Mitt Romney Unleashes Freddie Mac Attack, Newt Gingrich Fires Back

Less than three weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, polls show Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney with strong holds on the top two GOP spots. Their Monday war of words reflected that rivalry, with the pair trading barbs over their consulting histories.

On Monday morning, Romney attacked Gingrich's work at Freddie Mac, calling on him to return the millions he made during his time working for the mortgage giant.

"One of the things that I think that people recognize in Washington is that people go there to serve the people and then they stay there to serve themselves," Romney told Fox News.

Gingrich did not take those words lightly, firing back at Romney's own doings at private equity firm Bain Capital.

"I love the way he and his consultants do these things," Gingrich said. "I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, then I would be glad to listen to him and I'll bet you $10 dollars -- not $10,000 -- that he won't take the offer."

The $10,000 dig stems from Saturday night's debate, when Romney challenged Texas Gov. Rick Perry to a bet aimed at settling their positions on individual healthcare mandates.

Gingrich has been an increasing threat to Romney over the past few weeks, capped by the duo's exchange during Saturday night's debate on how they differ as candidates.

"I understand how the economy works," Romney said, placing himself as a private-sector businessman over a "career politician."

Gingrich jumped on that comment, responding: "Let's be candid. The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to [Sen.] Teddy Kennedy in 1994."

Comments

[prissylapew]

06:28 PM on 12/13/2011

Newt was not in public office, he was hired to do a job and payed for his service! All elected persons should return $$ to fannie & freddie immediatlely they have all profited quite nicely!

[shanefox]

05:52 PM on 12/13/2011

Are the Republi-can't candidates an "invented people?"

GOP plus an ample infusion of Big Money manure and these blooming clowns are the result.

[laurelphot]

03:47 PM on 12/13/2011

Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, the only two UNELECTED Presidents in US History.

[tklinecrew]

04:12 PM on 12/13/2011

W won the second one.... just saying

[laurelphot]

03:46 PM on 12/13/2011

Considering the Republi Can't Candidates it is easy to see how we wound up with a washed up "B" Movey actor, groomed by General Electrric, suffering with Altzheimers dementia in 1980, and the Bushhys in 1988 and 2000.

[jw928]

02:51 PM on 12/13/2011

Romney does understand the economy, and he has used that to make millions off of the rest of us. There isn't a candidate that will actually help the majority of us. That includes Obama. The best we can hope is that they don't make it worst. I wish we could fire all the politicians and vote directly on issues ourselves. Now that would be a democracy.

[JDSept]

04:30 PM on 12/13/2011

We are a Republic to begin with that has a democratic system as to electing who represents us. Do you think the average person has the time or knowledge to vote on every issue? Years back a local news station stood outside an insurance corp here (employees with high percentage of education) and show workers coming out two pictures and asked if they could identify them. Over 90% could not identify either one. The pictures were of the Dick Cheney and Condi Rice both who were in office at the time. Ask your neighbors if they know the names of the people who deal with the local school budget, which usually is about 80% and up of spending for a town. Few know or really care. Most people just don't have an interest or put their time elsewhere. That is reality. Should be different but it isn't. Willing to bet a huge majority couldn't even tell you the names of people in the GOP primaries.

[dagacheme]

02:05 PM on 12/13/2011

RON PAUL OR NONE AT ALL


Principled. Trustworthy. Educated. Consistent. Honorable. Noble. Truthful. Authentic. Steadfast. Credible. Accurate. Dependable. Honest. Sincere. Factual. Candid. Plainspoken. Reliable. Correct. Wise.

Husband. Father. Doctor. Veteran. Statesman. Teacher. Patriot.

Champion of the Constitution.

———————
There are only two candidates in this presidential cycle: Ron Paul, and Not Ron Paul.

The people who vote for Ron Paul will overwhelmingly ONLY vote for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, they will either vote for him as a 3rd party candidate or write him in. Us Ron Paul supporters, our support of him is as unwavering as the good doctor's support of the Constitution itself.

If the Republican party does not want Obama in a second term, they better line up behind Ron Paul. Voting for any other candidate is just throwing your vote away.

AND MAKE SURE YOU VOTE FOR THE RIGHT DELEGATES.....

[laurelphot]

03:36 PM on 12/13/2011

RON PAUL OR NONE AT ALL
The choice is clear, NONE, NADA, NIX, NEIN, NYAT

[Gottlieb]

12:02 AM on 12/14/2011

Ron Paul has the most committed supporters since he doesn't flip flop or waffle on his positions. He makes his opponents look like spoiled children. I like many of his positions but not enough to vote for him though.

[Roy49]

12:48 PM on 12/13/2011

Politics being "bought and sold" to the highest bidder thanks to the conservative Supreme Court justices and their "Citizens United" ruling that "corporations are people too" resolution! And these are the very same justices appointed by the George W. Bush administration! And the nightmare continues...

[mngnman]

12:36 PM on 12/13/2011

Newt gingrich nothing new here..........this is the best the rup. have to offer?

[Views from the Middle]

02:23 PM on 12/13/2011

No, the best the GOP has to offer is Buddy Roemer and John Huntsman. But these reasonable, fiscally conservative men don't appeal to the Tea Party nutballs.

[TopTiger1967]

12:34 PM on 12/13/2011

When are the candidates going to start telling us what they can and will do for this great country and stop taking jabs at thier opponents. So far we really do not know what they will do to help us, and I am tired of hearing them put each other down.

[Jackandcoke]

12:05 PM on 12/13/2011

I smell a rat. He's covertly trying to protect his Wall Street fat cat money. Everything Nuwet does is for Nuewt's benefit even if it's criminal. And most of the time it is.

[dpaustex]

01:35 PM on 12/13/2011

All they need to do is remind Newt he is the first - and only - Speaker in history brought up on ethics violations and pay a fine.

Newt can try and rebrand himself all he wants, can sign any "pledge" he wants on fidelity, but his simple track record is that he is a scheming no-good character, that his own party has come out against, by a margin of over 8:1.

[Jackandcoke]

03:43 PM on 12/13/2011

Newt rebranding Newt. Man, that's funny.

[cosmicman]

12:04 PM on 12/13/2011

I'll admit I'm greedy and will do anything for money if you'll admit you're greedy and will do anything for money. No morals, no ethics just lots and lots of greed. They're exactly what the Republican's corporate sponsors are looking for.

[freerangevoter]

11:54 AM on 12/13/2011

Here's Beck's take on Newt:

"There is an interesting research study that sheds some light on why someone like Gingrich, who is abrasive and has a history of ethical lapses, enjoys his current standing in the polls.

Research has shown that the most important factor in charisma is self-confidence. Interestingly, the confidence doesn’t even have to be justified for people to consider a leader charismatic. In fact, narcissists are initially viewed as confident and charismatic leaders-although that perception eventually changes when the leader’s true capabilities are revealed.

In times of conflict, people who are aggressive and emotionally cool or cold are more likely to be seen as more charismatic leaders. Since the focus is on the person’s aggressiveness, the ethics of the person is not seen as important.

Why is this? In stressful environments and times, people instinctively look for people who are more aggressive and colder emotionally to protect them and to take on enemies. In less stressful, less dynamic, and less conflict ridden environments, leaders who less aggressive and warmer emotionally are more likely to be seen as charismatic because there is less of a perceived threat and the focus isn’t on defeating an enemy. Think of George Patton. The perfect personality for war time. The wrong personality for peacetime."

If any of you think Newt is much different than Obama, watch beck's video of Gingrich praising FDR about a dozen times over the years.

[dpaustex]

01:36 PM on 12/13/2011

No difference between the Newt and Pres. Obama? No policy difference. You been drinking the Perry smart-juice?

[freerangevoter]

05:29 PM on 12/13/2011

Newt, Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, FDR, Wilson, Teddy R. and even Linclon, all expanded the size and scope of the Federal Government and all but Reagan reduced individual liberty.

From where I sit the only candidate that will actually reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, reign in the Federal Reserve, and thereby increase the liberty of the individual, is Dr. Ron Paul.

OK, Maybe Bachman, but she's too Christian for me.

I don't agree with Dr. Paul on standing by while Iran goes nuclear, but I am reasonably confident that Israel will stop that from happening and my hope is that he'd close at least 700 of the 900 military bases that we have around the world. No one else would even consider that.

[CitizenPane]

11:39 AM on 12/13/2011

Wasn't Newt an paid as an historian when working for Freddie Mac? I am not sure what an historian does but I am pretty sure I could do it. I think all he had to do was dust off his old Encyclopedia Brittanica's, right?

[paul macleod]

12:21 PM on 12/13/2011

based on that comment . it would be a good bet that you would not be able to become a historian .. hope that answer you rather foolish question and really dumb comment

[dpaustex]

01:37 PM on 12/13/2011

he was making fun of Newt's "explanation" of his work for Freddie, etc.

[CitizenPane]

03:28 PM on 12/15/2011

your opinion is your own but thanks for the personal attack rather than addressing why you don't agree with the content of the response..
Was Encyclopedia Brittanica after Newt's time? Maybe that was it...

[alphaome4]

11:39 AM on 12/13/2011

Where are the likes of former senator Bob Dole when the GOP severely needs respectable leadership?

[Birddog13]

11:29 AM on 12/13/2011

They are both completely right in their attacks. Now Mitt and Newt, be good little boys, shake hands, and go home.

[noknrc]

11:43 AM on 12/13/2011

It is nothing more then political gaming. Romney is desperate to gain points in the polls that presently show he is behind in almost all the first primary state battles. The problem is he is no match for Newt.

[dpaustex]

01:39 PM on 12/13/2011

No, Newt is no match for the RNC, and the GOP folks in Congress that can't stand his mean streak, pompousness, and generally "me" demeanor. They will make sure he gets no money.