At least that’s how it seems to me. Follow my logic…
After the drubbing Newt gave Mitt in South Carolina, Romney is fighting back. He has called Gingrich a “lobbyist” for raking in millions selling Congressional influence to those running Freddie Mac. And that might spell trouble as a vast majority of Republican primary-goers hold Freddie and Fannie responsible for the economic melt down that has crushed the housing market. It’s not that unreasonable a belief.
Gingrich’s response? On ABC's Good Morning America today, he said, "I did no lobbying. Period. He keeps using the word ‘lobbyist’ because I'm sure his consultants tell him it scores well. It's not true. He KNOWS it's not true. He's deliberately saying things he knows to be false." And Newt is understandably concerned Romney’s wealth and establishment ties may make this a SUCCESSFUL lie.
So, to sum up: Newt Gingrich says that Mitt Romney is speaking out on an important issue of the day by knowingly lying to the American people, and may, in view of his wealth and connections, get away with it.
That sounds like an endorsement for President to me. Lying and getting away with it are what make our greatest Presidents. They are the key requirements for the job.
Rich establishment white guys who lie to the public with at least initial impunity. I’m thinking JFK and the Bay of Pigs. I’m thinking LBJ and the Tonkin Gulf. I’m thinking George W. Bush and weapons of mass destruction. I’m even thinking Bill Clinton and if it weren’t for that dress...And now, due to Newt, I’m thinking Mitt Romney and isn’t Newt a lobbyist, c’mon, really?. Granted, compared to the Bay of Pigs and WMDs, it’s a paltry issue, but the man’s not President YET.
Newt agrees Mitt has all the characteristics of a successful President: wealth, connections, and--most importantly--the ability to look straight into the eyes of the American people, and lie to their faces, and get away with it. Endorsements just don’t come stronger than that.