Always Biased

I had to laugh today when I read a piece from ABC News about the work that Newt Gingrich did for Freddie Mac. The article was written by someone named Huma Khan, and it displayed the usual biased contempt for facts that is often shown at ABC (although in fairness, not by Jake Tapper). Gingrich worked for Freddie Mac as a consultant, an employment that ended about five years ago. At the last debate, Gingrich said clearly that he had never been a lobbyist but oly a consultant. In the article, we learn that ABC contacted Freddie Mac and that firm (which is totally controlled by the Obama administration) confirmed that, indeed, Newt was a consultant and never worked as a lobbyist. So what does ABC make the focus of the report? That's right, you guessed it. ABC announced that Gingrich worked for Freddie Mac, in essence, as a lobbyist. Maybe ABC should have used the headline: Why Bother with the Facts?

The lie put forward by ABC is an important one. There is a big difference between a lobbyist and a consultant. As a lobbyist, Gingrich would have contacted his former colleagues in the House and prevailed upon them to support Freddie Mac. GINGRICH DID NOT DO THIS AND FREDDIE CONFIRMS THIS. As a consultant, Newt would have dealt only with employees of Freddie Mac to advise them with regard to their business. In other words, Newt gave advice to Freddie Mac. He never tried to use his influence to get Congress to take any action that would favor Freddie. It is the difference between perfectly proper work and something that smacks of impropriety.

So when ABC ignores the consensus between what Gingrich says and what the Obamacrats at Freddie say, it is wrongfully accusing Gingrich of using his influence on his old colleagues. ABC deserves to be condemned for this.