Free Dating

Newt the Lier

posted 1/28/2012 10:53:27 PM |
1 kudogive kudos what's this?
    report abuse

Just no comment for this is a dam republican affair.

But here is an article on Newt the Lobbist.

..Freddie Mac hired Gingrich as it reshaped strategy
By Marilyn Thompson and Samuel P. Jacobs | Reuters – 3 hrs ago....Email
Share2Print......Related Content.
Enlarge Photo.A sign on a street signifies the headquarters of Freddie Mac in McLean, Virginia, …

....Politics slideshows.
.Violence, unrest continues in Syria
16 photos - Tue, Jan 24, 2012Tainted medicine tragedy
10 photos - 2 hrs 50 mins agoSt. Louis hosts parade on Iraq War's end
15 photos - 7 hrs ago...See latest photos »....WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Within months after taking over as chief lobbyist at mortgage lender Freddie Mac in 1999, Mitchell Delk hired a prominent Washington insider to advise him on how to build support among conservatives on Capitol Hill: Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives.

A key part of Delk's strategy, as outlined in Federal Election Commission records, was to build goodwill in Congress by holding fundraising events for influential members of House and Senate committees that had oversight of Freddie Mac.

Gingrich had experience in such matters as an architect of GOPAC, one of the Republican Party's most important political action committees.

Gingrich's activity at Freddie Mac has been under scrutiny during his run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, as rivals have accused him of lobbying for Freddie Mac.

The former speaker has rejected such allegations, and his first $300,000-a-year contract with Freddie Mac, released this week by his campaign, states that he would not "engage in lobbying services of any kind."

But the contract, together with the FEC records describing Delk's revamping of Freddie Mac's lobbying shop, sheds light on how Gingrich could avoid the lobbyist label and still be valuable to the mortgage lender as a strategist.

Gingrich's contract says the former House speaker would work with Delk and other Freddie Mac officials on "strategic planning and public policy."

And, it calls on Gingrich to contribute to the lender's "corporate planning and business goals."

"He was a consultant for us, and ... not a lobbyist," Freddie Mac spokesman Doug Duvall said, declining to comment further on the lender's arrangement with Gingrich.

Gingrich's campaign has offered few specifics about his work for Freddie Mac, for which he earned as much as $1.8 million during two contract periods. It said late last year that part of his job was to help Freddie Mac build bridges to conservatives.

He has called himself a "historian" who advised the mortgage lender on issues such as its lending policies.

Gingrich joined Delk's government affairs shop at a time when the former Freddie Mac senior vice president was hiring several former members of Congress and congressional aides for his lobbying team.

At the time, conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill were seeking regulations to rein in the profits of government-sponsored lenders such as Freddie Mac.

Delk, who did not respond to phone calls seeking comment, successfully fought back against such legislation by hiring dozens of outside consultants and spending as much on lobbying as many major corporations.


However, his lobbying team came under investigation by the FEC in 2003.

The FEC probe found that under Delk's guidance, Freddie Mac improperly used corporate resources to put on 85 fundraising events that raised about $1.7 million for federal candidates.

The majority of the events were for Republicans, the FEC found.

FEC investigators concluded that at least one major contribution to a Republican entity came directly from Freddie Mac funds and that some fundraisers were held in Freddie Mac's offices - both violations of FEC rules.

In 2006, Freddie Mac agreed to a $3.8 million settlement for violating federal election rules, the largest civil fine the FEC had ever levied.

Delk, who resigned from Freddie Mac in 2004, was not charged in the case. Delk's lawyer in the case, Ken Gross, said Gingrich's name "never came up in connection with (the FEC) case."

Vin Weber, a former Republican representative from Minnesota who also was hired as a Freddie Mac consultant, said he never worked directly with Gingrich on Freddie Mac matters.

He said the mortgage lender did not want congressional arm-twisting but hoped to "create a positive buzz for Freddie Mac."

Weber said someone like Gingrich could provide an important service without lobbying.

"I wouldn't ask him to pick up the phone (to call a member of Congress), because that is really not necessary. He is circulating all the time with members of Congress," said Weber, who is supporting Mitt Romney in this year's race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Former New York Representative Susan Molinari, another Romney supporter, also was hired by Freddie Mac during Delk's tenure. She did not return phone calls or emails.

Republican Michael Oxley, who was House Financial Services Committee chairman and attended at least 19 Delk fundraisers, said that at the time he did not know Gingrich worked for Freddie Mac.

Oxley "may have seen him from time to time at a social thing," said Peggy Peterson, a spokeswoman for Oxley.

Gingrich signed a second contract with Freddie Mac in 2006. The lender ended its relationship with outside consultants in 2008, when the U.S. Treasury placed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in conservatorship.

Republicans have blamed the government-sponsored lenders, which sustained $14.9 billion in losses when the U.S. housing market crashed, for a major role in the subprime lending crisis.

(Additional reporting by Margaret Chadbourne; editing by David Lindsey and Mohammad

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by Kentuck:
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS (((Exodus 20:1-17 )))
Gas prices in 2008
High gas blog reply
Sinking Low
De-regulation of oil--the loop hole of enron
Whitney Houston
Part #2 Enron Bill
Part #1--Enron and the Bushes
Obama will be re-elected
Back to LeRoy, NY
LeRoy, New York--highschool.
Political spending
Newt the Lier
Are they worth it?????
The Wine oh
Taxes Vs. Payroll and Investiments.
Kardashian Sisters.
back to the Keystone pipeline
Today's news bits and pices.
A return to Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum--(racist/bioget/lier)
Iowa sending a message
Keystone pipeline
Black lung diease
june and July


Jan 28 @ 11:18PM  
much better than obama bin lyin

Jan 28 @ 11:43PM  
What, no Koch brothers in your post??

Jan 28 @ 11:45PM  
Oh, and btw, tha's liAr.

Jan 28 @ 11:51PM  
Newt the Lier

He may or may not be a liar, like Obama, but at least both of them are literate.

Jan 29 @ 12:13AM  
No matter how you spell it, Newt comes out slimy.

Jan 29 @ 1:19AM  
Where's the Newt lie...?

Freddie Mac is a GSE sponsored enterprise as well as public company investors...

If Newt is to be should every government sponsor including Obama!

Jan 29 @ 9:41AM  
When you have ex-wives, they better at least still endorse you. One of the biggest problems Newt would have in a general election: the gender gap would be massive.

Jan 29 @ 9:42AM  
No matter how you spell it, Newt comes out slimy.

This is the problem. We consider slimy the standard of electability. Newt should never, ever have made it this far. He's a fake conservative. He's a liar. (of course, that's normal for politicians) he's morally corrupt but pretends to coach the rest of us on morality and 'family values', and he's been one of the driving forces in some of the most dunderheaded policies ever. Of course, there were worse dunderhead moves. NAFTA and Chinese most favored nation status are two of them.

Jan 29 @ 10:45AM  
Trump said on Face the Nation this morning he's thinking of entering the race now as an independent... something else for the republicans to worry about.

Jan 29 @ 4:56PM  
Gingrich can run all he wants. In fact, I'm thinking of sending him a donation, to help him continue to run. (Nothing like his friend, who has so far donated, what?, $10M already...) As long as he continues to split the delegates with Romney, that means Romney has to continue to spend tens of millions of dollars, even before the general election. (The total amount, so far as reported, spent by Romney and Gingrich and their "independent" SuperPACs, has been $22M in Florida, alone.)

Gingrich has problems, which makes him unlikely to be elected. There's several states where he can't even run (Virginia and Missouri), and others where, for one reason or another, he can't claim any delegates he wins. The Ron Paul supporters are claiming that there's some 500-ish delegates (about 25% of the total) who Gingrich can't even get, even if he were able to run and able to win.

But if he continues to pull enough delegates from Romney, more power to him. Even if Gingrich wins the nomination, he's totally unelectable. But Gingrich can pull enough delegates away from Romney to have a small chance of putting the convention into a brokered (backroom deals) status. And if all else fails, he's siphoning off possibly hundreds of millions of dollars from rich donors to FINALLY put the money back into the economy, and dredging up all sorts of skeletons from Romney's closet for Obama to exploit in the general election.

So go go Gingrich! You may be a louse, but you're doing your country a good service by helping fragment the Republican base prior to the election!

Jan 29 @ 8:37PM  
Doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is anyway. The next election is going to be a referendum on Obama. How's he doing?

I can't think of any measure on which people can respond that he is doing well. Measured by his own metrics, the ones that he himself established, he has been an abysmal failure on every front.

He can't run on results, so all he has left is to bash his opponent, create distraction so that no one looks at his actual results and to divide the country in every way he can to try to create anger and chaos hoping he can stir up the ignorant enough to get reelected.

If his strategy works, then it is a sign that the country is through. It would be a sign that it has been overrun by the Marxists and their masses ignorant stooges. Obama won't be the problem if that happens, he will be only a symptom of the real problem. The nation will be lost to eventual collapse and ruin for all.

Jan 29 @ 9:00PM  
Go back to school and learn how to spell. "Lier"

Jan 29 @ 9:16PM  
Considering the economy, in spite of all efforts on the part of the Republicans to sabotage it, is actually in recovery, should be pretty good for Obama.

If Gingrich can survive Romney outspending him 5:1, he has a pretty good shot at getting the nomination. He's, for some unknown reason, more popular with the Republicans than Romney, consistently beating him in nationwide polls. Of course, there's also the problem I mentioned above, that (according to the Ron Paul fanatics) Gingrich doesn't even get a shot at 25% of the delegates, for one reason or another.

Santorum and Ron Paul have such a small following, they're not worth talking about. The best they can hope for is to act as spoilers, and to attempt to use their tiny minorities to force changes in the Republican platform.

As for Romney? Well, even the conservative-biased Rasmussen Reports has him at 2% behind Obama. That's close enough that the Republican bias of the Electoral College (all those small conservative "flyover states" with their disproportionate voting power) will make it hard for Obama to win.

So, really, it DOES matter who you guys vote for. Romney has nowhere to go but down. Obama has had four years of Republican attacks, and his approval ratings are on the rebound. How many more attack ads can be unleashed on Obama that don't just recycle the same tired lies and propaganda?

Meanwhile, Romney's approval ratings dropped 35% among independents (from +5% to -18%, compared to Obama's -5% to +6%) just this month. While Obama's bump can be explained by the SOTU speech (and it'll be up to not fold... again...), Romney's drop can probably be traced to his "vulture capitalism" and his federal tax rate that's already as low as a family making $50,000 a year (and his desire to decrease his tax rate even more, while significantly increasing the tax rates on the family making $50,000 a year).

But I'm realistic. The Republicans have negative campaigning down to an art form. They've got the money and the expertise to misinform millions of people. And their efforts to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters can't hurt, either.

So yeah. If it came down to Romney vs. Obama, it'll be a real cage match. If it's Gingrich vs. Obama, it'll be a cake walk for Obama.

Jan 29 @ 9:43PM  
the economy................. is actually in recovery
Don't tell that to people out here in the real world. We know better.

They think if they say it enough, people will believe it. And some duped sheeple will. But we know how it is for US.

Jan 29 @ 10:02PM  
So what do you call almost two years of job growth in this nation?

We're not recovered, but we're recovering.


We're still a couple of years from recovery, but we're a lot closer than if McCain had won and allowed us to go into a full-blown depression.

Jan 29 @ 10:33PM  
So what do you call almost two years of job growth in this nation?
I call it a lie from the left designed to make sheeple think Obama's policies are working as it gets close to the election.

Politfact???? How left wing can you get??

I'm talking about people in my own family and others who know what it's really like out here. And what it's like around where I live. I guess you missed my post about that.

Jan 29 @ 10:57PM  
Obama started his term in a recession and by most measures, has made things far worse.

When he took office gas was $1.82 a gallon. Now, as Obama has halted development of the Canada gas pipeline -- a project that is truly "shovel ready" and was approved for environmental safety at least 3 times by Obama's own Cabinet departments -- gas prices are the highest it has been in history for this time of year, more than double in many places.

When Obama was elected, the unemployment rate was 6.8%. It very first month he took office it went over 8% for the first time in decades promptly went up to over 9 percent, then 10% while he was busy pushing Obamacare through Congress, stayed over 9% for over 2 years straight at which time he laughed about how his "shovel ready projects," "Stimulus" plan was a scam, and it has not been under 8% since the day he took office.... the longest period of sustained high employment since the 1930s.

In 3 years, Obama has added more money to the national debt than any other president in history has in their entire term. He's the first president ever to preside over the downgrading of the US credit rating.

If there is anything Obama has done to improve the economy, I'd like to know what it is. The standard of living in this country has taken a nose dive since Obama became president. For the first time ever, future generations are looking at a lower standard of living then their parents and grandparents.

All the talk about a better economy is nothing more than the leftist controlled media blowing smoke up your ass to get Obama reelected while they further their effort to DAMAGE the economy because liberals think Americans have things too good, our wealth is the product of plunder, and we need to be taken down a notch. So they see ruining the economy as payback and making things "fair" and "equal." We have a man in the White House who thinks America needs to be LESS great. He is ashamed of our pride. And so are his supporters.

Screw them. See you at the voting booth.

Jan 29 @ 11:15PM  
At the same point in Reagan's first term where Obama is now in his first term, after Reagan inherited the disastrous "stagflation" economy from Carter, real GDP growth rate was 7.19% after he drastically reduced marginal tax rates.

So what is real GDP growth rate under Obama at the same time into his term?

A ridiculous 1.50% real GDP growth rate -- a disaster. At that rate the economy will NEVER recover. There hasn't been a single month since he took office where enough jobs were created to even keep up with the normal net flow of new people into the job market let alone making a dent in the unemployed.

Liberals think 1.5% is a good growth rate. They like low growth so they think it's good. To them, it's not as good as negative growth, what they really want, but it's a lot better than Reagan's booming real GDP growth, one of the highest, if not the highest in history. Liberals hate growth, but only in the American economy. They want our enemies economies to grow by leaps and bounds. Everything Obama does is designed to make our economy shrink and our enemies economies grow. It's all part of the "payback" in a sick twisted liberal's mind.

Jan 29 @ 11:17PM  
Politfact???? How left wing can you get??

Politifact checked the labor statistics. The same labor statistics as was generated under the Bush administration.

Care to cite any statistics of your own? Can you find any statistics, perhaps, that show that jobs were actually lost over the last two years?

It's been a feeble recovery. So has every other recovery we've had. But job losses were exceeded by job gains for the last two years. A piss-poor recovery, so far, but every economist who's worth their salt has been saying for years that a recession is the WORST time to try austerity programs. Much of the slowing growth can be traced to the government cutbacks.

When Obama was elected, the unemployment rate was 6.8%. It very first month he took office it went over 8% for the first time in decades promptly went up to over 9 percent,

Obama didn't get much through Congress until about 3 months into his term. So what you're describing is the continuation of Bush's policies. If you looked at a graph showing the economy's health, you'd see it in a steep downward plunge from Bush's last year... slowing down about three or four months into Obama's term... leveling off... and starting to rise again.

Jan 29 @ 11:22PM  
Care to cite any statistics of your own?
I did -- my own. The proof is in the pudding, no matter how much they tout what they want us to believe.

Jan 29 @ 11:29PM  
The only way you could think Obama is doing a good job with the economy is if you hate America and consider anything that damages its economy a good job.

Jan 30 @ 12:18AM  
I did -- my own. The proof is in the pudding, no matter how much they tout what they want us to believe.

Case in point why I REALLY believe that we should teach the algebra/statistics path in high school, than the algebra/pre-calc path. A LOT of people know squat about statistics, and are generalizing when they shouldn't. (But then, it's something we've had since our cavemen days, so it's not too surprising...)

In my experience, if you eat a peanut butter sandwich outside your apartment, a flock of geese will wander by. Should I generalize that to the population at large, or accept that it's just anecdotal evidence?

There are areas of the country where the unemployment rate is below 5%. There are areas where the unemployment rate is above 15%. Should someone in the former look around them, they'll think the economy as great as it's been since the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Should someone in the latter look around them, they'll think the economy is in the worst shape since the LAST time a Republican tried "supply-side economics."

Jan 30 @ 12:20AM  
The only way you could think Obama is doing a good job with the economy is if you hate America and consider anything that damages its economy a good job.

Like, say, the Republicans knowingly driving our credit rating down, resulting in not only the government paying higher interest, but also forcing anyone with a credit card, auto loan, or mortgage to pay higher interest? Including hundreds of thousands of businesses who have to take out loans to expand their operations?

That sort of thing, you mean?

Jan 30 @ 1:42AM  
Unfortunately political "Blogs" become political "Forums"....

But still there is no offered proof present that Newt is a lier liar...

Jan 30 @ 6:03AM  
Reagan inherited the disastrous "stagflation" economy from Carter...

..and then proceeded to nearly triple the nation's debt.

The latest Gallup numbers : Obama 50% - Romney 48%
Obama 50% - Gingrich 48%

Jan 30 @ 8:04AM  
I tend to go with RealClearPolitics, which averages multiple polls. The conservative-biased Rasmussen is thus averaged against the liberal-biased PPP.

So, for existence, Obama v. Romney has Rasmussen has Obama +2%, Wall Street Journal says Obama +6%, and PPP has Obama +5% (though it was run a week earlier).

Obama v. Gingrich has Rasmussen has Obama +13%, Wall Street Journal has Obama +18%, and PPP has Obama +7% (again, PPP was run a week earlier).
mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2018 Online Singles, LLC.