Obama says a candidate for the White House must be an open book… What a hypocrite!
July 10, 2012:
Notice O’Storyteller didn’t answer the question? How about how easily Obama lies?
His operatives are parroting the lie that Governor Romney is the most secretive guy since Nixon. We know what’s going on here… Tack a label on the opposition describing what YOUR guy is/has been in order to deflect and deceive. In psychological terms it’s called projection; it’s when one projects their problems onto other people:
It is “the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable – too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous – by attributing them to another”.
Obama has been anything but an open book and he’s the real outsourcer. He and his Scheme Team are hell-bent to project those negatives onto Governor Romney. When he ran for President, the main stream media conveniently lost their collective vetting magnifying glass. (Oh, but Romney’s days as a teenager? Pull out the microscope and publish page after page!)
Figuring out the real Obama is a puzzle which has occupied many *heroic modern-day Sherlocks.
Regarding the continuing “felon” falsehoods blurting out of Obama talking heads, CNN’s John King spoke last week with four Bain Capital employees; three are Democrats, two are active Obama supporters. They confirm Romney’s truth – that he left Bain in February 1999 and had nothing to do with the company:
CNN Report Debunks Latest False Attack From Obama Campaign
Last week, CNN’s Anderson cooper, John King, and David Gergen reported on Team Obama’s despicable and desperate behavior on Romney/Bain and possibly being a felon. Even Obama-cheerleader David Gergen frustratingly concluded: “The Obama campaign is now playing a very rough form of politics and is that really what we were promised?” Rarely does one see such concern on Gergen’s face for Obama…
“Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.”
**Suggested reading for truth on ‘open book’ Obama:
Reminder: MittRomneyCentral has no affiliation whatsoever with Mitt Romney or his presidential campaign. We are a grassroots organization. Comments below are strictly the opinion of the author.
Mr. Obama’s desperation and panic have compelled him and his campaign subordinates to stoop to full immersion in pools of scum in their failing attempts to drag Governor Romney into their familiar territory of mud wrestling. As the Obama campaign chooses to wallow in the waste of deception, they ironically reveal their true characters. As President of the United States, Barack Obama has debased the office of the presidency to a level he will never be able to repair — the reputation of the presidency will now need to be restored by his successor.
By contrast, Mitt Romney’s responses have been those of a gentleman: Firm, resolute, tough, and presidential.
My anger over what I have witnessed emerging from The White House this week caused me to postpone this opinion 24 hours. Mr. Obama’s decision to not apologize to Governor Romney for blatantly false accusations, as well as his failure to disavow the slander of subordinates, is further indictment of Obama’s character and has only brought on greater indignation. By allowing his campaign staff to spew false accusations at will, he now effectively owns their statements — Obama’s future attempts to distance himself from them will ring hollow.
Those of us that contribute to this site are political junkies of sorts; in a way, we become such through constant research of facts. I admit I am one. That said, I must assume readers of this piece are not political junkies and rather click through to MRC a few minutes each day to learn truth behind each presidential candidate’s positions and policies. Fair enough.
If one does not know much about Mitt Romney or Barack Obama and their policies, one can easily discern which is the more credible principal of their respective campaigns based solely on their reputations built over a lifetime. Ignoring altogether either candidate’s ideologies or political affiliation, which person’s reputation would lead you to trust one over the other? After all, very few of us will ever have the opportunity to really know the person of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, correct? If true, what do we have by which to judge each man’s character, integrity, and trustworthiness? Whose rhetoric can we really believe?
To discern truth, we have each person’s reputation. With whom has each person chosen to associate in service? In business? What is each person’s reputation? Consider the source.
The Reputation of Barack Obama
This week, Governor Sununu on the Sean Hannity referred to Barack Obama’s “cheek to jowl” relationship with Rod Blagojevich, convicted felon and former Illinois governor to describe Obama’s reputation of and familiarity with “Chicago style politics.” Following are but a few facts that make up Mr. Obama’s reputation:
Obama has stated numerous times recently that FactCheck.org “is wrong” when their research is cited in reference to his false statements of Romney. Obama clearly thinks the value add of constantly repeating the lie is worth the risk that a few people will call him on it.
Obama has arrogantly stated the historically liberal Washington Post’s Pinocchio fact checkers are wrong when they correct his blatantly false statements like this one.
Obama “cheek to jowl” with Blagojevich
Obama’s first significant business transactions involved convicted felon and neighbor Tony Rezko known for numerous shady dealings at all levels of Chicago politics.
In Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, he admits to “composite” descriptions of those in his life for “compression” purposes, allowing the narrative he wishes to project without any risk of discovery of false claims or untoward reputation.
The evening of the bin Laden raid, Obama, along with the tiny group present in the Ops room committed to keep details of the operation completely secret except to disclose that bin Laden had been killed. Less than 24 hours later, Obama revealed numerous details of the raid including the use of a previously secret elite force (SEAL Team VI), endangering current and future special operations missions.
Obama’s hubris extends to taking credit for military operations — angering U.S. active duty military personnel — while projecting to the public that doing so was an enormous risk to himself.
Obama’s White House has been the source of numerous documented leaks that have endangered the lives of Americans in the military and intelligence communities and this according to Democrats like Senator Feinstein. These are widely considered to be for the political self-interest of Obama.
Obama pushed ObamaCare through by constantly stating it was not a tax, then argued at the Supreme Court that it is a tax, and when declared a tax by the Supreme Court, he and his surrogates vehemently deny it is a series of huge taxes.
Space does not allow the listing of all blatant lies. To study only the latest of Obama’s lies, click here. And to review 10 major documented lies Obama has made, click here.
In Mr. Obama’s words, watch this short video clip of seven promises Obama made to America that he never had any intention of keeping. These are only seven examples of commitments he made knowing he would never follow through:
The Reputation of Mitt Romney
Just this week, Governor Sununu and Mayor Rudy Giuliani separately referred to Mitt Romney as having a reputation above reproach when asked about accusations by Cutter and Rhoades that Romney committed a felony. As well, numerous Democrats and those that supported Obama in 2008 came out on the record to defend Mitt Romney’s reputation. That said, consider these few facts related to Mitt Romney’s life and career:
Since the 1970s, Mitt Romney has been instrumental in countless successful business endeavors with Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company, and Bain Capital. His leadership was crucial in most of these successes.
Mitt Romney left Bain & Company to co-found Bain Capital in 1984 which became a successful venture capital firm. By 1990, Bain & Company was nearing financial collapse when Romney was asked to return to the firm to rescue it; which he did from 1991 to 1992 where he worked without pay ($1/year). He returned to lead Bain Capital afterward.
Mitt Romney closed the offices of Bain Capital in 1996 for a week to search for the 14-year old daughter of partner Robert Gay who went missing in New York City. He turned the Bain Capital team into a detective/search team in the City and after several days they found Gay’s daughter in New Jersey. The operation is credited with saving her life.
Mitt Romney was asked to take a leave of absence from Bain Capital in 1999 to rescue the financially strapped and corruption laden Winter Olympics which was running nearly $400 million short of revenue objectives. In the face of major threats of terrorism post 9/11, Romney led the Olympics to an astounding success, clearing a $100 million profit. He worked those three years without pay ($1/year). After the successful ending of the Olympics, he received a severance which he donated entirely to charity.
Mitt Romney served a successful term as governor of Massachusetts accomplishing many key objectives while being opposed by an 80 percent Democrat legislature. His success is attributed to many various methods and leadership techniques, including the effective use of the bully pulpit and 800 vetoes. He worked as governor without pay from 2003 to 2007 ($1/year).
For approximately 17 years from 1977, Mitt Romney served as the pastor (bishop) or senior pastor (stake president) of his church in which he met with and personally counseled thousands of individuals and families dealing with spiritual, employment, financial, and marital challenges, among many other leadership requirements. These responsibilities sometimes exceeded 30 hours a week, over and above his professional duties. His 17+ years service as a pastor were all without pay.
Mitt Romney lost the 2008 bid as the GOP presidential candidate to Senator McCain. Upon conceding to McCain, Romney immediately set out to raise as much money as he could in support of Senator McCain’s presidential candidacy, raising approximately $20 million in that effort.
After McCain’s loss to Barack Obama in the presidential race of 2008, Romney worked tirelessly for Republicans running for the Senate and House in the 2010 elections and was instrumental in raising significant funds in those successful wins. Ronald Reagan did the very same thing leading up to his 1980 run for the presidency.
Mitt Romney’s personal and professional reputation is above reproach. Indeed, his reputation for the highest levels of integrity is touted by the thousands of friends, colleagues, and associates that have worked with Romney at various times across this nation and over the years. That is not true of Barack Obama. In fact their respective reputations, discerned from rhetoric, decisions, actions, and policies are polar opposites in so many ways.
In whose care would you trust your business? In whose care would you trust your community or state government? Which person would you guess to tell the truth at every turn and in any situation?
Consider the source.
“Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.” ~ George Washington
American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist– Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families
⇨ Note: Rather than list in this article all the lies from Obama, Romney supporters are invited to leave comments exposing the outsourcing Obama has done and the many lies coming from him, his administration, and his campaign.
“President Obama continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. While lamenting negative ads and calling for a debate on the issues, his campaign is running a dishonest, shameful smear campaign with no plans to get Americans back to work. The American people deserve the truth and they certainly deserve better from their president.”
– Andrea Saul, Romney Campaign Spokesperson
Obama continued his unrelenting lying today…
On the campaign trail the President still unabashedly proclaimed “Mr. Romney” as an outsourcer – that he, Obama, is an insourcer. When one is in the deceit business, saying preposterous things seem normal. He’s the emperor with no clothes – a preposterous President whose lies roll so easily off his tongue.
Days After Accusing Governor Romney Of Being A Felon, The Obama Campaign Now Professes To Want A Real Debate On The Issues:
Obama Campaign Spokesperson Jen Psaki: “Of Course The President Wants To Have A Highbrow Debate About These Policy Issues And What The American People Actually Care About.” (Politico, 7/14/12)
How Can President Obama Have The “Highbrow Debate” He Allegedly Wants? Don’t Spend $100 Million On Overwhelmingly Negative Ads…
The Associated Press: “A Sustained Early Barrage Designed To Create Lasting, Negative Impressions” Of Governor Romney. “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.” (“Obama Spending On Attack Ads Soars,” The Associated Press, 7/14/12)
Don’t Allow Your Campaign To Accuse Your Opponent Of Being A Felon…
FactCheck.org: “No Basis For The Obama Campaign’s Claim That Romney Committed A Felony.” “But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.” (Brooks Jackson, “Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion,” FactCheck.org, 7/12/12)
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Before You Make An Accusation, Shouldn’t There Be More Investigation When You Start Raising The Possibility, In [The Obama Campaign’s] Words, Of Committing Felony…?” BLITZER: “So, the question is: why would Stephanie Cutter jump to this felony accusation? No one has ever suggested Mitt Romney did anything ever criminally wrong. … The question is, before you make an accusation, shouldn’t there be more investigation when you start raising the possibility, in her words, of committing felony – potentially this is a felony? That’s a serious accusation.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 7/12/12)
Former Governor And DNC Chair Ed Rendell: The Obama Campaign “Went A Little Bit Too Far With The Felony Business.” RENDELL: “I think Carol also made a very good point about all this attack may be hurting the President’s brand a little bit, too. I think our supporters went a little bit too far with the felony business.” (MSNBC’s “NOW With Alex Wagner,” 7/13/12)
Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer: “When You Get The Obama Campaign Accusing Him Of Being A Felon, You Have Jumped The Shark.” KRAUTHAMMER: “But when you get the Obama campaign accusing him of being a felon, you have jumped the shark. … So when they accuse him of deliberately lying to the SEC and committing a felony, they are then retroactively questioning all the series of charges up to then. That’s jumping the shark. That is a mistake.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 7/12/12)
Don’t Repeat Baseless Attacks That Have Been Thoroughly Debunked And Discredited…
The fallout from the Obama machine’s serious mis-step of implying Governor Mitt Romney is a felon continues…
Obama appeared on CBS today and doubled-down on the Bain/Romney/felony smokescreen. He also released two more ads today on the same topic. (Obama is outspending Romney 3-1 on ads in battleground states. Revealing a bit of stratagem, FOX News’ Carl Cameron today said Team Romney will hit back with targeted ads in a couple of weeks.)
Meanwhile, in response to Stephanie Cutter, Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued a blistering statement yesterday and called for an apology:
“President Obama’s campaign hit a new low today when one of its senior advisers made a reckless and unsubstantiated charge to reporters about Mitt Romney that was so over the top that it calls into question the integrity of their entire campaign,” Rhoades said. “President Obama ought to apologize for the out-of-control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office he holds. Campaigns are supposed to be hard fought, but statements like those made by Stephanie Cutter belittle the process and the candidate on whose behalf she works.“
Bulldog John Sununu appeared on Hannity yesterday and had this to say:
Charles Krauthammer weighed in yesterday, as well:
Even Obama surrogate Ed Rendell disapproves of Obama’s latest over-the-top smear. Here he is on MSNBC’s'Now’program with Alex Wagner:
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams issued this statement: “Earlier today, former Governor Ed Rendell had the courage to do what President Obama would not: admit the Obama campaign’s baseless and unsubstantiated attacks on Mitt Romney went too far. President Obama may talk about a different kind of politics and bringing people together, but it’s just another broken promise from a president who has failed to keep so many.”
Governor Romney today released this fantastic ad using Obama’s OWN WORDS:
CNN’s John King wrote this yesterday regarding Team Obama’s declaring 1999 as the birth year of ‘the big Bain Lie’:
Slam! Now Romney could be a criminal. Yes, we could be supporting a felon! (*eye-roll*) From lie-launcher Stephanie Cutter (Obama Deputy Campaign Manager):
In a conference call with reporters this morning, the Obama campaign focused on this morning’s Boston Globe story arguing that Mitt Romney remained at Bain through 2002. The Romney campaign has called the story “not accurate.”
“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter asserted.
“If he was lying to the American people,” she added. “then that’s a real character and trust issue that the American people need to take very seriously.”
“If he’s legally responsible for everything that happened inside those Bain deals, seems to me that he’s also politically responsible for the consequences of those deals in terms of people losing their jobs, losing their pensions and their health care, and American jobs being shipped overseas,” she said.
Slam! Cutter also reiterated the too-stupid-for-words claim that Governor Romney is the most secretive presidential candidate since Richard Nixon. Another attempt to define The Gov by invoking a name attached with great scandal… Yes, the Obama lie launchers have obviously memorized the Alinsky playbook.
Slam! In pre-emptive worminess to negate positive press coming Romney’s way from his attendance at the summer Olympics in London in a couple of weeks, Cutter tried to get some bang with this one:
Cutter also took a swipe at his work related to the 2002 Olympics, commenting that Romney’s Olympic record was “less than wholesome, shall we say, in terms of the decisions that were made there, the contracts that were signed, and the basic operation of how Mitt Romney ran the Olympics.”
Slam! Obama’s lie-launchers are not giving up on the Romney is an outsourcer meme, either.
Yes, Ms. Cutter. LYING is a real character and trust issue the American people need to take very seriously. The fact that you and your boss are deceiving America IS BEING TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY. So, stand back liars! Romney and team are firing back with explosions of TRUTH…
In a conference call Monday morning, senior staff said Romney’s surrogates would stop shying away from the word “lie” in responding to Democrats’ attacks on his business record, and plan to go on TV to call Obama a “liar,” the source said.
They are very fed up with these attacks,” said the source.
To spread the message, the source said, the campaign is going to start circulating a document to press that compiles “presidential falsehoods and exaggerations.”
NUMBER ONE: The Obama Campaign’s Discredited Attack On Governor Romney’s Record Of Job Creation
NUMBER TWO: President Obama Falsely Claimed Obamacare Was “Absolutely Not A Tax Increase”
NUMBER THREE: The Obama Campaign’s Attempt To Deflect Blame For The Failed Solyndra Investment
NUMBER FOUR: President Obama’s False Claim About His Record Of Creating Manufacturing Jobs
NUMBER FIVE: The Obama Campaign Distorted Governor Romney’s Position On Abortion
NUMBER SIX: The Obama Campaign’s Distorted Attacks About Massachusetts Contracts For Foreign Jobs
NUMBER SEVEN: The Obama Campaign’s Misleading Claim About Massachusetts’ Debt Burden
NUMBER EIGHT: The Obama Campaign’s False Attack About Governor Romney’s Position On Student Loan Rates
NUMBER NINE: President Obama’s Misinformation About His Own Record Of Job Creation
NUMBER TEN: President Obama’s “Ridiculous” Claim On Tax Cuts
The Romney press shop today released ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER OBAMA CAMPAIGN FALSEHOOD:
“The Obama campaign must think Mitt Romney is Superman. He was, in reality, rescuing the Olympics by working in Utah 24/7 for the years the Obama campaign also alleges he was running Bain Capital. Even though the Obama campaign may be wrong about his involvement in Bain Capital, it shows that even they can admit Mitt Romney is a great leader.” –Former Governor John Sununu
Today, The Obama Campaign Launched Even More False Attacks On Governor Romney’s Business Career:
Today, The Obama Campaign Falsely Alleged That Governor Romney Was Managing Bain Capital After February 1999. “The Obama campaign said a Boston Globe report Thursday proves Mitt Romney hasn’t been truthful about when he left Bain Capital. The Globe story cites SEC filings to prove Romney stayed on as head of Bain Capital after 1999.” (Pema Levy, “Obama Camp: Romney ‘Wasn’t Telling The Truth’,” Talking Points Memo, 7/12/12)
Multiple Non-Partisan Fact Checkers Have Already Confirmed Mitt Romney Left Bain Capital When He Actually Did – In February 1999:
“The Massachusetts-Based Firm Notes That Romney Retired More Than 13 Years Ago.” (Steve Peoples, “Bain Capital Defends Record In Light Of Criticism,” The Associated Press, 5/16/12)
It’s all downhill from here for Newt … I’m predicting right here and now that Gingrich has hit his high point and is about to whither under the forthcoming information about his last 15 years spent in lobbying/influence-peddling activities. The following will make for a beautiful montage using the disgraced and ousted former Speaker’s own words … and the timing and subject are perfect for anyone who doesn’t want Newt as the nominee. Why? Because it’s Fannie and Freddie and Florida folks! Florida took a hit second only to Nevada in the housing crisis and these GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities) were at the root of the problem. This is the perfect storm. The script will play out perfectly.
Remember when Newt said on Fox News “I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.”
How about his ludicrous initial claim back in the November CNBC debate that he was paid by them to be a “historian” who told them how “insane” they were?
Sure Newt. At least we now know that he was lying through his teeth. He released one year of this contract yesterday and there was no mention of him being a “historian” but rather he was hired as a “consultant” by and to the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Well, as it turns out, “consultant” was just a euphemism for “lobbyist” and Newt’s whole story doesn’t pass the smell test.
Over a month ago, Mitt challenged Newt on this claim calling Newt “the highest paid historian in history”
a spokeswoman for [Gingrich's] firm said it was unable to find an earlier contract dating to 1999 and renewed until 2002. The spokeswoman, Susan Meyers, also could not say whether Gingrich or any of its employees produced any written reports for Freddie Mac as part of the nearly $1.8 million in consulting fees it was paid.
Well, today’s news from Politico is especially damning to Newt and proves that he was involved in hard core lobbying efforts for the controversial and beleaguered GSE:
New details from Newt Gingrich’s contracts worth $1.6 million with Freddie Mac show that the Republican hopeful wasn’t just a boardroom consultant, but served as a high-profile booster for the beleaguered organization. He even gave a rallying speech to dozens of the group’s political action committee donors in the spring of 2007.
Shortly after the “rah, rah” speech, as one source described it, Gingrich gave an interview for the Freddie Mac website, where he supported the group’s model at length. The interview is no longer on Freddie’s site.
Gingrich said in the interview that Freddie has “made an important contribution to home ownership and the housing finance system,” even though many Republicans revile it.
On April 3, 2007, Gingrich gave a presentation to employee donors of Freddie Mac’s political action committee, according to several sources familiar with the presentation. It was the “rah, rah” speech described by a source who worked closely with Freddie at the time. Newt spoke about what was going on in the country and he offered his view of the issues.
That same day, Gingrich spoke to a larger Freddie Mac employee cabal where he explained his vision for transforming bureaucratic government into a “21st century organization” — a signature talking point for Gingrich who focused on technology in government early on.
Later that month, Gingrich also gave a “feature interview” that appeared on Freddie Mac’s website providing an extensive Q&A where the former Speaker of the House defended the government-sponsored enterprise model, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO.
Gingrich went so far as to say that “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.”
Freddie Mac declined to comment. A Gingrich spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system,” Gingrich said in the interview. “We have a much more liquid an stable housing finance system than we would have without GSEs. 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.”
Further Gingrich acknowledged that this is not a viewpoint conservatives normally embrace. “Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace,” he said in the interview. “But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”
Really Newt?!?!? Really People? This is the “conservative alternative” to Mitt?!?! Wow . . . Just wow . . .
These revelations make Newt both a liar and a lobbyist. Sounds like just what Obama would like to run against.
Gingrich — adamant that he wasn’t a lobbyist as he explained why he only released one year of his Freddie Mac contract, which dated to 1999 (he uttered something about going through a confidentiality process) — volunteered that at his firm, they brought in a “lobbying expert” to explain to his team what qualified as lobbying and what didn’t.
That expert “is prepared to testify,” Gingrich said.
Romney didn’t pounce. But why one would hire a “lobbying expert” other than to explain to staff how to walk up to the “bright line” Gingrich described, but not legally cross it, was not clear.
So Newt’s got his lawyer ready to say that Newt never officially lobbied with Fannie/Freddie . . . or at least he was trained/coached as to where that line is. However, what’s that old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . ? Newt’s trying to be too cute by half, and it’s the beginning of the end for him!
The American people want a TRUE DC outsider, that man is NOT Newt . . . it’s Mitt!!
The contract specifically excluded lobbying services, stating “nothing herein is or shall be construed as an agreement to provide lobbying services of any kind or engage in lobbying activities.”
The second contract released Tuesday night provides more detail on the work Gingrich was hired to perform, including “serve as advisor to Freddie Mac in the areas of strategic planning and public policy.” It also called on Gingrich, who is mentioned by name in the second contract, to “engage in discussions” with Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist and senior officers “to strategize on approaches to Freddie Mac business opportunities and challenges.” Gingrich, who was hired to help the company reach out to Republicans, also was expected to “contribute to Freddie Mac corporate planning and business goals” and to “meet with major stakeholders of Freddie Mac.”
The contract also states that “neither The Gingrich Group nor Newt Gingrich will provide lobbying services of any kind nor participate in lobbying activities on Freddie Mac’s behalf.”
OK, so the document essentially says that Newt is going to lobby for Freddie Mac, but that no one can call it or construe it as lobbying. That will play really well with folks, eh?
Even MORE revealing is that Newt’s campaign is trying to pull a switch-a-roo / misdirection trick here by releasing these contracts out of chronological order. So the 1999 contract says “no lobbying” but the 2006 contract contains no such phrase. Anyone notice a problem? Everyone knew and realized that Newt was lobbying and they couldn’t keep that terminology in the later contract. He would be more free in his activities advocating and lobbying in behalf of Freddie.
I believe another poster is going to address Newt’s lobbying to Congressmen for Medicare Part D when he was on the payroll as a consultant from several Pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from it’s passage. Kathleen Parker has just put up a column arguing my exact same point. Newt was a lobbyist:
Gingrich’s claim to have been hired as a historian, meanwhile, is a hard sell when no such role exists. It is also a stretch for him to present himself as an anti-establishment, Reagan-conservative rebel when he is raking in money for his association with companies, some of whose interests are anything but conservative.
Yet another mother lode for Gingrich has been the health care industry. Various companies paid Gingrich $55 million between 2001 and 2010, according to Bloomberg News. When asked what the companies received in return, Gingrich told The Post that they got to visit with “a really important guy who really knows a lot and who really has lots of information.” That person would be Gingrich’s Holy Trinity — Me, Myself and I.
He also earned more than a million from drugmaker Novo Nordisk, reportedly to help expand the U.S. market for its diabetes treatment. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this as long as Gingrich was honest about his role with the company. The company’s annual report to shareholders listed Gingrich under “public-policy activities,” which, the company added, “are often referred to as lobbying.”
He also personally urged GOP congressmen to support the $395 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit, according to, among others, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and former congressmen Jeff Bradley (R-N.H.) and Butch Otter (R-Idaho).
I saw a segment on CNN today with Wolf Blitzer where Rep. Flake flat out stated that Gingrich lobbied him hard on voting for Medicare Part D. Also in that piece I found this nugget:
A lobbyist for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae whose tenure overlapped with Gingrich’s told me on background that both signed the same contract. This person immediately registered as a lobbyist and said that Gingrich was clearly exerting his influence, though he may have been able to maintain a legal, if not entirely ethical, distance from the definition of lobbying.
Oh, and let’s not forget that before Newt’s ties to Freddie/Fannie had been revealed, he was the one spouting off the harshest rhetoric of any GOP candidate calling for investigations and even imprisonment of congressmen who had ties to or profits from Freddie/Fannie. Wonder if he’d like to roll back that charge, or if he’s willing to apply his own harsh charges to the man in the mirror.
So, do you take Newt at his word that “I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.” . . . ?
Any way you slice it, Newt is serving up large portions of his own “pious baloney.”
Fifteen years ago today on January 21, 1997, Newt Gingrich became the first House Speaker in American history to be reprimanded by his colleagues for ethical wrongdoing.
January 21, 1997 – “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. … Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.” (“House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker,” The Washington Post, 1/22/97)
The House Voted 395-28 To Reprimand Speaker Gingrich – With Roughly Nine In Ten House Republicans Voting Against Gingrich. (H.Res. 31, Vote #8: Passed 395-28: R 196-26; D 198-2; I 1-0, 1/21/97)
The House Ethics Committee – Chaired By A Republican Member – Had Previously Voted 7-1 To Reprimand And Sanction Gingrich. “The House ethics committee recommended last night that [Gingrich] face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or … reckless’ disregard of House rules. The committee’s 7 to 1 vote came after 5 1/2 hours of televised hearings … ‘This is a tough penalty,’ Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), chairman of the ethics panel, said after the vote. ‘I believe it is an appropriate penalty. It demonstrates that nobody is above the rules.’” (John E. Yang and Helen Dewar, “Ethics Panel Supports Reprimand of Gingrich,” The Washington Post, 1/18/97)
The Washington Post: “The House Imposed The Penalty … After Gingrich Acknowledged He Gave The Ethics Committee Untrue Information.” “The House imposed the penalty last year after Gingrich acknowledged he gave the ethics committee untrue information and failed to ensure that financing for two projects, including a college course he taught, would not violate federal tax laws. The penalty was to reimburse the ethics committee for added costs it attributed to investigating Gingrich’s misleading statements.” (Bill McAllister, “Gingrich To Pay Penalty With His Own Money,” The Washington Post, 9/15/98)
“Gingrich Confessed … To Violating The Rules.” “Gingrich confessed December 21 to violating the rules, admitting he should have sought specific legal advice about financing his college course and a town hall television project with tax-exempt donations. He took responsibility for inaccurate assertions that GOPAC, his former political organization, had no role in the college course.” (“Special Counsel Reportedly Recommends Gingrich Be Fined,” CNN.com, 1/17/97)
Gingrich’s Attorney told the Ethics Committee that his client had made “glaringly inconsistent” statements. “In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made ‘glaringly inconsistent’ statements to the panel’s investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds. The concession was among the most dramatic of any Gingrich representative.” (Charles R. Babcock and John E. Yang, “Files In Gingrich Case Detail Misstatements,” The Washington Post, 1/19/97)
Gingrich’s Claim That His Ethics Reprimand Was Partisan Was Rated “Pants On Fire”:
Gingrich Dismisses The Reprimand As A Partisan Matter, Saying It “Related More To The Politics Of The Democratic Party Than The Ethics.” GINGRICH: “I think what it does is it reminds people who probably didn’t know this that [Nancy Pelosi] was on the Ethics Committee, that it was a very partisan political committee, and that the way I was dealt with related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than the ethics. And I think in that sense, it actually helps me in getting people to understand – this was a Nancy Pelosi-driven effort.” (Fox News’ “On The Record,” 12/6/11)
PolitiFact, On Gingrich’s Assertion: “Pants On Fire.” “While it’s true that the Gingrich case became a vicious battlefield between the two parties, contemporary accounts and experts familiar with the proceedings agree that it was not ajudicated by ‘a very partisan political committee’ in a way that ‘related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics.’ The ethics panel’s case only moved forward with the express consent of Republicans, including the committee’s chairwoman, and it was led by a special counsel who was not a Democratic partisan and who focused on substantive legal matters. Most notably, when it became time to vote, the House – including nearly 90 percent of voting Republicans – voted to support the committee’s recommendation. We rate Gingrich’s statement Pants on Fire.” (PolitiFact.com, 12/7/11)
● “If He Didn’t Believe In The Fairness Of The Process, He Could Have Refused To Admit Wrongdoing…” “In essence, Gingrich is alleging that the investigation of his actions was biased by partisanship and, by extension, that the penalty he agreed to was tainted. … If he didn’t believe in the fairness of the process, he could have refused to admit wrongdoing and taken his chances on the House floor, where he led a sizable majority.” (PolitiFact.com, 12/7/11)
FactCheck.org: Gingrich’s Claims Are False And “Off Base.” “Newt Gingrich falsely claimed the House ethics panel that voted to reprimand him in 1997 was ‘a very partisan political committee.’ He was also off base when he said the inquiry was ‘a Pelosi-driven effort.’ In fact, the House Committee on Ethics is the only House panel evenly divided by party. And Pelosi was a relatively junior House member and not in a leadership position at the time. … The ethics panel was far from a ‘partisan’ committee.” (FactCheck.org, 12/8/11)
Happy anniversary, indeed.
The Republican party would be beyond foolish to hand the nomination to a reprimanded, Washington insider.
Mike Baxly, man featured in Pro-Gingrich PAC documentary, decries use of his out-of-context words.
Independent fact-checkers have labeled the near 30 minute documentary “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” as “misleading” and “manipulative” — awarding it the maximum of 4 Pinocchios on the truth scale and comparing it to something Michael Moore could have produced (meaning that it is utterly full of horse manure).
But in case you needed more proof that the claims made in the video are completely bogus, look no further than this seven minute interview with a man that was unknowingly used as a political prop in the same film: Mike Baxley.
In the short interview, Baxley says he is wasn’t even talking about Mitt Romney or Bain in the clips that they used in the video. In fact, Baxley says that he received two promotions and a 30% salary increase while the company he worked for was under Bain Capital management.
This is politics at it’s worst – but get used to it, folks. The Obama campaign and the DNC, using these same tactics, will put nearly a billion dollars into distorting Mitt Romney’s record (assuming he’ll be the nominee), and they’ll drag American capitalism and free enterprise through the dirt with them.
No worries though, American people are smart enough to see through this. Obama’s attacks on free enterprise will have the same effect they’ve had on Gingrich, causing him to appear desperate and his poll numbers to plummet.
Here is the interview:
PS: Even though Gingrich has claimed to take the high road by asking his Super PAC to remove inaccurate portions of the film (all of it), the film remains – in it’s gross entirety – available for all to view in it’s original form (with plenty of ad money pushing people to view it). Watch him totally ignore this fact in tomorrow’s debate.
Update: See video of Tommy Jones and Mike Baxley appearing today on America Live with Megyn Kelly (FOX News). Jones and Baxley take down claims made in the attack video. Watch it here.
Glenn Kessler, sleuth at The Washington Post, applied his magnifying glass to Newt Gingrich’s King of Bain Super PAC film. After close examination, he’s rendered a verdict:
Four Pinocchios (I’m throwing pinheaded in there, too).
Newt Gingrich, meet Michael Moore!
The 29-minute video “King of Bain” is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin. It uses evocative footage from distraught middle-class Americans who allege that Romney’s deal-making is responsible for their woes. It mixes images of closed factories and shuttered shops with video clips of Romney making him look foolish, vain or greedy. And it has a sneering voice-over that seeks to push every anti-Wall Street button possible.
Here’s just a sampling of what Romney and Bain Capital, which he once headed, is accused of: “Stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards . . . high disdain for American businesses and workers . . . upended the company and dismantled the work force; now they were able to make a handsome profit . . . cash rampage . . . contributing to the greatest American job loss since World War II . . . turn the misfortune of others into their own enormous financial gain.”
Kessler then offers insight on the four closed companies mentioned in the film. Before reading his conclusion, let’s see what Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has to say:
Let’s begin with how the filmmakers present their case that Unimac went out of business thanks to the predatory nature of Mitt Romney. It turns out that not only did Romney have little to do with Unimac, the firm hasn’t gone out of business at all. It’s currently producing appliances in Wisconsin, having moved there long after Romney left Bain and actually as Romney was concluding his term as governor of Massachusetts:
Bain Capital bought the business from Raytheon in 1998, and Romney left Bain a year later to run the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. In 2005, Bain sold UniMac (also called Alliance Laundry) to a Canadian entity known as Teachers’ Private Capital. The factory was moved from Marianna to Ripon, Wisc., in 2006, after Bain’s involvement ended — a fact made clear on the Web site of a laundry repair business co-owned by the people featured in the film.
In fact, Mike Baxley, who was interviewed for the film, said that he and his partner had “absolutely no idea” that the interviews were for a film about Romney and Bain. He said they thought they were being interviewed for a documentary about the factory closing.
“They said they wanted to know what it was like when the factory closed down,” he said, and he, his partner and his partner’s wife agreed to interviews after “they flashed a little money at us.” (Baxley, a Republican who said he had not yet thought much about the nomination contest, declined to reveal the amount.)
After watching “King of Bain” at The Fact Checker’s request, he said: “We were pretty shocked. Our quotes were seriously taken out of context. There is a real lack of facts.”
First of all, it is a stretch to portray Romney as some sort of corporate raider, akin to Carl Icahn (whose image is briefly seen). … Private equity deals, such as leveraged buyouts in which the company borrows lots of debt, can be more rewarding but also more risky. … Private equity revolutionized American business, demanding efficiencies (which can mean layoffs) and helping place much more emphasis on increasing shareholder value.
He writes that of the four closed companies mentioned in the film, only one of the cases actually involved Romney – Ampad. That company declined - not failed – as stated in the film. Though Ampad did close a facility in Marion, Indiana because less expensive retail competitors chipped away at its business supply core, it still operates as a subsidiary to Esselte.
Kessler also punches the Gingrich Super PAC with this:
“The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.”
(emphasis, italics added)
Romney, however, isn’t sitting still. He has responded in South Carolina with an ad balanced between positive and negative, looking at his record of creating jobs in the private sector, but also slamming Gingrich for “taking the Obama line”:
Here’s the ad – Bright Future:
South Carolinians are also hearing a new Romney radio ad titled “Shares Our Values.” He’s supported by pro-life conservatives because he shares their values and displayed pro-life leadership as governor:
In advance of President Obama’s campaigning in Manchester, New Hampshire today, the Romney campaign has released an excellent new ad targeting Obama’s economic policies.
Mitt Romney also penned a cut-to-the-chase open letter to our Delegator-in-Chief. The following letter will appear as a full page advert in three of New Hampshire’s largest newspapers: the Union Leader, Concord Monitor, and the Nashua Telegraph:
Dear President Obama,
Welcome to New Hampshire.
I hope you enjoy your visit. In 49 days, voters here will be going to the polls to choose a Republican nominee to run against you. I would like to lay out for you some of what I will be saying on the campaign trail if I am fortunate enough to become my party’s candidate.
I would begin by acknowledging that you were dealt a hard hand. You came into office in the midst of an economic crisis that was not of your making. You were asked to face great challenges and to solve difficult problems. The tasks before you would have taxed the abilities of any new president.
But we now have had three years to watch your policies unfold and to assess their results. The evidence is in and it is unequivocal. I will be blunt. Your policies have failed. It is bad enough that they have fallen short even by the standards your own administration set for itself. But things are much worse than that. Far from bringing the crisis to an end, your policies have actively hindered economic recovery. In some cases, they were the exact opposite of what our government should have been doing.
You and your advisors sold your economic “stimulus” package to Congress on the basis of a forecast that it would hold unemployment below 8 percent. There is a reason why this projection was wildly off base and that unemployment soared above 10 percent and is now stuck around 9 percent. Your stimulus bill was filled with special interest giveaways, and eased the way for your administration to shovel loan guarantees out the door to politically connected “green” technology firms, some of which are now in bankruptcy, with the taxpayers on the hook for more than $500 million.
Even where crony capitalism did not get in the way, so many projects were far from “shovel ready” or had absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs. Nearly a trillion dollars of tax dollars was spent, our budget deficit exploded, and some 25 million Americans remain either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up seeking work altogether. You placed a burden of debt on America that will take generations to repay and we got almost nothing in return.
You also failed to grasp the impact of your policies on the American business climate. Investment depends upon a degree of certainty, but your administration made it impossible for enterprises to make accurate forecasts about their future costs. If companies have stopped hiring in America, it is in no small part because of policies, including Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and an astonishing tangle of new federal regulations that have snuffed out investment. If we are ever to get America back to work, they all must be repealed.
I will also be talking about how you have catered to favored special interests, like civil-service unions and environmentalists, at the expense of American workers. Take your decision to “delay” building the state-of-the-art Keystone XL oil pipeline. Some 20,000 American jobs are at stake. You may not regard that as a large number, but every one of the unemployed men and women whose future you have sacrificed to satisfy your political base in the environmentalist left deserve far better. And this is but one of many examples I can cite.
America deserves better.
It is not America’s laziness that is the problem, as you recently suggested. It is your policies.
So once again, Mr. President, welcome to New Hampshire. We need a great debate about how best to get our country working again. We can’t afford four more years of failure. I believe in unleashing America’s potential. That is what my own campaign for the presidency is all about.