Some quick hits

From The Statesman:

Speaking at a forum put on by the Austin Tea Party Patriots, Gingrich was asked about his plans, as the crowd chanted, 'Newt. Newt.' Gingrich ignored the question and redirected his answer to talk about the competence of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader.

...

Gingrich challenged the conservative crowd to continue advocating for small government and free market values. 'You are serving your country as a citizen when you get involved,' he told the often cheering and applauding group, which was estimated by organizers to be about 450 people strong.

...

Gingrich said he signed [the Contract from America] 'as a tea partier.'

After the event, [Tea Party Patriots organizer Greg Holloway] said: 'The people seemed energized, interested.'

From Politico:

Newt's 527, American Solutions, raised 2.7 million dollars -- "almost as much as the groups headed by his prospective rivals for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, brought in combined. [Though, as the website points out, Newt's group has fewer restrictions on raising money.]

Gingrich, the former House speaker, has used his committee, American Solutions for Winning the Future, to pay political staff and consultants, build its email list, fundraise and travel the country. Those activities are considered necessary to lay the foundation for a presidential bid, and are similar to how Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty, and former Govs. Romney of Massachusetts, Palin of Alaska and Huckabee of Arkansas have used their committees.

...

“I see a massive acceleration on the fundraising side,” [Chief Operating Officer Dan Varroney] said, rejecting the premise that American Solutions is geared towards positioning Gingrich for a 2012 presidential run. “Not at all,” he said. “Our focus is clear cut: to save America.”

From the Independent Voter Network:

Reflecting on the 1942 Democratically-controlled Congress that created what he termed 'an anti-appropriations committee, Gingrich claimed that 'a substantial number of New Deal agencies were abolished by the actions of that committee.'

...

“You can’t govern by saying no,” [Gingrich] said. “Offer a dramatically better set of solutions principled based on conservatism...but solutions...not just ideologies. And all of a sudden people look up and you have an argument.”

"The Gingrich Surge"

So says Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard, who wrote a cover story about Newt Gingrich in March 2007.

He notes that from March 21 to April 11, Gingrich gained six points in the CNN Republican primary polling data. "What's fascinating, though, is Newt Gingrich's surge into the top tier of presidential prospects," writes Continetti. "He's gained six points in a month, and is only one point behind Palin. His favorable number is about the same as Palin's, but his unfavorable number is significantly less....As for Gingrich, the poll definitely suggests a presidential bid could gain some traction."

Another poll also shows good news for Newt -- and the other Republican frontrunners. Public Policy Polling (PPP) pitted President Obama against Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin. Huckabee, by 47-45%, has the best numbers currently. Gingrich is tied with the President, 45-45%, while Romney is up 45-44%. Sarah Palin is down just two points, 47-45%.

That suggests two things: 1) Gingrich, due to a great rehabilitation on his part, is not nearly the divisive figure some still try to paint him as; and 2) Obama is in great trouble.

Chicago Tribune writer tries to argue Gingrich was for individual mandate

In an attempt to help sell Obamacare, liberals have tried to tie Republicans and conservatives in with some of the aspects of the legislation. In some instances, such as with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, they are correct. But their other attempts have fallen flat.

Recently, President Obama claimed that the premier conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, favored the exchanges set up in his health care bill. Heritage immediately came out to refute the claim -- as they had to do in 2008, when candidate Obama said the group favored his tax plan over John McCain's and as they have to do in the previous weeks over claims they support the White House's financial reform package.

In another example of liberal fibbing, Media Matters first "reported" -- and then numerous of lazy reporters parroted, including one from The Chicago Tribune -- that Newt Gingrich supported the individual mandate a few years ago. While Newt talked about the idea of forcing people to put up a bond equal to a health insurance policy -- to drastically reduce the number of free loaders -- he did not support the idea of forcing citizens to buy a private product in order to be in good standing.

A notable difference is that the money remains the individual's unless they need medical care. If they do not need it, it is still in their possession. It serves the purpose the mandate does while maintaining more liberty and not violating that pesky Constitution.

Paul Krugman and other mainstream writers get it entirely wrong

Admittedly, it is not such a huge surprise that Paul Krugman made a mistake in his New York Times column.

But this one was so flagrant that it deserves some attention. Newt Gingrich, in discussing the political fallout of Obamacare passing, said that the Democrats "will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing his Great Society legislation. The Washington Post, the source of the quotation, later made a point of writing that Gingrich was referring to the Great Society.

But Krugman -- and a host of others in the MSM -- took the remark to mean Gingrich was referring to civil rights legislaion. The Powerline blog notes one of the reasons that logic is absurb, commenting, "If Krugman knew anything about history, he would know that his fabrication made no sense, since Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more heavily than Democrats. But Krugman is both too ignorant to be aware of that well-known fact, and too lazy to look it up. To all appearances, he hasn't spent more than 30 minutes on a column in years."

The Times even issued a correction. Of course, by that point, it had been picked up on many blogs that Gingrich was trying to divide on the basis of race. Which, it turns out, Krugman and the others were guilty of.

Newt to campaign in Pennsylvania special election

In the election to fill the late John Murtha's House seat, Newt Gingrich will stump for businessman Tim Burns, who, according to the Democrat polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), is currently in the lead, 44-41%.

The district, PA-12, leans Republican -- R+1 -- and the only reason Murtha had such a commanding grip on the seat was because he was the king of pork.

The election, to be held on May 18, will be a good indicator of what to expect come November.