Why are people up in arms over these fees? He was a consultant not a lobbyist. He was not an elected politician nor on gubment payroll. Fannie and Freddie did not have to hire him. Today when asked why he was hired, a Fannie exec said "We paid for his name, it is very powerful in Republican circles, and it was worth every penny."

Now Obama has employed and advisor who got $90MM from Fannie and Freddie, where's the outrage for that?

If he advised them they were making huge mistakes, it would help Newt.

I don't see the reason for any outrage over this by anybody. But I'm also NOT a Newt fan. Can't trust him. His instincts are those of a statist. He is not consistently conservative and leans towards more of the same types of policies.

The fact that only recently did he realize that his Climate change ad with Pelosi was a mistake should suggest that he is a political chamelion, only uncomfortable when he realizes that those he is trying to attract really did not like seeing him playing nice with the enemy and pushing bogus krapp like AGW. He is another go along to get along pol. We've got enough of them.

(11-18-2011 02:24 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Why are people up in arms over these fees? He was a consultant not a lobbyist. He was not an elected politician nor on gubment payroll. Fannie and Freddie did not have to hire him. Today when asked why he was hired, a Fannie exec said "We paid for his name, it is very powerful in Republican circles, and it was worth every penny."

Now Obama has employed and advisor who got $90MM from Fannie and Freddie, where's the outrage for that?

There is actually nothing wrong with it on the surface. The GOP however has demonized FNMA and FRE as part of their talking points. There are actually some things about Newt I admire. I often disagree with a lot of his philosophyies but he did suport Clinton to get welfare reform and a budget with a surplus.

If you're going to rip something apart, to find out you made a ton of money from it is pretty hypocritical. Getting the money isn't bad in of itself, it's the context that matters.

(11-20-2011 11:22 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I often disagree with a lot of his philosophyies but he did suport Clinton to get welfare reform and a budget with a surplus.

You might want to re-phrase that. Something along the lines of welfare reform was shoved down Clinton's throat and he was forced to choke on it.

Its amazing how Clinton and libs like to re-write history.

(11-20-2011 11:45 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 11:22 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I often disagree with a lot of his philosophyies but he did suport Clinton to get welfare reform and a budget with a surplus.

You might want to re-phrase that. Something along the lines of welfare reform was shoved down Clinton's throat and he was forced to choke on it.

Its amazing how Clinton and libs like to re-write history.

Lets leave Monica out of this.

(11-20-2011 11:22 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I often disagree with a lot of his philosophyies but he did drag Clinton, kicking and screaming, to get welfare reform and a budget with a surplus.

FIFY

My problem is his complete lie in the debates where he acts as if he knew the collapse was coming and says he advised them to change their ways while working for them, when in reality he was getting paid millions to improve their image. He's a complete liar who shouldn't be able to sniff the Oval Office.

(11-20-2011 06:53 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  He's a complete liar who shouldn't be able to sniff the Oval Office.

That's never stopped anyone before.