mitt will bend a truth he at least admits to his past flip flopping positions. Mitt admits that he has progressive policies but gives a reason why he did them.

Newt on the other hand is in fact, without a doubt one of the most Progressive people that have ever held office, yes he HELPED balance a budget, but that was about all he did, help. Newt makes it sound like he did it all on his own. What Newt fails to talk about is the housing bubble he helped create, the DoEducation, and Government HC that he pushed for.

The difference between Newt and Mitt is not that Mitt is a Mormon, it's that as you said before, Newt will lie at every chance he has and Mitt will at least work with you on why he did or supported liberal policies. You wouldn't even know Newt supported progressive policies or supported Obamacares mandate if you listen to him. Hell Newt won’t “allow” you to quote his past that shows his real positions. Newt believes what he says today is the new truth.


As I have said before, I will have fun watching the Republican party split in two this season. I have everything to gain as I was going to lose either way.

 

[g5000]

Who would you rather have a few drinks with? Romney, Newt or Santorum?

The cover charge is too steep wherever Romney drinks, Newt would expect me to drink his piss, and Santorum can't handle his liquor and would probably hit on the bouncer after half a pint.

 

[bripat9643]

Voting for Newt if he is the nominee is sending a HUGE signal that lying works. That opportunism, hypocrisy, and a whatever-it-takes-to-get-power-is-right attitude is okay.

The same can be said of voting for Obama.

 

[Avorysuds]

Who would you rather have a few drinks with? Romney, Newt or Santorum?

I don't drink, I take care of myself. I'd rather have a drink with Paul, a glass of water and maybe walk while we are at it... Paul is a doctor and an economist. Newt is the Pillsbury doughboy, I couldn't even stand next to that tub of gluttonous lack of moral restraint.

It is rare to be able to read someone as easily as it is to read Newt. Newt knows when he is getting owned and his face gives him away when he is just about to tell a lie. When Mitt owned Newt last night that was a perfect moment, you could see the lies swirling around in his giant pumpkin head... Newt started just saying non sensical phrases in hopes that something would come to mind... Without a crowd that Newt could switch the entire debate to focus on calling Obama names it was easy to see how he would get destroyed in a debate with Obama.

 

[del]

Just ask yourself....would you pay millions for historical advice?

Of course not. You have to be incredibly gullible to believe that line.

Gingrich was advising their top lobbyist how to keep bipartisan support for the GSEs. He was the ultimate insider and got the ultimate insider paycheck.

oh, c'mon, there's a burgeoning market for historical advice.

 

[Amelia]

 

[Avatar4321]

Who would you rather have a few drinks with? Romney, Newt or Santorum?

I dont drink. So none of them. Romney doesnt drink either. I'd prefer to hang with Romney just because he has done alot of things and Id like to learn a bit from him.

Course i could probably learn alot from all three. And even Dr. Paul.

Id love to have a discussion with all of them in a room. A real debate. not for the Presidency but just to pick everyones brain.

 

[g5000]

It is rare to be able to read someone as easily as it is to read Newt. Newt knows when he is getting owned and his face gives him away when he is just about to tell a lie. When Mitt owned Newt last night that was a perfect moment, you could see the lies swirling around in his giant pumpkin head... Newt started just saying non sensical phrases in hopes that something would come to mind... Without a crowd that Newt could switch the entire debate to focus on calling Obama names it was easy to see how he would get destroyed in a debate with Obama.

You know, it's weird. Just reading the transcript without the benefit of watching the debate, I could see exactly what you are talking about. Newt's responses were bizarrely erratic and discordant.

For example, in his response to Mitt about his support of the GSEs, you could see Romney had him completely nailed to the wall, and he was flailing, his brain was fritzing and sparking looking for a way out. And then he spits out a complete non sequitur about Bain.

I also find it ironic that as Romney gave Newt big teaspoonfuls of his own medicine, Newt responded that such tactics would not fool anyone!

 

[oreo]

A lie is short and sweet. It travels halfway around the world before the Truth gets its pants on.

This is what makes evil lying fucks like Gingrich so evil. He can casually toss off gigantic whoppers with a few cute phrases. "I told them it was insane!"

And the rubes nod to themselves, "See? He knows! He's one of us."

But discovering the profound depth of his lies takes some work.

So get your asses to work and put this man back in the sewer out of which he has crawled back. He was flushed down there years ago for a reason.

The drooling hordes on the right are the intellectual equivalent of the drooling hordes on the left. They'll vote for a any fucking fool that makes them 'feel good'.

Correction, At this point I will vote for any Fucking fool that isn't Obama. Not because I like them, or they make me feel good, but because I think Obama is Destroying this Country. Period.

Believe me I know full well Newt is full of shit, So what, if he wins the Nomination I am still voting for him. Because I think it is going to Suck less than 4 more years of Obama. By the same token I would vote for Romney, Santorum, and Paul in a heart beat as well. Even though the truth is NONE of them are my choice at all.

JC WATT--Hawk on Freddie Mac defends Newt Gingrich and states Mitt Romney is Lying.

Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during a South Carolina Republican presidential primary night rally Saturday in Columbia, S.C. (Matt Rourke - AP) Romney’s intensifying attacks against Gingrich over his work for the federally-backed mortgage giant.

Watts said Gingrich, a former House speaker, was never a part of the discussions on Capitol Hill about Freddie Mac. He criticized Romney for accusing Gingrich of lobbying for Freddie Mac because it isn’t true.

Watts, a former four-term congressman from Oklahoma first elected with the Republican revolution that Gingrich led in 1994, is a former chairman of FM Policy Focus, an arm of his Washington consulting firm that represented various financial institutions who were pushing for greater oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

“In the six years that I was chairman of FM Policy focus, we had Republican and Democrat consultants that were part of our meetings,” Watts said. “We talked to Republican and Democrat members of Congress. We talked to Wall Street types. And the first time I heard Newt Gingrich’s name was probably 45 days ago, and that was probably that first week of December, when he was getting hit in Iowa basically saying that he was peddling influence for Freddie Mac".

J.C. Watts defends Newt Gingrich on Freddie Mac - Election 2012 - The Washington Post

The old "guilty by association tactic". I know in my electrical contracting business over the last 30 years we have run into some pretty shady characters. We had one general contractor that got into the customer's construction account and took all the money--and left town--never to be heard from again. Thankfully--the homeowner didn't blame the electricians that the general contractor hired. We were paid in full for a job that was completed--according to contract.

Mitt Romney has now put out a reward of 1.6 million dollars on Newt Gingrich for someone to step up and accuse him of lobbying for Freddie Mac.--(ironically the exact same gross amount that Gingrich received from Freddie Mac over a several year period.) Gingrich while owning and operating the Gingrich group also consulted several private sector corporations--such as Micro-soft and others--and he insists his contracts never involved lobbying practices for these companies.

Ironically--Mitt Romney released his income tax return today--and it is well noted that he invested 500 million into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and has obviously made a lot more money off of these two disasters' than the Gingrich group ever did. One has to wonder if Mitt Romney if it could be considered that Mitt Romney got a taxpayer bailout since he was a 500 million dollar bond holder for these two disasters?

 

[g5000]

Gingrich was not hired to lobby directly for Freddie Mac. He was hired to advise their top lobbyist how to get bipartisan support for the GSEs. He advised the lobbyist what tack to take when lobbying. He lobbied indirectly.

He in no way told Freddie Mac what they were doing was insane. His hero story is complete fiction.

He loves GSEs and can't get enough of them. He praised the housing GSEs for getting more people into homes and making the housing market more stable then it would be without them. He said it was easy to see why the GSEs charters needed to be kept alive.

All this right on the eve of destruction.

The fairy tale he tells in the debates is one of the biggest lies out there.

 

[AquaAthena]

who would you rather have a few drinks with? Romney, newt or santorum?

newt!!!

 

[oreo]

Gingrich was not hired to lobby directly for Freddie Mac. He was hired to advise their top lobbyist how to get bipartisan support for the GSEs. He advised the lobbyist what tack to take when lobbying. He lobbied indirectly.

He in no way told Freddie Mac what they were doing was insane. His hero story is complete fiction.

He loves GSEs and can't get enough of them. He praised the housing GSEs for getting more people into homes and making the housing market more stable then it would be without them. He said it was easy to see why the GSEs charters needed to be kept alive.

All this right on the eve of destruction.

The fairy tale he tells in the debates is one of the biggest lies out there.

The Romney campaign released one report from the Gingrich group a few months ago regarding a Freddie Mac report (that they somehow acquired)--I got it through an e-mail-from the Romney campaign & unfortunately deleted it.

But in the 4th or 5th paragraph of the Gingrich group report it specifically stated: That Freddie Mac needed more regulation. Now this was probably pulled from the Romney campaign as they originally just read the headline & the 1st couple of paragrahs--and NOT the entire report. Once they realized they were actually confirming what Newt Gingrich has stated--"that he recommended more regulation"--that have pulled it.

I will try to find it again--but it's definitely out there somewhere. If I got it--lots of other people did too.