Limited government, Gingrich-style

That’s good news for Newt in a state where a strong showing could catapult him to success in South Carolina just 11 days later. It was also good for Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Union Leader. McQuaid doesn’t appear on TV often, but he spent the week crisply explaining the thinking behind the paper’s nod. With typical candor, the endorsement advertised, “We don’t back candidates based on popularity.’’ True to form, the endorsement has gone to the eventual nominee just three times in 40 years.

The blessing may also help conservatives look beyond Newt’s support for causes that don’t quite fit the “limited government’’ label. In 2005, I introduced legislation with Senator Chuck Hagel to significantly strengthen the regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We proposed to raise capital standards, limit the firms’ entry into new business areas, and scale back their large and risky investment portfolios. It came as no surprise that they immediately unleashed a well-paid army to oppose the bill. It was surprising, however, to learn Newt was among them.

Dealing with this awkward revelation at a recent debate in Michigan, Newt claimed that he told Freddie Mac executives that their approach to housing finance was “insane.’’ Seriously? Freddie wasn’t paying anyone at that particular moment to recommend changes to its business model. They had plenty of people like me doing it for free. And they didn’t want to hear it. Newt was paid, like any other consultant, to say what his client wanted him to say - in this case, “to develop an argument,’’ as Bloomberg put it, “on behalf of the company’s public-private structure.’’ We’ll be paying for the mess for a long time.

This presents a bit of a credibility problem for a self-described conservative like Gingrich — an issue compounded by his work for ethanol companies as well. In Iowa, at least, that could count as a positive; for those opposed to corporate subsidies, not so much.