Political resume: After two unsuccessful tries in 1974 and 1976, Gingrich won a Congressional seat from Georgia and maintained it (with one move due to a 1990 redistricting) for ten terms. Despite winning an eleventh term earlier that month, he resigned as both Speaker of the House (a post which he served from 1995) and his Congressional seat in November 1998. Newt is also credited with the concept of the “Contract With America,” a platform which made him speaker once over 50 new Republicans were elected to the House in 1994. Newt formed an unofficial exploratory committee for 2012 on March 3rd, formally entering the race May 11. RealClearPolitics.com ranks Gingrich sixth of nine major contenders, but his support has steadily eroded from being a frontrunner to around 4 percent.
On campaign finance/election reform (three points): While serving in the House, Newt had a solid voting record on campaign finance so I’m giving him two points. I don’t think his positions have softened, but haven’t heard the bold sort of statement on the subject that others have made out of him.
On property rights (five points): Overturning the Kelo decision would be a good start on Gingrich‘s agenda, and I can give him all five points for that and defending property rights while in Congress.
On the Second Amendment (seven points): “It’s not in defense of hunting, it’s not in defense of target shooting or collecting. The Second Amendment is defense of freedom from the state.” So said Newt, and he tended to vote that way while in Congress. But there is something in this piece that gives me pause, so I’m only giving him six of seven points.
On education (eight points): Gingrich touches on education in a minor way on his website, but the person who now talks about abolishing the Department of Education voted for its very creation. And in 2009 he was only too happy to join Al Sharpton on a tour to “highlight the Obama administration’s efforts to reform public education.” I think he’d like to continue the federal framework which needs to be abolished, and that’s not a solution I believe in. I’m giving him no points because I don’t think he stands with me on this.
On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Generally, Newt has a pretty good idea of what we need to enhance our national security and win the Long War, so I’m giving him eight points.
On immigration (eleven points): It’s telling that, aside from the usual mantra of “secure our borders,” Newt doesn’t talk about immigration on his campaign site. Maybe it’s because he’s pandering to the so-called Latino vote? I can only give him two points, and that’s in part credit for some past votes. He may think differently now.
On energy independence (twelve points): Gingrich and his “American Energy Plan” is solid, except for one flaw: he wants to use oil and gas royalties to “finance cleaner energy research.” While I like the introduction of “loser pays” on environmental lawsuits into the discussion, the idea that we should give research grants out like candy and pick winners and losers via government rubs me the wrong way. Because of that philosophical difference and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi, he gets downgraded slightly to seven points.
On entitlements (thirteen points): I have a big problem with some of Newt‘s so-called solutions because they begin with the argument that the current Medicare/Medicaid model just needs to be tweaked, with government remaining firmly in control. It’s the replacement of Obamacare he calls for rather than a repeal. I don’t buy it as “fundamental reform.” And this from the guy who got welfare reform passed? His record on Social Security is a start, but doesn’t go far enough. He gets only three points.
On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Newt is an advocate of free trade, which is a plus because it creates offshore markets. He also has a broad plan for job creation which keys on tax reform along with streamlining regulations, which I’ll return to in a moment. Generally I have given candidates who exhibit these traits nine points, but Newt goes a step further in that he’d like to return to Reagan-era monetary policies. So he gets ten points.
On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): To put it mildly, Newt is an enigma. Just look at his economic plan: he cheers me to some extent by advocating a flat 15 percent tax, but only makes it optional. He’d like to repeal Obamacare – but replace it with something else. Same goes for the EPA, which he would like to replace with an “Environmental Solutions Agency.” The problem with reform and replace is that eventually the same old problems creep up again, and I’ve already noted before that Newt is big on federal solutions to problems – I guess one can expect that from a Beltway insider. He has the ability to think outside the box, but doesn’t use it anymore and that’s extremely disappointing. Four points.
Intangibles (up to three points): We know that Newt has a marriage problem, which isn’t necessarily a strike against him in my eyes but could be to many others. On the other hand, he is pro-life. So these two cancel each other out. He’s also made it clear that he would appoint strict constitutionalist jurists, which adds a point since not all candidates state this up front. Newt nets one point.
Total (maximum, 100 points): I’ve always been a Newt Gingrich fan for his forward thinking, but since he’s gone Washington I only gave him a total of 48 points. That puts him in the company of several other candidates with one or more major flaws.
I suppose the biggest strikes against Newt in public perception are his personal life and the so-called rash of ethics violations he was hounded with when Speaker of the House. The Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) did their best to smear him, and he didn’t help matters any by falling into their trap a few times. And even though he’s been out of elective office for 12 1/2 years, he’s not exactly spent the time in the wilderness as he’s been in the public eye throughout. Certainly Newt is a polarizing figure.
But I think he decided to run one cycle too late. While many in the TEA Party respect Newt for his Contract With America work, they see him as part of the Beltway insider problem. He may win the debates but it doesn’t appear he’s changing a lot of minds.
Newt is caught in a trap of sorts – there’s already the “it’s his turn” establishment candidate in Mitt Romney and the TEA Party votes are going to candidates they perceive more favorably as outsiders – Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, and to a small extent Rick Perry are sucking up that demographic. It leaves Newt out in the cold when he had a golden opportunity in 2008 and passed it up.
Gingrich probably won’t do all that well in either Iowa or New Hampshire since he didn’t participate in the August Iowa Straw Poll and has to fight for establishment voters in Mitt Romney’s back yard. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if he doesn’t go back to American Solutions before the primary season even starts if his poll numbers fall beneath a certain level, say three percent. That’s just my gut hunch talking.
