Post Super Tuesday - What's Next? Newt.

To the bitter end.

Newt Gingrich won one state yesterday.  His home state.  True, it's a lot of delegates and a big prize.  But it really does very little to help his case that he's a viable candidate.  Had he won Tennessee or Oklahoma it would have helped but he still could be seen as a regional candidate.  He needed to win Georgia  but that was the lowest possible place to set the bar.  He needed more to energize his campaign properly.  It really would have helped if he'd won a non-regional state - Alaska or Vermont perhaps.  But whether he could have or not, he didn't.  So what's next in the race becomes entirely dependent on Newt.

Ummm...WTF Newt?

Newt Gingrich is going to rally with a Democrat? Yes.

As he fights for the Republican presidential nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will appear with one of the South Carolina’s most prominent Democrats.

Gingrich is scheduled to speak at a homeownership rally on Thursday in front of the State House along with U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, South Carolina’s lone Democratic congressman.

Other speakers include state Treasurer Curtis Loftis, who has endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

Clyburn's not just a Democrat he's a far left liberal demagogue .  That's not going to help in South Carolina Newt.  It might have made sense in New Hampshire.  Is Newt's strategy just pure randomness?  Or does he see Romney's wins as the GOP electorate as being more centrist than he thought?  And all this just after I questioned Rush Limbaugh on why he would say that Newt is in line with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  He's not, but this is a terribly ill-conceived idea.

I had assumed all of Newt's overtures to the left were part of his playing to the center voters.  Maybe they are. Nevertheless, this is the Republican primary and he's not going to win it with moves like this.  It serves to reinforce the idea Newt is in the race just to torpedo Mitt Romney.  He probably isn't in it for that reason, but if this story is true, that no longer will matter.

Obama: Politics before leadership (part 4)

Newt Gingrich catches out Obama's corporate tax loopholes hypocrisy - a bold-faced  putting of politics before leadership if ever there was one.

How to derail Newt: See Ron Paul

Doesn't matter who does it, the result will be the same.

A lot of the attacks of Newt Gingrich have been that he really isn't a conservative he's a big government Republican, or a technocrat who may have conservative ideals but is far too susceptible to solutions that have huge downside government overreach implications.  That's the real worry that his opponents are trying to play on.  If Mitt Romney is wishy-washy and a say anything faux conservative, Newt Gingrich has too much baggage and is not really conservative either.

The secret if you want to derail Gingrich is in the approach that Ron Paul has towards government.  It's not about rolling back Obama's big government progressive agenda and replacing it with another conservative idea, it's about rolling it back and replacing it with nothing from government.  

GOP 'crowdation'

With Newt Gingrich surging to the top of many polls, clearly his momentum has caused other candidates to try to take a different tack in order to gain, or regain, some traction.  Oddly, it seems like everyone who is trying to differentiate themselves is taking the same sort of approach.

Pragmatism versus one-horse-zealotry

Heated.  Things in the GOP primary are getting heated. R S McCain is on an anybody-but-Newt tear in contrast with Ed Morrissey who thinks Gingrich would be a good battler for conservatives and a formidable foe for Obama in 2012.  Elsewhere in the blogosphere and tweet-osphere, I've seen rabid backers of Cain, Paul and Perry tear apart those who prefer another candidate.  Even Romney backers have been dismissive of supporters of other candidates.  This is a primary season, and heated is to be expected.  Everyone seems to have a horse in this race and that means they are engaged.  That's good. Uncivil behavior on the other hand is another story.  While for the most part, criticisms have ranged from viable to less than robust, the  civility has been been present.  It has not been universally so.

Newtmentum!! (and what it means for Newt)

Newt Gingrich's surge to be the not-Romney candidate has taken root according to the latest PPP poll.

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.

Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.

What is most interesting about this poll to me is the not-Romney aspect of the race.  I knew Newt was on the rise and that part of the result isn't surprising to me.  The question on most pundits' minds will be whether Newt has the staying power that Trump, Bachmann, Perry and now perhaps Cain as well, have lacked.  The standard viewpoint is that conservative GOP voters are test driving everyone who isn't Romney to be the not-Romney candidate and it's now Newt's turn.

DNC fear mongering; hey thanks Newt!

Seriously Newt, did you expect anything different?



Thanks for handing them 2012 fodder.  Really helpful.

Would You Vote For Newt In 2012? Why?

Newt Gingrich, erstwhile Republican Congressional leader, and modern day GOP apparatchik has been roundly criticized of late in the blogosphere (here's a prime example) for his support of Dierdre Scozzafava, candidate for Congress in New York's 23rd Congressional District, in the special election in 2009.  And rightly so. Scozzafava is no different than a liberal Democrat on far too many issues to justify pushing her nomination in a primary race.  Scozzafava has accepted endorsements in the past from the Working Families Party  (which has ties to ACORN), and she was endorsed, unsolicited by liberal activist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (the Daily Kos guy). That's a nice ship for Newt to board.

Especially when there are solid conservative candidates in the running (Doug Hoffman for one).  A Democrat has not represented the district in any form since 1871. Most recently outgoing Republican McHugh won the district with over 60 percent of the vote.  It seems pretty solidly conservative to most observers. In the most recent election however, President Obama carried the district over McCain by a margin of 52%-47%.  Could Newt be playing defence in New York?  Does he really think there has been a shift in the country towards more liberal policy?

There was a time when Newt was a solid conservative, but on far too many issues and in far too many circumstances, he's started to behave like the inside-the-beltway-bubble thinkers he once was able to gain Republican control of the Congress (for the first time in decades) by decrying.  What happened to Newt?  Has been inside politics for too long? This is not another Newt pile-on post however. Yes, he deserves his criticism by sticking to his guns on this issue and caving on others like the global warming HOAX.

But here's the real question.

The GOP was overrun in 2006-2008.  In a military battle an overrun army/brigade/platoon that has been scattered is of no real military consequence.  In order to be an effective unit, the scattered forces must regroup (rally) in order to become an effective fighting force.  In political terms, a house divided cannot stand, and a rally-equivalent is not just necessary, but imperative. Conservatives cannot hope to split their allegiances and be an effective counter-force to liberal dogma. In that sense Newt makes an important point.

Too often those who espouse a third party, and there are plenty, do so without considering the unintended consequences of their actions.  And the unintended consequences of a divided force opposing rampant liberlism, are dire. It means, as Newt rightly points out, a permanent (representative) minority status.  That's far more damaging than some RINOs in the party.  It's like taking your foot off the brake entirely rather than not pushing it hard enough to stop in time.  At least some braking in the latter case is happening and it buys time.

On the other hand, a GOP party infiltrated by liberals means two liberal parties and no conservative viewpoint.  So what's a conservative to do?  Rather than walk away from the party like a scorned spouse seeking a divorce, more needs to be done within the confines of the party itself.  Aren't conservatives supposed to be known for their loyalty to their ideals?  Isn't loyalty to the GOP like loyalty to a friend.  If your friend does something really stupid, you don't walk away from the friendship, you try to set them straight.  Aren't conservatives all about hard work being required for results (you get out of it what you put into it)?  Doesn't it sound a bit like sour grapes and a bit like being the selfish, easy-route solution that we think liberals live to just walk away from it all? To me, that's the way it appears.  Instead of running, conservatives should be fighting to right the GOP.

In the case of Scozzafava, there should be a rally around Hoffman in order to defeat Scozzafava and her liberal endorsements (and Newt Gingrich's).  It shouldn't be too hard, as apparently her cash stockpile is not too impressive. 

Where efforts should be made is in the primaries and at every turn that touches on GOP involvement. If you put effort into the GOP, over time you will see results.  The effort that went into the Tea Parties and the resulting notice (despite many trying to suppress it) in the media and in Congress was worth it.  But that type of effort was just a start.  Or it should be.  What conservatives face is a political enemy that WILL NOT rest and will not relent.  That type of effort must be met in kind. Anything short and you get what you pay (in sweat) for.

Amount of effort in = Amount of result out result out.

In order to make the big gains, the right has to settle for small gains to start.  Defeating Scozzafava is a good start, but the real step is to send a big notice to Democrats in Congress and the White House that they have over-estimated their mandate, because many who signed on were, clueless, and many who were opposed are now more stridently so.  Seeing a big Congressional swing is the slap-in-the-face Democrats need to back a few steps away from the radicalism they are currently pushing.

Until Rupert Murdoch or some other conservative takes ownership of NBC, and we have not just Fox versus every other television network, the playing field will always be tilted in favor of liberals.  It means we have to work harder, and accept small gains as gains rather than take an all-or-nothing view.

Would you vote for Newt in 2012 if he were the GOP nominee for President? I'd like to think that despite reservations, most sensible conservatives would begrudgingly do so.  As much as John McCain was a really lousy GOP choice, he would not have been Obama-bad. Newt, as centrist as he has become, would not be McCain-bad.  Hopefully conservatives realize that, should Newt become the nominee.  The trick is, given Newt Gingrich's slide to some untenable positions from a conservative standpoint, to not let him get that 2012 nomination in the first place.  That's the real fight.  At least that's my two cents.

Assessing GOP 2012 - Gingrich

This is the final regularly scheduled review of potential GOP candidates for the 2012 nomination. It's not clear that Newt Gingrich is considering running for the Presidency in 2012, or ever. However, if he were to consider running, he would have to be considered a top contender. He certainly has said and done things over the past 15 years that would indicate he has considered the option and has tried to position himself to be in a good spot for a run.

Other Candidates reviewed,

Mitt Romney
Mark Sanford
Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Mike Huckabee


Experience: Newt Gingrich was elected to Congress in 1978, on his third attempt, having previously lost two close elections. In 1979 he joined the Public Works Committee. Gingrich won 10 consecutive Congressional elections through 1998 when he retired from Congress. He had won an 11th but refused to take his seat, when in 1998 his popularity had slid as low as 28% before recovering back to the mid-40's. During his tenure he became Minority whip in 1989, and House Speaker in 1995, after successfully launching the Contract with America during the 1994 election cycle with many other Republican Congressmen and hopefuls. That cycle saw a gain of 54 Republican seats, and the first Republican Congressional majority in decades.

Grade: A. With 20 years in Congress and an understanding of how Congress works, including a couple of leadership roles in that body, Newt has a wealth of experience relative to other potential GOP contenders. It could be argued his experience is not 'executive' like that of Sanford, Palin, Jindal, Huckabee or even Romney. However, because of the relationships Newt has undoubtedly cultivated over the years, he has potential insights into the Presidency that would mitigate that issue, and his leadership roles certainly exceed that of 'community organizer'.

Likability/Electability: Newt's Contract with America in 1994 came with something that was fundamentally lacking in Congress in so many areas - common sense. A big part of the appeal of Newt and the young Republicans at the time was that very common sense. Common sense goes a long way towards electability, and arguable some distance towards likability as well. Newt still has that common sense.

Here he is talking about gas prices in 2008.



Newt does carry some baggage that Republicans might find uncomfortable. He sought and obtained a divorce in 1981 (Newt is twice divorced). He was charged with 84 ethics counts with respect to some of his GOPAC activities in the 1990's. He also was slated to receive a $4.5 million advance on a book deal that Democrats howled about. Will these impact his electability? Arguably not. Of the 84 charges he faced he was cleared on 83 and agreed to pay a $300,000 fine on the other. The charges were politically motivated by retribution against Gingrich because of his efforts to go after corrupt Democrats including the likes of Jim Wright and Charles Diggs.

The book deal is not a concern to anyone but liberal Democrats who view money as evil. Clearly that does not include the likes of Hillary Clinton who received an $8 million advance on her book deal. Besides, the United States was built and thrived on capitalism. Go Newt. The only baggage that might be of concern is a conservative backlash against the divorce issue. Some argued that it was part of the knock against Rudy Giuliani. Even that, some 31 years ago come 2012 will likely be a muted effect. Still the taint of scandal may be there just because Newt is a Republican and perhaps, though hopefully not, his primary opponents may try to leverage it with respect to his electability versus President Obama.

Overall Newt is somewhat charismatic, and has more of a stage presences than arguably anyone else in the expected Republican field, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin.

Looking at the CPAC poll in February 2009, he ranks ahead of only Huckabee and Sanford, slightly behind Palin and Jindal (and Ron Paul) and at 10%, only half as popular as Mitt Romney. The poll (displayed here) is too preliminary and too skewed to be considered anything more than directional. What it does say is that Newt would certainly not have a cakewalk in a popularity contest.

Grade: C+. I've been told on Twitter that he's yesterday's man, to which I would counter you're only as outdated as you think you are.

Foreign Affairs: Newt has sought reform in the United Nations. He's had some very harsh languange on Iran's leader. He talked a strong game on North Korea's recent missile launch.





In his own words;







Grade: B. Newt sees the big picture which is a definite plus. On the other hand he comes close on some counts to the pre-emptive focus of the Bush doctrine. Unfortunately the pre-emptive approach is simply not feasible given the fiscal constraints of today, and Gingrich has not addressed how to bridge this gap.

Economy: Newt Gingrich supports the line item veto and a balanced budget ammendment. Standard fare for most conservatives. He also favors free trade. And while these are good ideas, Newt himself seems to rail against the idea of conventional wisdom;

Gingrich is all about offering, as he puts it, a “better value” for the American customer — constructive solutions Republicans can take on the road during the next midterm election season and beyond. “Most Republicans are not entrepreneurial,” he lamented to me. “They’re corporatists. They like the security and the comfort of a well-thought-out, highly boring boardroom meeting in which they do a PowerPoint once. And it worries them to have ideas, because ideas have edges, and they’re not totally formed, and you’ve got to prove them, and they sound strange because they’re new, and if it’s new how do you know it’s any good, because, after all, it’s new and you’ve never heard it before.”

On taxes, the following;

“The American people are fed up with Washington’s irresponsible spending spree,” said Newt Gingrich, General Chairman of American Solutions. “There are better solutions than big government and higher taxes to create jobs and get the economy moving again.”

“American Solutions is proud to partner with the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition to communicate this message to our elected officials,” Gingrich added.

On the bailouts, Gingrich has this to say;



While it seems like too simple a solution, it bears a striking resemblance to how the Community Reinvestment Act changes by the Clinton administration caused the housing bubble and some simple changes could have prevented the whole problem.

On government reform, Gingrich offers a mixed bag of opinions, some of which blame his own success in 1994 for the lack of bi-partisanship today. Apologizing for your own success is not the mark of a great leader.

On energy, Newt is in favor of energy independence.



Grade: A-. Newt's common sense approach is tempered only by his tangental slips into bi-partisanship leanings. It's not to say bi-partisanship is a bad thing, but in the current climate, it's just not feasible. the left has moved too far left for Newt's ideas to be watered down and achieve his desired goals. He should ease up on the idea and focus on leading with his own solid ideas. Be inclusive, but lead.

Military: Newt Gingrich has supported a stronger military. During his tenure as Speaker military spending increased for the first time in over 10 years including funding for a national missile defense. While outside of an executive role, Gingrich clearly was able to show at least tacit support for the military. And many of his positions were and are, ones that require a strong military. Further, Gingrich understands the importance of a technological advantage over potential adversaries.


Grade: B+.
National/Border Security: Newt ties the two issues together in ways the other candidates have not yet done. From Wikipedia;

From Gingrich's five challenges: "No serious nation in the age of terror can afford to have wide-open borders with millions of illegal aliens crossing at will."

Although a source of friction in the conservative wing of the GOP (and some pro-union "Blue Dog" Democrats), Gingrich supports a "guest worker program" for foreign workers, meaning that an undetermined number of foreign workers would be allowed to come to the United States and work for a period of time, then return to their home country. Gingrich also supports the idea of allowing some of these guest workers to become citizens. In his book Winning the Future, he says:

"Along with total border control, we must make it easier for people who enter the United States legally, to work for a set period of time, obey the law, and return home. The requirements for participation in a worker visa program should be tough and uncompromising. The first is essential: Everyone currently working in the United States illegal must return to their home country to apply for the worker visa program. Anything less than requiring those who are here illegally to return home to apply for legal status is amnesty, plain and simple."

Grade: B. From a logic perspective, Gingrich understands the connection between open borders and terror threats. However, he seems a bit soft on paths to citizenship for conservative tastes.

Social Issues: On abortion Newt is an originalist with respect to the Constitution, meaning presumably that Roe v. Wade was a stretch. He believes that prayer in school is the will of the majority, and is against affirmative action. He has a tough stance on crime and drugs. He wants schools updated to the 21st century. He is pro-family, wants America focused on technology for the future. While the last point may not be a social focused item, it ties in to the education point. Social issues seem to be less of a focus for Gingrich, but he holds to standard conservative principles (outside of family and religion) for seemingly political expedience. Gingrich may have no quarrel with the conservative position on these issues, but they do not seem to be his driving focus. His focus is more on American strength, security, peace and prosperity.

Grade: C+. Newt's driving motivations lie elsewhere, but he will adhere to party lines.

Conservatism:



Grade: B. Newt is solidly conservative, and despite a few personal flaws in his life, he espouses positions conservatives typically support.

Overall: Newt has some great ideas that work well, within the conservative views on solutions to America's problems. The question for Newt is whether conservatives are willing to overlook his personal past, and whether he would be regarded as past his window of opportunity/value.

That aside, the GOP could do worse than Gingrich, and Gingrich could do worse than the GOP. Whether or not everyone sees it as a good fit, remains to be seen.

Grade: B.