The EFM Feature
Screen Shot 2012-05-02 at 7.58.08 AM

Interesting note in The Fix:

Gingrich creditors nervous: Businesses and staffers owed money by former House speaker Newt Gingrich are worried that the soon-to-be-former presidential candidate isn’t good for the money.

Many were frustrated to see Gingrich continue to campaign (and spend) aggressively after his defeat was all but certain.

“They keep telling us, ‘We’ve got you covered, you will be paid.’ But I have my doubts. I really do,” sign company owner Vic Buttermore told ABC News.

Help may come soon; former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have offered to help retire Gingrich’s debt.

And he’s not running again: Gingrich told USA Today, “I do not think in 2020 I’ll be a plausible candidate.”

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

37 Responses to Newt Needs a Bail Out

  1. Breeze says:

    I hope the RNC or Mitt’s campaign doesn’t bail Newt out. I give money to both of Mitt & the RNC and I would resent them using my campaign donations to bail Newt out. Newt was reckless with his spending and he should have quit long ago. Maybe Sean Hannity or Fox should bail him out since they were constantly letting him have free air time or maybe Fox should give him his own show like they did Huckabee!

  2. Terry says:

    If it was just Newt, I might be inclined to say “let him get out of the financial mess by himself”–but it’s not just about him. He had staffers and others working for him. It wouldn’t be fair to them. Sure, maybe they made a bad decision working for him in the first place, but if the RNC and the Romney campaign has the means to help those folks financially, I say go for it.

    • pragmatic says:

      the staffers chose to keep working for him when they weren’t being paid. the vendors chose to keep supplying him. Now you want Mitt or the RNC to bail them out?

      • Terry says:

        As one who has had more than a few full-time jobs in his lifetime, I can tell you that promise of pay often trumps the thoughts of quitting and looking for employment elsewhere, especially with the current sorry state of the economy . Actually, I commend their loyalty, even though in hindsight it was misguided. Smooth talking Newt probably convinced them that $$$ was just around the corner. I’m not necessarily advocating that the entire debt be paid, just the salaries of those Newt employed. If he has to declare bankruptcy on the remaining debt, then so be it.

        • pragmatic says:

          we’ve been with a start-up where paychecks bounced. we KNEW it was a risk of not being paid. (and we often didn’t – but it was our choice.). Newt was bounced a check to get on teh Utah ballot – they repeatedly tried to contact him to get it straightened out. that was “a sign”.

        • pragmatic says:

          we’ve been with a start-up where paychecks bounced. we KNEW it was a risk of not being paid. (and we often didn’t – but it was our choice.). Newt bounced a check in March to get on the Utah ballot – they repeatedly tried to contact him to get it straightened out – for weeks. that was “a sign” his employees could well have heeded that there was a good chance they *weren’t* going to get paid. if newt needs to make good out of his personal money – he needs to do that.

  3. RC says:

    And Newt was going to be our President and get us out of the mess that we are in……….Really? I hope the citizens that were behind Newt for President have a rude awakening! I hope they kick themselves in the butt – and thump their heads. Now, for Santorum, he is in the same boat as Newt. And he also was going to be our President……….Really? I hope the citizens that backed Santorum and Newt join together and beat each other to a pulp. Wow. And these guys were going to have the reins of the largest corporation in the world – The U.S. Government! Heck, they can’t even balance their own checkbooks. I’m with Terry on this one, pay the individuals and let the rest be history.

          • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

            So Larry, an honest question. Who are you going to vote for now that you don’t have a dog in the hunt?

          • Larry says:

            Mike, I’ve answered this before. I will vote for Mitt. Not because he’s earned my vote … or respect. He has not. I voted for George H.W. Bush, rather than Dukakis, Ditto for Dole, Bush II, and McCain. I held my nose and pulled the lever for each one. Sadly, each of them performed as expected. Those who won grew government, placated the Left and increased debt. Each of them allowed the nations drift toward the cliffs edge to continue … albeit at a slower pace than their Democratic counterparts.

            Progressives began their efforts to refashion our Republic in earnest with the election of Wilson. The Harding/Coolidge administration rolled back many of the Left’s efforts … and the nation prospered. Hoover, another GOP moderate nicknamed “the engineer” and who was considered accomplished, expert and a generally great guy (what we would term a technocrat) would bring to bear his experience from both the private sector and his work in government upon the office of president.

            Like Romney as Governor, he increased corporate taxes. He succumbed to the class warfare language and worldview choosing to increase taxes on the wealthiest. Additionally, he signed into law the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act (recall Mitt’s ideas about trade with China). He not only walked back many of the legislative and economic gains realized under the previous administration, and by failing to employ conservative principles (with which he was either unacquainted and disdainful of) allowed the economy to spiral out of control. He was avowedly pro-business but utterly clueless as to the nexus between tax policy, government intervention and economic performance.

            He opened the door wide for FDR. Things have never been the same since. More than 50 years passed before another authentic conservative would become president (despite the efforts of the GOP establishment to prevent that from occurring). Ronald Reagan, like Harding and Coolidge fought for smaller government, lower taxes (the top marginal rate was reduced to 28% from a high of 70%), a reduction in regulatory schemes and … well, he generally pursued the most conservative policies since the early 1920’s. Romney, unfortunately, has repeatedly distanced himself from Reagan and his conservative philosophy.

            George Herbert Walker Bush followed Reagan. President Bush fired a shot across the bow of conservatives during his inaugural speech by announcing that he would pursue policies which would yield “a kinder, gentler nation”. Nancy Reagan famously whispered to Ron “kinder and gentler than whom”. Slowly but surely the Reagan legacy began to fall to compromise and stupidity. Once again the door was opened for a radical leftist. The economy stalled and … enter the Democrats. Clinton began to aggressively initiate liberal policies once elected. His efforts were cut short by the conservative wave which swept Washington in 1994. This effort, led by Newt Gingrich, turned the tide for a season and even yielded some progress relative to the conservative agenda.

            The GOP’s response? Bob Dole. Conservatives were appalled and amazed. I met Jack Kemp during that campaign, interviewed his wife and even wrote some copy for the campaign. It was a very tough sell. Kemp was the bone the establishment threw to conservatives during that effort in futility. Next came George W. Bush. Nice guy, mildly conservative on some issues but he clearly lacked a full orbed, deeply embedded conservative political philosophy … and it showed.

            More often than not he led with the instincts of a patrician. Government grew, as did the national debt. Taxes were reduced … minimally, and only temporarily. In all, conservatism continued to suffer setbacks and decline throughout those years. Enter McCain. He once again reminded conservatives that we are merely tolerated by the GOP. Palin was the bone they tossed our way during that election misadventure. She was of course trashed by McCain and the establishment once the election concluded.

            But then came 2010. Conservatives were suddenly hailed as heroes. Our energy, commitment and most of … our message led the way to sweeping victories. To which the GOP said thanks … and then promptly began their whisper campaign against the Tea Party. As the primaries rolled around the establishment offered one candidate … Mr. Inevitable and told conservatives … thanks for everything … now shut the hell up.

            Wonder what bone they’ll toss us now. Doesn’t really matter. Vp’s are, in the words of Vice President John Garner, “not worth a bucket of warm piss”. So, we’ll hold our noses and pull the lever again. We’ll be lectured again about party unity (though that was never counseled while Mitt and the Establishment eviscerated any real opposition) and reminded … once again (this happens every four years) that this is “THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIVES”.

            No, that election has just occurred … and conservatives were once again undermined. Now, however, conservatives (like a battered wife) seem to understand that this isn’t going to change. So, following the election expect a great deal of serious discussion about a new party … a conservative party. This time it might happen.

            Oh, this is cyclical you say. Has happened before. Well, that’s true. But time doesn’t stand still, the cycles continue to spin but the world evolves along a linear progression which means that while the cycle may repeat, the context within which it is unfolding is different … with new dynamics, lessons and players.

            This time something might just come of the discussions. If so, I’ll be on board. We’ll all watch to see how Romney governs of course … but we don’t really expect any surprises.

          • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

            Thanks for your very in-depth and obviously very personal response. I’m cautiously optimistic that four years from now you can look back at this day and honestly say to yourself that your vote for Mitt was not just the lesser of two evils but was actually, with hindsight, a good thing. I understand you have your doubts. But that being said, can’t we finally put the rhetoric behind us and start working together?

          • Larry says:

            We are … that means for conservatives doing our level best to hold Mitt’s feet to the fire regarding all things conservative. Of course, it also means that the blundering rudeness finding its way into discussions with Romney folks will need to die down as well. Some of the remarks I’ve heard lately remind me of the bilge which became common among Obama folks when he won.

          • Larry says:

            BTW, while I can’t say that I’m optimistic about Mitt’s prospects once elected (though I am optimistic about the future … after all, Jesus is Lord) I am prayerfully hopeful. Too many elections and too many Republican Presidents (Moderates) leave me rather cynical regarding their prospective tenures though.

          • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

            Unfortunately, “blundering rudeness” knows no religious or political affiliation. I’ve been called a liar, I’ve been told I’m going to hell for supporting a Mormon when all I’ve done is articulate my viewpoints in as fair and objective a manner as I could. I know you’ve seen some examples of what Nancy and David have gone through. which doesn’t eve begin to compare to my experience. All I can do is promise you that I will not disparage your honest beliefs or opinions, that’s not to say I won’t and don’t agree with some of your assessments regarding Mitt, but I hope those disagreements can be vetted in an open and honest debate sans the demagogy.

            For example, I will respectfully disagree with you the Mitt raised taxes while being governor of Massachusetts. Were user fees raised? Absolutely! A tax is defined as a levy upon all citizens which they have no choice but to pay while a user fee such as for licenses are incurred for the most part by those who want or need that government service. But semantics aside, when he took office as governor, the current budget was running a deficit of approxmately half a billion dollars with about $650 million of deficit spending left to go before that budget expired . While in office he fought to roll the state income tax back from 5.3% to 5% and when he left office , it was with a billion dollar surplus. That is at least what I understand and is tough to argue against. If I’m wrong, I would appreciate your clarification if you think a further discussion is at all helpful to the current situation.

          • Larry says:


            Mitt did indeed increase fees … across the board and, in fact, created more than 30 new fees. Rather than significantly reduce the size and scope of government he shifted a bevy of duties (along with their various funding requirements) to municipalities … who in turn increased taxes (the individual tax burden increased by 9% under Romney). He did increase some taxes (gas and corporate real estate for instance) and initiated a new tax as well (internet). His administration also saw revenue increases resulting from a previously enacted capital gains tax (1.3 billion).

            Most egregious of all, however, was the stripping out of numerous and essential “loopholes” for corporate taxes. By eliminating these “loopholes” in the absence of corresponding tax cuts Romney effectively (and dramatically … in some instances by 50%) taxes on business. The effects were telling … and damning. High unemployment persisted throughout his term (even at 4.7% it was one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, even among neighboring states). The effective unemployment rate was even higher than the 4.7% that was listed in as much as Massachusetts ranked 2nd among all 50 states in the number of citizens fleeing the state in search of employment (that is the denominator shrunk).

            Massachusetts was plagued during the entire Romney term by a chronically anemic economy. Romney applied policies which reflected static rather than dynamic budget models. Consequently across the board stimulative tax cuts were never enacted. Revenue increases were sought at the expense of economic growth and personal liberty.

            This is precisely opposite conservative tax policy.

          • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

            Go to the bottom of this thread. I can’t see everything I’m writing on this narrow margin and it’s showing up in my final comments :)

  4. Hannah Rebekah says:

    Wasn’t Newt part of the Republican Congress that were spending like drunken sailors? Looks like nothing has changed.
    I’m mixed on helping him out. But lean more towards the fact that there comes a time when you have to let people take responsibility for their own actions instead of picking and choosing like Obama has been doing. Where does that ever end? Never!!!

    • Larry says:

      No Hannah … Newt was Speaker of the House during the 104th Congress … an effort he led. They balanced the budget, overhauled welfare and reformed the tax code … to name only a few of their achievements. These were components of the “Contract with America” … which is considered largely responsible for the Republican takeover in the House (a feat which had not been accomplished since the mid 1950′s) … and which Romney considered “a mistake” while running for his states senate seat (how unsurprising).

      Of course Mitt will help … just as Obama did with Hillary … because he needs to everything possible to garner conservative support. It’s only a fraction of the $20,000,000.00 he spent destroying Newt’s name here in Florida (with rather slanderous commercials and direct mail pieces).

      Your take on Newt’s past is rather reminiscent of the Romney campaign’s efforts at retelling history.

  5. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    Speaking as a CPA and a small business owner, I would be hopping mad if Newt or Rick stuck me with a $15,000 or $20,000 unpaid bill, whether it arose from being one of their employees or as a supplier. Both acted in good faith and both should have a reasonable expectation of being compensated. Granted, neither Mitt or the RNC have a legal obligation to make these people whole but think of the ramifications for the future, would we really want Republican candidates going out with a reputation of reneging on their obligations? What might that do for future candidates and their ability to organize their campaigns?

    I’m with RC, I think Newt is a pompous @$$ and Santourm gets his name from Sanctimonious, neither of whom can manage their own finances let alone the federal government’s finances but let’s not punish those who acted in good faith in their behalf. Maybe the answer would be to make the candidates personally liable for their campaign’s debts, that way they might think twice about staying in the race and running up debts they can’t afford. Why should Newt be allowed to walk away with his millions while the poor sign owner who supplied his campaign’s advertising goes broke? After all, a campaign’s ability to raise money speaks in large part to a candidate’s appeal to the electorate almost as much as a vote. If your campaign can’t raise sufficient funds to cover your debts, maybe you should get a clue.

    • pragmatic says:

      I like ricky boy and newt having to cough up the bucks themselves. they need to pay their bills -that doesn’t mean the rest of us (those who support mitt or the RNC should have to pay it.)

  6. K.G. says:

    Mike: I absolutely agree these candidates should be PERSONALLY LIABLE for their debts. It WOULD make them think twice before (1) Making a feckless vanity run and (2) Staying in long after it’s become completely apparent to their supporters they have no chance.

    Can anyone tell me why Romney or the RNC should bail them out? Aren’t conservatives against bailouts? And what do Romney or the RNC have to gain by the bailout? Both Newt and Rick have been reluctant, snide Mitt supporters; they are doing nothing to give Mitt a full-throated endorsement or help unify the party.

    I say they deserve squat. What I am missing?

    • RC says:

      K.G. – you are missing nothing.

      I have thought about this long and hard over the last 24 hours. Both Newt and Santorum continued the campaign race even when it got to the point that is was practically impossible for them to win the delegates. They continued moving forward knowing full well that it was an impossible road, but, their vanity and arrogance got the better of them. Newt racked up a 4.3 million dollar debt and Santorum racked up a 1.8 million dollar debt. They both have brought this upon themselves.

      Now for the individuals who were on the campaign staff and ALSO the vendors doing business with the campaign’s knew full well the “impossible road” would soon come to an end. No one held a gun to their head and forced them to either stay in the campaign or do business with the campaign. All knew full well of the “risk” involved. Therefore, there should be NO bailout, period. When are people finally going to take responsibility for their own actions? Romney should not bail them out or the RNC. They should have to “suffer” the consequences of their actions just like the rest of us normal citizens.

    • Terry says:

      KG…I’m going to have to disagree with you and RC on one thing: the staffers of both campaigns. I think they need to be shown some mercy here. I’d be willing to bet that they were not privy to full disclosure as far as campaign finances are concerned. They might have had suspicions, but when the “boss” comes around and confidently tells them not to worry, that more money is on the way, what are they to do? I’ve been in similar situations before in my working years (retired now). Hindsight is pretty much useless in these situations. Realizing later that “I should have done…blah-blah-blah” doesn’t put food on the table or pay the mortgage. Not offering any help to these people is essentially telling them that their personal loyalty, even though misplaced in this case, didn’t mean squat. I’d bet the farm that Romney, being a former Bishop and Stake President in the LDS church, does not have a “let’em suffer” attitude towards them. If neither the RNC nor the Romney campaign has the funds to take care of the staffers, that’s one thing. However, if the RNC and Romney camp does have the means to help, but withholds that help, I don’t see any good being accomplished by that action. In my opinion, this case has nothing to do with bailing out Newt or Santorum—but having compassion for the staffers and their families. Whatever “lesson” the staffers have to learn from this affair, I’m sure they will have learned in the end. Some mistakes are their own punishment. I just don’t think that withholding aid from the staffers and their families is going to “teach” them anything more than if compassion is shown and demonstrated by Romney and the RNC.

      But, that’s just me.

    • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

      K.G. and RC
      I agree with Terry, we don’t know what was said to whom and when it may have been said but also, I think there is a bigger issue that I would reemphasize. Normally, I would agree with you, the vendors made their choices and now, perhaps they should now have to live with those consequences. However, going forward, what would that mean for the reputation of the Republican party? How would that affect the candidacies of future Republican campaigns? Do we want to be known as the party which reneges on its obligations? What perception is that going to leave with voters? The Democrats are already trying to paint us as the party which only cares about the rich and not the little guy, wouldn’t that play into that perception?

      In my view, the potential damage far outweighs the monetary costs of making the employees and vendors whole and while 5 or 6 million dollars sounds like a lot of money to us as individuals, perhaps to others, not so much.

      • RC says:

        However, it was reported in the national news almost every day from March 1 going forward. The bouncing of the $500 check to Utah, the accumulated debt that was rising on a daily basis was all on the national news. You had to be a complete idiot not to see what was going on. Even if Newt and Ricky boy didn’t disclose this to their staffers (which is very hard to believe) because the rest of the nation knew it, but not the staffers? Come on, where is the reality?I am a Controller and CFO by profession. I am only saying, it is very difficult for me to believe that the rest of the world knew of the “debt” of both Newt and Ricky boy and the staffers didn’t? Nope, don’t buy it.

        With that being said, what is the best action at this time in dealing with their debt? “Just as long as the end justifies the means!” The “means” is where those responsible need to take care of their respoonsibilities and obligations. Where is the character and where is the integrity?

        So are people really saying that “whatever” and “whoever” racks up debt in the name of the Republican Party gets a bailout?

        • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

          Well, apparently the Romney campaign thinks they should get a bailout. RC, I would agree with you 100% if this was a normal business relationship between a debtor and creditor, but it’s not. Can’t you just hear the byline on the next Obama campaign add?

          “Well Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, in spite of what they say, don’t really care about the average worker or the small business owner. Just look how they treated their own employees and vendors and Mitt Romney would have done the same. Is that who we really want running the country?”

          That’s what we’d be facing and worse. I would love to see Newt finally be held accountable for his actions and have to personally cough up his own money to cover these debts, but it’s just not going to happen. At this point, he has nothing to gain by doing that. We already know he has no character or integrity as you say.

          So Romney is left with two choices, he can either allow those employees and vendors to suffer on their own and endure the bad publicity and press that by association would surely come his way, or he can step up and pay off those debts and be seen as the magnanimous benefactor that he is; concerned about everyone in the Republican party, not just his immediate supporters. I think he’s already made that decision.

        • Terry says:

          RC…the staffers didn’t rack up the debt–Newt did. I’m not advocating bailing out Newt, just suggesting taking care of his staffers and their families, and possibly the same for Santorum. As far as the rest of the debts Newt has built up, that should be his problem to take care of. If Romney and the RNC don’t help Newt’s campaign staff, and it becomes known that they had the means to do so, just watch the Dems make political hay out of it. I haven’t been following politics for very many years, but I’ve learned enough to know that Obama’s thugs will use anything they can to make Romney and camp look bad—and the RNC. Instead of video’s of granny being thrown off the cliff, it will be video’s of campaign staffers hitting the ground at the bottom. Possible title: “How Republicans Reward Loyalty”. Perhaps it won’t happen, but the idea is not that far-fetched. I’ve seen political hay made from more minuscule issues than that.

    • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

      That’s a good point Karrie and I don’t think anyone is implying that Mitt’s help would be of a direct nature. He’s still subject to the same campaign finance laws like everyone else. Nonetheless, it is still help that Mitt could have chosen not to provide and certainly, his donor network would not be willing to help out without his endorsement.

      I still stand by my point that providing help, in whatever form, to Newt and Rick’s bankrupt campaigns is better than letting them flounder for the sake of all concerned.

  7. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    I suppose we could debate all day as to whether Mitt did everything he should have as a governor. I’m getting my information from here: and I suppose you could probably supply equally as persuasive references as well. At the end of the day, neither of us will be swayed to the other’s position. I could point to the fact that Mitt was dealing with a Democratically controlled state legislature and did the best he could under the circumstances or I could reemphasize the fact that he started with a deficit and ended with a surplus but you know all that.

    Larry, I’ve read some of your other posts over months and while I’ve not responded directly to them before (tax season and me being a CPA and all) I’ve come to appreciate your tenacity and commitment to your views. However, I’m concerned that you’ve come to a point where your heart has become so hardened against Mitt that no matter what the man did or said it would not be acceptable to you. Since at this point, you know he is going to be your candidate, let me please encourage you to perhaps focus on the good in him rather than all of the perceived bad that you see. No one is doubting your beliefs and the level of commitment you have undertaken on researching these issues but isn’t it time to set that aside? Isn’t that what Christ would have you do?

    • Larry says:

      Mike, I appreciate the patience and kindness with which you communicate …. but I think you’re misreading me. My heart isn’t “hardened” toward Mitt … I’ve simply taken an eyes-wide-open approach to reviewing the candidate I voted for in 2008. As I’ve stated before, that changed everything.

      But, absent some extraordinary event at the approaching convention, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. Too late to remedy that. Now the effort is one of reminding Mitt that he has presented himself as a conservative … he’d better govern like one. If he goes “etch-a-sketch” he’s toast.

      Because of the manner in which he’s presented himself, his record and his positions and because of the manner in which he portrayed his opponents I really cannot respect him as a man or a leader. But, given our choices, I will support his efforts to win this November. That’s really all that can reasonably be expected from a rational, objective adult. It would be intellectually dishonest and feckless of me to ignore what I’ve learned and pretend that all is well simply because Mitt is the GOP nominee.

      Politics is not a game and my status as a Republican doesn’t strip me of reason. At 50 years of age though, I’m not prepared to again lend my support and affiliation to a party whose distinctives exist in word only … but in action and ethos differs only marginally from the DNC.

      I will observe Mitt carefully during the coming months … hoping that he reveals some honesty, conviction and courage. If he is elected, I hope to see the sort of leadership which the approaching storm demands. I don’t expect to … but I’d love to be surprised. I’d love for Mitt to have some epiphany that elevates his entire approach to governing to that of true greatness. I hope … but, in 30 years of serious engagement … I’ve yet to see it … so, here’s hoping.

      • Terry says:

        I don’t foresee Mitt not governing as a conservative. Keep in mind that when he was Gov of MA, his legislature was 85% Democratic. He HAD to bend a little to get anything done. If Mitt wins the nomination in the general, I predict that conservatives are going to be pleasantly surprised at just how conservative of a president Mitt will be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>