Newt Gingrich – Page 4

Bachmann’s turn is over (but Perry’s isn’t after all)

Well, it was fun while it lasted. The monoblogue kiss of death has claimed another victim, Michele Bachmann.

After gamely trying to convince herself and others the fight wasn’t over last night, apparently she slept on it and “decided to stand aside” this morning. This was the statement on her website:

I will be forever grateful to Iowa and its people for launching us on this path with our victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. While I will not be continuing in this race, my faith in the Lord God Almighty, this country, in our republic, has been strengthened. As I have traveled around Iowa, and the country, I have seen the very best in America, our people. And I will always believe in the greatness of them and the greatness of our God.

And, of course, I am deeply grateful to our entire campaign team, here in Iowa, in South Carolina and everywhere. I have no regrets. We never compromised our principles and we can leave this race knowing that we ran it with integrity and that we made an important contribution.

Thank you, God Bless you.

At this time, she hasn’t made an endorsement but presumably her decision was hastened in part by the necessity to begin her campaign to retain her Congressional seat – a campaign which has already drawn her GOP opposition and perhaps may place her in another Congressional district, as the DFL (their version of the Democratic Party) redistricting plan does. She also remains as the titular head of the TEA Party Caucus.

So the old adage that there are only three tickets out of Iowa may yet prove almost true, as the list of contenders gets whittled down to six: Newt Gingrich (4th in Iowa), Jon Huntsman (7th, but did not campaign there), Ron Paul (3rd in Iowa), Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. (The latter two essentially tied for first.) Fifth-place finisher Rick Perry was going to “reassess” his campaign, but perhaps Bachmann’s decision allowed him to stay in the hunt.

This hasn’t been much of a campaign for conservatives. Many would have liked to see Sarah Palin run, while others pined for a TEA Party favorite like Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana. Other names tossed around were Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Allen West of Florida, and Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, all reliably conservative.

But many conservatives coalesced around the lesser-known Herman Cain until a series of unfounded allegations of marital misconduct and sexual harassment knocked him out of the race. Others have been in the Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann camps early on and stayed during the frequent ups and downs.

Now we have fewer but certainly not better choices: Mitt Romney will forever have the albatross of ushering in the precursor to Obamacare in Massachusetts and has the perception of being the “establishment” choice in an era of anti-establishmentism. (Come on, he’s been endorsed by John McCain – how much more of a milquetoast, reach across the aisle pander can one get?) Likewise, Newt Gingrich is the consummate Beltway insider who never really left Washington once he left the House.

Rick Santorum is the darling of the social conservative group – and that’s an integral part of our cause. But Rick won’t be the fiscal conservative we need and hasn’t always shown fealty to the cause of limited government – one can ask Pat Toomey about that. (Yet for everything Santorum has said he seems to have a manner of parsing his words later. I call it saying what he thinks will get him elected.)

Jon Huntsman started out turning his back to the TEA Party movement and his idea that anthropogenic climate change is real is a disqualifier. And then there’s Ron Paul. If being President didn’t involve a lick of foreign affairs he would be my guy, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And while Perry is back in, will this post-Iowa misstep work the same as John McCain’s late suspension of 2008 campaign efforts in order to address the economic crisis? After that he never recovered in the polls.

That’s all folks. That’s what we now have to choose from, unless there’s somehow a brokered convention and some white knight rides in to save us from ourselves. Certainly any of the above would be an improvement over the current occupant of the Oval Office, but I somehow get the gnawing feeling that we’re leaving a huge missed opportunity here.

But Rome wasn’t built in a day, either, and to undo nearly 100 years of damage to the Republic will take more than four. The trick is just getting started on the task.

Is Perry done?

I was just listening to Rick Perry’s concession speech, and he announced he was returning to Texas to “reassess” his campaign. Well, I think his reassessment is going to find him leaving the field because he finished fifth with 10 percent – I was under the impression he was going to South Carolina to campaign.

But like Tim Pawlenty before him, he may have decided that if he can’t spend scads of money and win Iowa, he’s not going to win anywhere – despite the fact that, unlike Pawlenty, Rick did manage to finish ahead of Michele Bachmann.

Yet Bachmann is planning on staying in despite the paltry 5% or so she received. Well, she could conceivably get a chunk of those Perry votes but I sort of doubt it given the Gardasil controversy.

So let’s say Perry is out. I suspect that his voters would most likely go to Newt Gingrich and here’s why: they’re both plain-spoken Southerners who have a relatively pragmatic approach to the issues. Mitt Romney won’t benefit because he’s pretty much plateaued at his 25% support ceiling and Rick Santorum is more of a social conservative – again, it goes back to the Gardasil question. I think Ron Paul has also hit his ceiling of support as well, particularly when it’s revealed that independents and renegade Democrats bolstered his Iowa totals. Once we get to closed primary states that advantage won’t be there.

There you have it: a simple Iowa caucus postmortem. I’m sort of sorry to see Perry go since he was the top of my second tier of candidates.

Update: Maybe Bachmann will be out. Bummer.

Something I forgot about

You can blame me for reopening old wounds in this part of the world, but in doing a little bit of research for the next article in my Maryland Model series I came across a 2008 post I did in the days before that year’s primary election, which was held in February. It seems that 2012 candidates Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich indeed had something in common, but this is what I remarked in my post from February 7, 2008:

I also caught the usual (then-Rep. Wayne) Gilchrest biweekly interview with Bill Reddish on the AM Salisbury radio program this morning. Wayne cited one of the more unusual endorsements he’s gotten this morning, claiming that he had the endorsement of Ron Paul. That may be big news to Joe Arminio, who announced back in December he was running on the Ron Paul “ticket.”

If you read down through the comments (or here) I mention that Gingrich also endorsed Gilchrest, and he held a fundraiser for Wayne as well.

Of course, after the 2008 primary election was over and Joe Arminio was blown away in his Congressional bid, he questioned why he did so much worse than Ron Paul in the First District. Obviously I have no idea why Arminio would believe he was “endorsed” by Ron Paul, but it’s interesting that both these 2012 contenders have their support for a very moderate Republican – who went on to endorse the Democrat in the race and revealed later he’d voted for a Democrat two years earlier, in 2006 – as a commonality.

And Andy Harris supports Gingrich now. I’m not sure quite what that says about Andy Harris, but it is what it is.

More endorsements (from the Maryland establishment) for Romney

I didn’t notice this when it came out just before Christmas, but over three dozen more Maryland elected officials made their support for Mitt Romney public, according to the Sun. Rather than the roster of mostly General Assembly members composing the September release, version 2.0 is more focused on county- and local-level officials. One name which jumped out at me, though, was TEA Party favorite and Maryland AFP head Charles Lollar. Aside from the endorsements of District 37 State Senator Richard Colburn and District 37B Delegate Addie Eckardt on the original September list, no new local leaders were added in this go-round.

Conversely, Newt Gingrich also has a key endorsement in Congressman Andy Harris.

But TEA Party leaders seem to be all over the map. I’m one who’s settled on Michele Bachmann after Herman Cain withdrew from the race, while many others prefer Ron Paul, a number like Gingrich, and scattered others have settled into the camps of the Ricks – Santorum and Perry. Not so many like Jon Huntsman or Romney, which makes an endorsement like Lollar’s cause to scratch my head.

Obviously the field will begin to move after Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, with Bachmann predicted to be among the first to go. However, the conventional wisdom hasn’t often been correct in this race and there’s no reason to suspect otherwise. We may yet play a part in it, and by then the question will be whether these endorsements are an asset to a thriving Romney or a liability to all those who went all-in behind the former Massachusetts governor as he limps along in the race.

Finally, a note to my readers: this will be the 451st and final post of 2011 so Happy New Year to all of you! I’m looking forward to an exciting 2012 and many historic and spirit-crushing (for statists and their fellow travelers, that is) victories to celebrate by year’s end!

Crashing the third party

It’s being reported as a done deal, but the official withdrawal of Gary Johnson from the GOP presidential race will likely occur next week. Supposedly he’s dropping out to seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party, but apparently that’s not a slam dunk because others covet that ballot spot as well.

Gary had little to no chance of gaining the Republican nod despite his obvious similarities in platform to Ron Paul, a candidate who’s currently near the top of the GOP heap. Running as a Libertarian will get him ballot access in most states and might put the state of New Mexico (which went for Obama in 2008 but was thought to be a good chance for a GOP pickup) back into the Obama column. While it’s only five electoral votes, that may tip the balance in a close election.

Continue reading “Crashing the third party”

National straw polls still like Gingrich – but for how long?

Anyone who’s a political junkie of any sort knows that the presidential winnowing process will begin in Iowa a week from next Tuesday, January 3, 2012. By the end of that day we’ll have some idea of who the Republicans in that state prefer, with the battle then shifting to New Hampshire a week later.

But what if there were a national primary? Well, there is no such thing, but there were two recent straw polls which attempted to widen the focus out a little bit. These polls were conducted by two different groups: one was the Townhall/Hot Air Primary and the other was the Tea Party Straw Poll. I participated in the former but not the latter.

One interesting facet of the Townhall/Hot Air Primary was the opportunity for a “second choice” vote. As we all know, there are times we have to settle for our second choice as Herman Cain supporters are finding out. But I’ll start with their topline results (poll taken December 13-15):

Newt Gingrich 36.5%
Mitt Romney 18.8%
Michele Bachmann 17.7%
Ron Paul 17.4%
Rick Perry 9.5%

Second choices:

Michele Bachmann 25.4%
Newt Gingrich 20.6%
Mitt Romney 20.4%
Rick Perry 18.2%
Ron Paul 15.4%

There’s more summary here, but I found it fascinating that Bachmann supporters were the most diverse and that those who voted for Ron Paul must not have had a second choice. Jonathan Garthwaite’s article doesn’t mention who those that backed Paul voted in as their alternate selection. Worth noting as well is that Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum weren’t included because they didn’t attain 5% in national polls.

The Tea Party primary had the same frontrunner but also a caveat: four of the seven candidates they polled also participated in a tele-forum held in conjunction with the poll, so results may be a little skewed. I’m denoting forum participants with an asterisk (*).

Newt Gingrich* 31%
Michele Bachmann* 28%
Mitt Romney* 20%
Rick Santorum* 16%
Ron Paul 3%
Rick Perry 2%
Jon Huntsman 0% (0.34%)

Obviously the poll was very skewed in favor of participants, but one can still make a reasonable assumption that Bachmann and Santorum in particular get a heavy dose of their support from the TEA Party, with Gingrich enjoying a more broad appeal among conservatives at-large. On the other hand, Mitt Romney isn’t making the hearts of the right wing go pitter-patter.

Yet there’s another item one can read between the lines. It seems that every time one turned around, Ron Paul was winning a straw poll someplace. But he didn’t do all that well in these two (granted, he didn’t participate in the call so his numbers would naturally be artificially lower) at a time when he’s supposedly becoming the front-runner in Iowa. We hear about Newt’s campaign “collapsing” but these numbers don’t necessarily bear that theory out either. I know Paul has his passionate supporters but too many find his isolationist foreign policy scary. And the trumpeting of the news that we’re no longer in Iraq may take away the Long War issue from the front burner.

As we have seen over the last several months of this GOP campaign, a week means a lot. Since the voting began in the Townhall/Hot Air Primary we’ve had a GOP debate and the media has trained its heavy fire on Gingrich. It’s no wonder some voters are having second thoughts, although some must be on thoughts six or seven by now. The only candidate still in the running who hasn’t had his day in the sun is Rick Santorum and maybe he’ll peak just in time for Iowa. Stranger things have happened.

Bachmann: all in for Iowa

I’m not sure this is the most surprising thing out there, but I find it interesting how open Michele Bachmann’s campaign is about what needs to happen. Here’s a video Bachmann campaign head Keith Nahigian put up.

So let’s play this scenario of an Iowa Bachmann victory out. At this time there are perhaps six candidates who can compete well in the caucuses: Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. If she wins Iowa you can say goodbye to Rick Santorum, as he’s sought the same “teavangelical” (I like that word) vote as Bachmann. The remainder will continue on to New Hampshire, where Jon Huntsman is also staking his hopes.

Obviously Bachmann has written off New Hampshire, which will be the test for Mitt Romney. If Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire, a state in his backyard, he’s a walking dead duck in the race. Newt Gingrich is also becoming a major player in the race, and as I noted Jon Huntsman is playing to win or at least do well in New Hampshire. Of the three, the loser is probably the odd man out and likely it will be Jon Huntsman. As well, Rick Perry is probably not strong enough to take two early losses like this. But if he is, he may play a role farther down the line – I don’t see it happening in my crystal ball, though.

At that point, it would be down to the final four: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. I think the Bachmann firewall is South Carolina, for if she doesn’t win there (remember, this is in Newt’s back yard) it’s doubtful she’ll have the money to keep going. (You’ll notice the final segment of the video was a fundraising pitch.)

There’s no doubt I think Michele Bachmann is perhaps the best candidate remaining out there. But we know what happened to the last GOP candidate winning Iowa – Mike Huckabee lost his momentum quickly because he was perceived as unelectable and not a real fiscal conservative.

I don’t doubt Bachmann’s conservatism, but the trick will be getting her message out at a time when the narrative is that of a two-man race – Romney vs. Gingrich. That’s a battle of establishment candidate vs. Washington insider who’s acceptable to those inside the Beltway, too. I’m not sure it’s what America needs at the moment, though.

So give Michele a chance. Once we get through the clutter of nearly a dozen candidates still seeking the GOP nod, we can start focusing on the real race – the one to bring the end of an error come January 2013.

Johnson the turncoat?

This isn’t a completely unexpected development, as it echoes the path Ron Paul once took.

But according to this story I found on Politico, Gary Johnson isn’t ruling out a third-party run, probably as a Libertarian. Obviously he’s frustrated that he hasn’t been involved in many GOP debates and can’t make any headway in the polls because of that.

And in all honesty, he’s probably just as good a fit as a Libertarian as he is a Republican. In fact, there have previously been GOP candidates who have jumped into a third party when their path to the nomination was blocked – Alan Keyes in 2008 and Pat Buchanan in 2000 are two recent examples.

The question, of course, is what sort of impact Gary would have on the general election should he receive the Libertarian nomination. Normally the Libertarian gets a percent or two of the national vote, and if Johnson stays within the polling range he’s exhibited in seeking the GOP nod he’ll probably get in that range nationally. But the question is who he’d get the votes from?

If the Republicans nominate Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich it’s possible Johnson may draw support from disgruntled Republicans who don’t like the party’s nominee, which could hurt their Presidential bids. But nominating a candidate like Herman Cain or perhaps Rick Perry won’t help Johnson much because conservatives will stay with the GOP. Instead, Johnson may appeal to some independents who aren’t enamored with Barack Obama but like Johnson’s reformist mantra without the social conservatism the GOP tends to favor.

There’s little doubt that Gary Johnson doesn’t have a path to victory within the Republican Party, so the question is whether he would actually play a true maverick and attempt to bring his message to the voters in a different fashion. With the advent of the new media, he may pull off the role of spoiler.

When do the candidates drop out?

We’re just 45 days out from the Iowa caucuses (believe it or not) but there are still ten serious candidates seeking the GOP nomination.

I bring this up because, in the 2008 cycle, we had already lost a few people when they realized the money wasn’t going to be there or they had no path to victory. This is going to be true among probably six or so of the 2012 contenders, but they soldier on regardless.

Perhaps this is because the person who was counted out a month ago may make a meteoric rise in the polls based on a campaign plank, a great debate performance, or just the fact they were viewed as the hot new item in public perception. Thus far, this phenomenon has benefited several candidates: Herman Cain (twice), Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Newt Gingrich. Even Tim Pawlenty had his turn, although once his down cycle arrived (at the peak of fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann’s cycle at the Iowa Straw Poll) he decided to exit the race. Way back when, before the race had really jelled together, Jon Huntsman had a turn at the wheel too. But by the time he actually announced that support was gone.

On the other hand, one has to wonder if the turns will ever come for guys like Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, or Rick Santorum. They continue to suffer from abysmally low poll numbers, and the question is now getting to be whether they’ll have the money or manpower to get their message out before it’s too late.

And you’ll notice I didn’t mention Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. It’s because both seem to have a narrow strata of support which ranges in the low twenties for Romney and right around ten percent for Paul. They don’t seem to deviate much from those plateaus, which begs the question of whether the field is too crowded for them right now. Presumably they can tread water until some of the bottom-feeders finally exit the scene.

I’m going to do a poll for a few days and see what you think will be the result of the coming shakeout. I think it’s interesting to speculate who just doesn’t have the horses to continue on.

Newt’s third way

For several years I’ve received Newt Gingrich’s weekly letter from Human Events, and it’s usually a pretty decent read from a pretty smart guy. But now that he’s in the running for President and moved up onto the list of leading contenders, one needs to scrutinize his words more carefully and some of what I don’t like about Newt came out in his latest edition.

The Washington establishment’s reaction to the runaway spending is a policy of austerity and pain.

Democrats would cause austerity and pain on the individual by raising taxes, thereby shrinking family and business purchasing power.

Republicans would cause austerity and pain to government by cutting spending and thereby shrinking the services and income transfers government provides.

Clearly, shrinking government is preferable to overtaxing the American people but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth.

So the question is whether Newt is really serious about cutting spending – after all, he is running for the Republican nomination, isn’t he? Newt would rather target his cuts around the edges, like this:

The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.

For instance, if we applied modern private-sector management systems to government they would save up to $500 billion a year. That is three times the goal of the Super Committee.

Newt points to a website called Strong America Now, which claims that a quarter of all federal spending is wasted and advocates the Lean Six Sigma model in order to shrink spending down to size. (I’d say that number is quite low, but then again it all depends on your definition of waste.) While it’s a good idea to point this sort of thing out time and again, the trouble is that we’re working within the same parameter – if the system is irreparably broken, nothing can save it. Moreover, this working within the system will likely suffer the fate of most government estimates – the actual amount saved will likely fall short of expectations. And certainly the cuts will be just fine and no one will dispute the need for them until someone’s ox is gored, and there are a lot of sacred cows running around Washington.

My contention is that we need to shrink the services and income transfers government provides in order to bring the federal government to heel, so if Newt doesn’t want to do that I can’t get behind him very well. (I will admit in this case, though, that Newt is right about the idea of block-granting Medicaid to the states.) Being an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government I believe the idea of austerity there would bring some pain, but it would only be along the lines of a “you might feel this stick” pain when you’re giving blood or getting a flu shot. In the long term, the patient is much better.

To be perfectly frank, I would have less of an issue paying higher taxes in the state if I had the assurance that the federal government would shrink accordingly. The problem we have now is that all three levels of government seem to want to take more and more, and none of them will look into their proverbial mirror and ask themselves if what they are providing can’t be done better at a lower level or through the private sector. Placing a private sector model on government may be some improvement, but in terms of political philosophy it’s no different than lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately, my fear is that any money “saved” by the ideas espoused by Strong America Now would just be transferred to some other department, agency, or bureau in an ever-expanding statist paradise.

Perhaps I can borrow a phrase Newt made famous to describe the approach we should take. In my view, it’s time for government to “wither on the vine” but I just don’t think Newt is the guy to make it happen.

A secondary election day

I always thought it was the Tuesday after the first Monday, but today was quite the election day on three different fronts.

One election I participated in was a straw poll held at the MDGOP Fall Convention over the weekend, with the results tabulated and announced today. (My analysis comes after the jump.)

Continue reading “A secondary election day”

Cain surges in polls: is he the anti-Romney?

According to a new Rasmussen Poll, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are now virtually tied on the top of the Republican presidential heap as both garnered 29% in the sampling. And the new number three is Newt Gingrich, who gets 10 percent while former frontrunner Rick Perry has slipped all the way back to fourth, at nine percent.

It’s interesting to note the history of how this race has gone. Mitt Romney has always seemed to have his 20 to 30 percent support and that number doesn’t seem to waver regardless of who’s in the race; it’s enough to keep him on top or a close second in most polls.

But the role of portraying that “other” contender seems to change on a cycle of about a month or two.

Continue reading “Cain surges in polls: is he the anti-Romney?”