Political Animal
Blog
If Newt Gingrich wants to be a top-tier candidate, he’s going to have to expect top-tier scrutiny. And given his recent history, that’s likely a campaign-killer for the disgraced former House Speaker.
During a debate last week, after Gingrich spent some time railing against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, John Harwood reminded the Republican candidate that he was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac five years ago. Gingrich insisted that he’s “never done any lobbying,” but was paid for his advice “as a historian.” He added that he told Freddie Mac officials that their business model was creating a “bubble” that was “insane.”
There was ample evidence that Gingrich was simply lying. A week later, a closer look makes his claims look even more dishonest.
Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with the consulting work Gingrich was hired to perform for the company in 2006 tell a different story. They say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.
If Gingrich concluded that the company’s business model was at risk and that the housing market was a “bubble,” as he said during the debate, he didn’t share those concerns with Richard Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive officer at the time, a person familiar with the company’s internal discussions said.
The Gingrich campaign told Bloomberg the candidate’s dubious story is true, but a confidentiality agreement prohibits any additional details.
What an odd response. Last week, Gingrich was not only willing to tell a national television audience he was paid extremely well to offer his advice, but he offered details about the kind of advice he offered behind closed doors. Now Gingrich’s work is confidential?
Regardless, the available information makes it clear that Gingrich’s version of events is at odds with reality.
Amid the growing number of Republican experts on Freddie Mac’s payroll in 2006, Gingrich was expected to identify potentially supportive party members on Capitol Hill. He wasn’t on retainer to lobby lawmakers.
Freddie Mac officials expected Gingrich to provide written material that could be circulated among conservatives on Capitol Hill and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm.
And executives looked to him to help them find innovative ways to address the problems confronting Freddie Mac, said an official familiar with the company’s internal dynamics.
I believe those in the biz refer to this as building a lobbying strategy. Freddie Mac didn’t need a “historian,” it needed a former congressional leader to help with regulations and legislation.
What Gingrich said last week just wasn’t true. That happens a lot with this guy.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on November 15, 2011 3:05 PM:
I see where Newt is now portraying himself as a "Washington Outsider" , noting his absence from one of the most powerful jobs in Washington for 12 years now. He didn't mention that he left "Washington" in disgrace, however.
I recall another GOPer who ran on the "Washington Outsider" meme....a guy who's FATHER had been head of the CIA, Vice President and President of the USA...
How did that guy work out for us? I guess, really, that most of these guys just lie a lot. And at least 23% always believe them.
Th on November 15, 2011 3:07 PM:
Leave Newt alone. He is a great guy and great American. I very much hope the Republicans are wise enough to nominate him for President. Please, please, please.
Mudge on November 15, 2011 3:40 PM:
A Republican opens his mouth and a lie comes out. Newt is an old hand at this. An expert.
TR on November 15, 2011 3:43 PM:
Again, the idea that Gingrich -- a washed-up professor who was so undistinguished that he never even made tenure at West Georgia College, a student whose dissertation was on the colonial education policies in the Belgian Congo, a guy who had no training in American history and who has never published a word on housing policy -- was somehow paid several times what a full professor makes in a year to offer his "expert opinion" on the history of American housing policies is insane. INSANE.
J on November 15, 2011 3:47 PM:
The idea that Fannie Mae was consulting historians (why?, which others? what about?) strains credulity; the idea that they would pay them $300, 000 a pop is utterly unbelievable. In the remarkably unlikely event that Fannie Mae and other firms like it were looking for historical advice, there are much better historians who would much better advice for much less money.
ComradeAnon on November 15, 2011 4:17 PM:
I think that if Newt had predicted a housing bubble back in 2006, we would have heard of it many, MANY times before now.
c u n d gulag on November 15, 2011 4:19 PM:
Bringing Newt in as an historian would be like bringing in Jerry Sandusky as an expert in the care and proper treatment of prepubescent boys.
They both have a reason to f*ck with things.
And none of them for the general good.
bigtuna on November 15, 2011 5:35 PM:
Following up on TR - tracked down some reputable sources, and I had no idea what a loser Newtie is regarding history, and at, actually, accomplishing anything. They guy failed at everything that had to do with writing, history, building a career, providing for his family .... until he became elected and found the gravy train that is corporate-backed republicanism... I bet there are history grad students who would be more productive as a consultant.
The Oracle on November 16, 2011 3:45 AM:
Bloomberg News is reporting that Gingrich, instead of $300,000, received $1.6 to $1.8 million to lobby on behalf of Freddie Mac over 9 years, between 1999 and 2008.
IOW, Gingrich may have received $300,000 between 1999 and 2002 from Freddie Mac for "consulting work," but between 2006 and 2008 he reportedly received almost 5 times that amount, for "consulting work," that happened to coincide with when the housing bubble was nearing the bursting point, and when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae started being more competitive with the private mortgage brokers and lenders, trying to win back some of the mortgage market share they'd lost during the time when the mortgage feeding frenzy occurred among the private mortgage brokers and lenders, a Wall Street feeding frenzy fed by fraud-based mortgages being rebundled into fraud-based toxic-mortgage-packed falsely-rated derivatives packages.
So, it is no wonder that Newt Gingrich is trying to "conveniently" forget the 2006 to 2008 period when he made over a million dollars "consulting" with Freddie Mac on how Freddie Mac could take advantage of all this "free money" that previously had been relatively limited to a bunch of fraud-driven mortgage brokers and lenders, when Newtie "consulted" with all his Republican pals on Capitol Hill and in the Bush administration on how best to keep this right-wing Wall Street feeding frenzy going, and going, and going...and then it all crashed.