Food fight at Tiffany’s

posted at 11:42 am on May 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Newt Gingrich has come under fire from conservatives for his remarks  about Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, and deservedly so; even Gingrich acknowledged as much by apologizing to Ryan yesterday.  A Presidential candidate can expect to take heat for controversial remarks on policy (or anything else) and to spend a few days doing damage control, and it’s perfectly legitimate for voters to blast and/or reject a candidate for positions and remarks.  In fact, I doubt Gingrich would argue about that.

But criticizing Gingrich about a bill at Tiffany’s?

Newt Gingrich, a fiscal conservative? Not when it comes to Tiffany’s.

In 2005 and 2006, the former House speaker turned presidential candidate carried as much as $500,000 in debt to the premier jewelry company, according to financial disclosures filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Gingrich, who represented Georgia in Congress for two decades, retired in 1999. But his wife, Callista Gingrich, was employed by the House Agriculture Committee until 2007, according to public records. She listed a “revolving charge account” at Tiffany and Company in the liability section of her personal financial disclosure form for two consecutive years and indicated that it was her spouse’s debt. The liability was reported in the range of $250,001 to $500,000.

When asked by POLITICO whether Gingrich has settled this debt, and why he owed between a quarter-million and a half-million dollars to a jeweler, Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, declined to comment.

How exactly is this dispositive to Gingrich’s fiscal conservatism, at least as it relates to public policy?  It’s his money, not taxpayer funds.  If he chooses to spend between a quarter-million and half-million dollars of his own money on jewelry, well, that’s his business and none of ours.  Now, if Newt was running on a platform that included class-warfare arguments against the wealthy and some sort of odd anti-jewelry platform, then there might be a good argument for hypocrisy.  But he hasn’t, and so there isn’t.

If Gingrich had to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying the debt, that also would be fair game.  However, Gingrich hasn’t done so, despite the assumptions made by pundits like Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post:

What on earth did he buy? Look, I have had one of those cards for almost 20 years. But I have been a little afraid to use it much for fear of one day having to live out of one of those blue boxes because of an inability to meet the monthly payments. On the rare occasions I do use it, the bill is paid in full. Wait, that would make me something of a fiscal conservative. Would that Gingrich could continue to make the same claim.

Five years ago, the account had an outstanding balance.  Does it today?  No one knows, apparently, mainly because it’s no one’s business.  I suspect that if Gingrich hadn’t been making the payments, Tiffany’s would not have hesitated to file legal action to get perhaps a half-million dollars in arrears from anyone, including the Gingriches.  So it seems more than just a little presumptuous to assume that Gingrich can’t claim to have honored his commitments or to have limited his spending to what he and his wife could afford.

Jim Geraghty notes in his Morning Jolt that the lack of preparation for this issue might cause a lack of confidence in Newt as a candidate:

It would make it particularly challenging for Gingrich to be the standard-bearer for the party that wants to reign in runaway spending and control the debt, no? And while having a massive debt to a luxury company is politically problematic, the fact that Team Gingrich doesn’t appear to have been prepared for that inquiry at all is vaporizing those last few molecules of reassurance that he and the folks around him are up to the arduous task of a winning campaign.

Well … maybe.  I’d guess that the campaign didn’t think an old report of a balance on a credit card would warrant this much attention, and in that they appear to have guessed wrong.  But there’s a deep and substantive difference between spending one’s own money and spending that of other people.  From all reports, the Obamas weren’t ostentatious personal spenders; how has their personal fiscal policy related to their public fiscal policy?  Ronald Reagan owned a ranch in Santa Barbara that cost a hell of a lot more than $250,000 (they spent more than twice that amount in 1974 to buy it, which would be more than $2 million in today’s dollars), but as I recall, he was sort of OK on fiscal policy, at least to Republicans.

There is plenty to debate about Gingrich’s campaign and political positions without second-guessing his jewelry purchases from six years ago.  As scandals go, this one’s hardly platinum; it looks more like Home Shopping Network cubic zirconia to me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How exactly is this dispositive to Gingrich’s fiscal conservatism, at least as it relates to public policy? It’s his money, not taxpayer funds. If he chooses to spend between a quarter-million and half-million dollars of his own money on jewelry, well, that’s his business and none of ours. Now, if Newt was running on a platform that included class-warfare arguments against the wealthy and some sort of odd anti-jewelry platform, then there might be a good argument for hypocrisy. But he hasn’t, and so there isn’t.

True. But his new nickname, Blingrich, is most awesome.

Rae on May 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM

If you’re expecting any sort of consistency with regard to liberal media outlets, especially from second-rate gossip-mongers like Politico, look elsewhere.

We’re hypocrites, don’t you know. Fiscal conservatives are not to finance goods and services, because we rail against the national debt. Cash only or you’re not a fiscal conservative.

KingGold on May 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM

The long knives are out…look out, Repubs.

PattyJ on May 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Newt bought stuff? At a store? Oh, well…that right there should disqualify him.

Newt has a lot of faults and I am not a supporter, but this is idiocy.

Scandal FAIL.

mchristian on May 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM

True. But his new nickname, Blingrich, is most awesome.

Rae on May 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Man, can you imagine how many up-and-coming rap-stars wannabees there are right now who are just plain pissed beyond belief they didn’t think of THAT as a stage name?

pilamaye on May 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Eh.

Let the liberals go ahead and burn their energy and what little credibility they have on attacking someone who isn’t going to be the nominee anyway.

CDeb on May 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

I am speaking purely as Devil’s advocate, but it could hurt his case with the Christian Conservatives — isn’t debt something of a sin? Especially debt for something so trivial as jewelry?

It may not say anything about his policies, but, Ed, we are also electing a person, about whose personal choices we may wish to be privy to.

Don’t employers generally run credit checks on their potential employees a lot of the time?

This is news because it matches up with a lot of assumptions people already have about Gingrich, namely, that he’s a shyster who’s running simply to sell a book. I don’t trust him one bit, and this reinforces that. I’m working to get myself out of student loan debt, and he’s blowing a quarter of a million on freaking sparkly rocks.

jimmy the notable on May 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Ronald Reagan owned a ranch in Santa Barbara that cost a hell of a lot more than $250,000 (they spent more than twice that amount in 1974 to buy it, which would be more than $2 million in today’s dollars), but as I recall, he was sort of OK on fiscal policy, at least to Republicans.

Are you seriously comparing investing in real estate — ranch, you also live in — with buying finished jewelery at the most expensive retailer imaginable?

It’s Newt’s business… but it DOES portray the image of someone who’s frivolous and ostentatious. Dumb, but damaging. Just like most attacks on politicians with an (R) after their name.

VastRightWingConspirator on May 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Whatever. I can’t wait for Palin to announce so we can talk about her owning a tanning bed again.

fossten on May 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Not public policy. Not public money. Not illegal. Not an indicator of character. Leave it alone.

SKYFOX on May 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM

What did he do that required that much repentance?

huckleberryfriend on May 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM

It’s his money,

…once he pays it off.

Akzed on May 18, 2011 at 11:53 AM

She listed a “revolving charge account” at Tiffany and Company in the liability section of her personal financial disclosure form for two consecutive years and indicated that it was her spouse’s debt.

I suggest that the bigger question is: why is personal financial disclosure form data being released for political gain?

Vashta.Nerada on May 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM

How exactly is this dispositive to Gingrich’s fiscal conservatism, at least as it relates to public policy? It’s his money, not taxpayer funds. If he chooses to spend between a quarter-million and half-million dollars of his own money on jewelry, well, that’s his business and none of ours.

Very simple, Ed. The left-wing media wants to show how Newt(and by proxy all conservatives and Republicans) are out of touch with regular folks and live in a different world. It’s the same narrative behind the incessant coverage of Palin’s tanning bed, RNC-purchased clothes, and speaking engagement fees.

Meanwhile unless they’re cheating on their taxes, you’d never hear about McCaskill’s private jet, Kerry’s yacht, or Rangel’s rent-controlled apartments and vacation home.

Doughboy on May 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I can’t think why anybody would need to buy that much jewelry….
http://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/52954116.jpg

RBMN on May 18, 2011 at 11:55 AM

All that glitters is gold.

Abby Adams on May 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I’d guess that the campaign didn’t think an old report of a balance on a credit card would warrant this much attention, and in that they appear to have guessed wrong.

There is plenty to disagree with Newt about, and as this is his own money it’s (IMHO) irrelevant. BUT what campaign manager wouldn’t think that a $500k bill from a jewelry store isn’t an eye-catching problem that deserves a prepared answer? (Like: “It’s my money, I’m paying for it/paid for it, what’s your problem?)

Are the circles they move in so affluent that a half a million dollar bill from any store didn’t register as a blip on their radar?

Now if it turns out that the couch he and Pelosi sat on was pure Corinthian leather and cost $500k…

DrAllecon on May 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Jim Geraghty notes in his Morning Jolt that the lack of preparation for this issue might cause a lack of confidence in Newt as a candidate:

Lack of preparation for a non-issue?

Big John on May 18, 2011 at 11:57 AM

I can’t think why anybody would need to buy that much jewelry….
http://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/52954116.jpg

RBMN on May 18, 2011 at 11:55 AM

The kid on the far right looks like a beaver.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Did he do what I did and get his nads encrusted in pure silver with diamond accents? Cause that’s what it sounds like. That just makes him awesome. Like me.

Monkeytoe on May 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Coming on the heels of the Sunday morning debacle, it does not look good for Newt. Kinda’ reminds me of the $400 haircut.

humdinger on May 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Umm… Why are you “yelling” at us about this Ed? I personally could care less about Gringrich…. That includes this.,

CCRWM on May 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Ed,

Did you forget Newt was running for the Republican nomination?

There are no limits to what the media will attack him with.

portlandon on May 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Has anybody else re-listened to Bill Bennett’s master interview with Newt telling him what he MUST do, and that Gingrich is out there doing it to a “T” ? Bravo, Bill. But getting Newt to try to pre-empt Dems from using nonedited footage of him in campaign ads isn’t going to work. Can’t put toothpaste back in the tube

Marcus on May 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM

If it’s been said, my apologies, but why weren’t Clinton’s spending on cigars every published?

Badger40 on May 18, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I personally could care less about Gringrich…. That includes this.,

CCRWM on May 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Yup.

Badger40 on May 18, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Newt should lose because of his Global Warming and Obamacare views, not this.

jeffn21 on May 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Blingservatism.

Limerick on May 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Amazing. A fiscal conservative must live like a monk, but a socialist can live like a king.

John Deaux on May 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM

well I don’t see this as a big deal. I do have a question if Newt is fine with personal debt this big would he be more inclined to not worry about public debt if he was POTUS…

unseen on May 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM

But his new nickname, Blingrich, is most awesome.

Rae on May 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM

You are a genius! Comment of the year!

jwolf on May 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM

So the Republican buys Jewelry on his credit.

The Democrat buys the jewelry with Tax payer money.

portlandon on May 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I don’t know, Newt having a $250K-$500K line of credit at Tiffany’s is, I think, extreme. That he gave Callista a card strikes me as even radical. I think voting for Newt/Callista is too big of a jump for most Republicans.

cartooner on May 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Newt should lose because of his Global Warming and Obamacare views, not this.

jeffn21 on May 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Well Said.

Slowburn on May 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Personal finances have always been fair game in political campaigns. I once worked for a candidate in a primary whose opponent called a news conference to announce his previous bankruptcy filing.

One would think Newt Gingrich does not have money concerns, but the Presidency is a pretty high-paying job at $400,000 a year, and it is conceivable that someone would run for the office because they wanted the salary as much as anything.

rockmom on May 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

I thought Tiffany’s was a strip bar.

I stand corrected.

The Right Scoop on May 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Sounds like a “I’m sorry, baby” debt. A six figure “I’m sorry, baby”. That puts it in the same class as the rock Kobe bought his wife after he was arrested for raping a girl in a hotel room. What exactly did Newt do, THIS time?

tommylotto on May 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM

What a dumb controversy.

On the rare occasions I do use it, the bill is paid in full.

Oh, well give yourself a cookie there, champ.

Some people use debt to their advantage, and there are ways to do it.

I have no idea what was going on here, but I don’t care.

How does Simple Simon here know often it was being paid off and filled up again?

reaganaut on May 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM

When you’re running deficits at Tiffany’s upwards of a half a million dollars… no it’s not disqualifying or even a scandal, but it does suggest that you may be wholly out-of-touch with the day-to-day life of voters.

DC elites tend to look at the rest of us rabble who just need to be appeased. This is why guys like Newt are afraid of Ryan’s plan… it touches Medicare… and they care more about the “appearance” to senior voters (and economically ignorant voters) than the real-life impact on the vast majority of earners in this country.

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I personally find jewelry to be a monumental waste of dough.
Either buy me a gadget or a custom made saddle/tack & I’m yours for life.

Badger40 on May 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I agree it’s not a disqualifying issue, but I have to admit it is somewhat strange to have this much in DEBT to a jeweler.

That being said, I have no issue with Romney owning 12 mansions or Newt owning 200 Rolexes. What I do have an issue with is their RINOism.

Norwegian on May 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Stooopid. Not when there’s a million other things to whammo this guy for.

(Now, if this was Sarah PALIN’s Tiffany bill, WHOA NELLIE!! Just like her clothes, would WE have something to chew on then, yessirreeBob!)

tree hugging sister on May 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM

One would think Newt Gingrich does not have money concerns, but the Presidency is a pretty high-paying job at $400,000 a year, and it is conceivable that someone would run for the office because they wanted the salary as much as anything.

rockmom on May 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

That’s chump change for most people in the position to run for the office. Even the incumbent governors could make much more by leaving for the private sector.

SD on May 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

it is truly idiotic….

Personally, I think they are trying to hint at some sort of impropriety on Newt’s part, like he was secretly buying other women jewelry, or something. Although, not too secret if it is on your wife’s credit card…

sarainitaly on May 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

As Blink says, Tiffany’s sells more than jewelry. Perhaps it was their go-to store for all-occasion gift-giving. Everyone likes to receive those blue boxes. That still sounds like a lot of dough to be dropping there, though.

juliesa on May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Certainly a man of the people.

Owes half a mil on trinkets of no real use? He’ll pay the tab someday?

He fits in the White House at the helm of this once great nation.

Now, the question to as is of the Mrs. Gingrich of the moment (or for the time being) “Did you get all of this stuff?” Bet there’s a sidesweetie getting some of this loot.

Wander on May 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I thought Tiffany’s was a strip bar.

I stand corrected.

The Right Scoop on May 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM

No – that spending would be from the RNC

Corsair on May 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

As a conservative this does concern me, although he is totally unfit for office for a whole host of other reasons. It isn’t that he bought the stuff, but he apparently did not make good on the debt. That shows a lack of integrity we don’t need.

echosyst on May 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I thought Tiffany’s was a strip bar.

I stand corrected.

The Right Scoop on May 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM

It’s where you go after your wife finds out you’ve been spending too much time at the strip clubs.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM

How exactly is this dispositive to Gingrich’s fiscal conservatism, at least as it relates to public policy? It’s his money, not taxpayer funds. If he chooses to spend between a quarter-million and half-million dollars of his own money on jewelry, well, that’s his business and none of ours.

Bingo. Moreover, if Newt’s finances were credit-worthy enough to qualify for a revolving charge of $500,000 then I infer he is not a spendthrift, and lives within his means. One man’s Tiffany’s charge is another man’s Kohl’s. It’s all relative

That being said, he is still toast as a nominee.

Buy Danish on May 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM

I just googled his wife, I didn’t remember anything about her, and she is the same age as me(!). It seems quite obvious to me now – Newt bought her a nice big ring. You don’t marry someone 20+ years your senior if you aren’t getting some serious bling every once in a while… haha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callista_Gingrich

sarainitaly on May 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM

It isn’t that he bought the stuff, but he apparently did not make good on the debt. That shows a lack of integrity we don’t need.

echosyst on May 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Where do you get that he defaulted on the debt? Are you just making stuff up?

SD on May 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM

It’s his money

Not if he hasn’t paid the balance. At that point, it’s his borrowing or whatever you want to call it.

But I don’t see how this is any less fair game than a politician’s affair. Is Arnold’s illegitimate child just his business or is it news?

Personally, I do think that if you’re applying for the job of righting the sinking ship that is our national debt, you’d best have figured out your own finances first. Otherwise, why should I trust you to be able to handle a significantly larger budget?

Esthier on May 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM

I saw this on Drudge. My reaction was, it’s nobody’s business but his that he has a weakness for expensive bling. Only a leftard class warrior would be interested.

Newt is dead to me for other reasons.

Cicero43 on May 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Maybe his ex got hold of the card, and went on a reveng binge? lol

From all reports, the Obamas weren’t ostentatious personal spenders

Not ostentatious at all with their money. It’s OUR money they love to be ostentatious with.

capejasmine on May 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Not if he hasn’t paid the balance. At that point, it’s his borrowing or whatever you want to call it.

It isn’t that he bought the stuff, but he apparently did not make good on the debt. That shows a lack of integrity we don’t need.

There was nothing in the story about him not paying the money owed. It was reported as a credit card balance, because they were required to report any charges/balances/monies owed over $10K.

sarainitaly on May 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Reality means nothing; perception is everything.

Good grief GOP, dust off the old Sting records:

“Every step you take, every move you make, they’ll watching you, watching you..”

Bruno Strozek on May 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

There was nothing in the story about him not paying the money owed. It was reported as a credit card balance, because they were required to report any charges/balances/monies owed over $10K.

sarainitaly on May 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I understand this. That’s why I said if. I have no idea which one is true at this date.

Esthier on May 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Something to do with his previous marital problems, perhaps? This guy is a great thinker…. sometimes….. e.g. the couch date with Pelosi. He has too much baggage and is neither conservative enough, nor electable.

ultracon on May 18, 2011 at 1:03 PM

…and, after unsuccessfuly trying to get the ’12 GOPer nod, Newt is planning on an off-broadway update of ‘The Iceman Cometh.’

elcapt on May 18, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Slow news day?

tballard on May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM

It’s his money, not taxpayer funds.

But in this economy, to not have your money between the mattresses is a crime.

unclesmrgol on May 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

But, is $500,000 his Tiffany card’s limit?

Actually, I think all men should have a Tiffany card with a substantial amount of debt on it.

moonsbreath on May 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Meh…when you’re doing fundraisers and speaking appointments at various dinners, you have to dress up. Guys can get away with 3 dinner jackets and handmade shoes, but the girls have to dress up a lot more. What should she do?

Fortunata on May 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Look away from all those healthcare waivers that companies got in Pelosi’s district because Newt owes or once owed money on jewelry.

However, I would like to see the jewelry because diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

moonsbreath on May 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Was WaPo concerned about the expensive ring Barack gave Michelle after he won the prez election??

TN Mom on May 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM

The liability was reported in the range of $250,001 to $500,000.

Hope she got breakfast with that.

I’ve had no use for Newt since he resigned from Congress in a pique after his constituents had just re-elected him to another term. And time and distance don’t seem to have mellowed me.

SukieTawdry on May 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I’ve got it!

$500K is his defense of marriage BILL!

Wander on May 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I’m sure that the MFM will be Johnny-on-the-spot-come-lately and investigate Obama’s dealing with an organized crime figure for a strip of land worth a few million… right?

Somehow a revolving account at a high end fashion store doesn’t really make me care… while dealing with criminals does.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

From all reports, the Obamas weren’t ostentatious personal spenders…

Actually, the Obamas were profligate credit carders.

DGB

Damian Bennett on May 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM

former House speaker turned presidential candidate carried as much as $500,000 in debt to the premier jewelry company

His wife is 20+ years younger than him. There are bound to be some high *ahem* “maintenence” costs.

iurockhead on May 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM

I’m sure that the MFM will be Johnny-on-the-spot-come-lately and investigate Obama’s dealing with an organized crime figure for a strip of land worth a few million… right?

Somehow a revolving account at a high end fashion store doesn’t really make me care… while dealing with criminals does.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

To say nothing of this:

Barack Obama is not among at least three people listed as current owners and taxpayers of the mansion his family calls home in Chicago’s upscale Kenwood neighborhood, according to public records.

GrannyDee on May 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM

If I had had that kind of credit limit, and if I had been inclined to do some investing on some kind of margin arrangement, in very high quality gold items or high quality flawless diamonds in a finished form, there’s the place I might have considered doing my business. Knowing what I know of gold and diamonds, the past 10 years could have been lucrative.

Yoop on May 18, 2011 at 3:16 PM

To say nothing of this:

Barack Obama is not among at least three people listed as current owners and taxpayers of the mansion his family calls home in Chicago’s upscale Kenwood neighborhood, according to public records.

GrannyDee on May 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Even in the article it says this:

There are no Cook County records that show Barack or Michelle Obama own 5046 S. Greenwood Ave., although the likelihood is that the couple are the owners of the Northern Trust Company trust established to buy the property.

So they, like many wealthy people, formed a trust or llc to buy a house. They then own that trust or llc.

Recommendation: stop reading WND.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Why hasn’t Newt come out making jokes about this? “Every three seconds, Obama runs a deficit equal to a decade of my wife’s Tiffany purchases”, or “Yep, $250,000 is a lot of money. It’s like a tank of gas under the Obama Administration.” Et cetera.

Roxeanne de Luca on May 18, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Actually, to be snarky, since the price of gold and diamonds has gone up considerably since the TARP meltdown, buying gold and diamonds at the 2007 price levels could be considered a genius move!!!

He has made MILLIONS on his books and speeches. This kind of line of credit at Tiffany’s is probably chump change. It is his money and he doesn’t appear to have a problem paying bills or that would be out there in the public already.

karenhasfreedom on May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Half a million on a credit card that has no indication of being delinquent doesn’t sound as bad as a certain Dem trying to rent a car and being unable to produce a good credit card for the transaction. And then he won the presidential election and the US Treasury reflects his lack of financial knowledge now.

Oleta on May 18, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Last night Greta asked him about this. He pretty much said, “no comment” and it made me wish he had gone “Trump” on her with a “don’t ask stupid questions”, that would’ve been awesome.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 18, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Based on his marital history, isn’t it possible this is one of those “please forgive me” Kobe Bryant type purchases?

Pure speculation on my part, but thought I’d throw it out there… It’s the first thing that popped into my head when i saw this story yesterday.

Jim T on May 19, 2011 at 9:51 AM