Will Newt be able to raise enough money?

One of the question marks some have about a possible Gingrich run is that he wouldn't be able to raise enough money. I think this is an unfounded complaint, unlike the questions if he could be disciplined enough to stay on message. I think he would be much more able to stay on his talking points than in the past, but I think it's a legitimate point.

But when it comes to raising money, few are as good as Newt, as the Washington Post reports.

He wouldn't be able write a very large check to himself like Mitt Romney could, but American Solutions itself has, according to many, a contact list with two million names. 300,000 of those gave less than $200 dollars. That is 90% of the contributors to the group, which can accept unlimited funds. A common refrain from critics is that the amount of money that it raised does not mean much going forward since Presidential campaigns cannot accept anything over $2,400 in each of the primary and general elections.

That argument is rendered moot if 300,000 gave less than $200. Furthermore, if that many were willing to give for simply issue advocacy, not electoral purposes, how many more will give to a Gingrich campaign?

Of the 2 million names and deep fundraising base, the Post writes, "The resources could give Gingrich a major advantage in the GOP field, which includes several hopefuls who have relatively little experience with national fundraising."

If all the reports are true -- and Gingrich is a candidate by March -- the question, "Can he win the Republican nomination?" will be more dependent on the matter of his message discipline, rather than money.

(For more on Gingrich's finances, check out an earlier post of mine: http://teamgingrich.blogspot.com/2010/12/newts-pac-raises-second-most-among-gop.html).

Herman Cain: Newt has bought office space in Atlanta for a run; ABC: Gingrich will form an exploratory committee within two weeks (video)

In an interview with National Journal, conservative businessman and 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain says that Newt, a fellow Georgian, has purchased office space in Atlanta. It will, as National Journal writes, "serve as headquarters for a presidential campaign."

From the article:

Cain had previously told Hotline on Call that Gingrich and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are the two potential candidates whom he could support for president. But surprisingly, Cain said Gingrich entering the race will encourage -- not deter -- him from doing the same.

'Newt will help elevate the debate and the discourse,' Cain said. 'With Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain up there on that debate stage, we're gonna be bringing the red meat. I don't want to be up there against three people who are using same, old political rhetoric. That doesn't bode well for the Republican Party.'

ABC News is reporting that those close to Newt are saying within the next two weeks, he will form an exploratory committee.

Gingrich mentions books "that mattered" to the conservative movement

He specifically mentions The Conscience of a Conservative, for its' impact on moving the Republican Party to the right; Losing Ground, which was about welfare policy; and The Way the World Works, because it "translat[ed]" Hayek and other Austrian school economists "into understandable" language for Americans.



Thank you to splicd.com.

Newt responds to CPAC critics

From his weekly newsletter:

During my speech to CPAC, I tried to lay out a substantive and compelling alternative to Obama and the Democrat's left wing governance, focusing on American energy and environmental policies. I proposed an aggressive, all-American energy strategy that would dramatically boost all sources of energy production in our country.

I also proposed replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with a new Environmental Solutions Agency which would focus on technological solutions to our environmental challenges and adopt a collaborative approach with business and local government, instead of the command and control regulatory model of the EPA.

...

The record crowd of over 11,000 attendees reacted strongly to this vision for lower energy prices, more jobs, better environmental outcomes and a safer America.

It was clear watching the crowd's reaction to my speech and the speeches of others that the conservative movement is energized by the possibility of winning an epic election in 2012. It's also clear they expect real conservative reform from a new conservative president and Congress.

Maybe that optimism and energy made some people nervous.

Before the event was even over, the mainstream media was hard at work trying to pour cold water on the fire that has been lit across this nation.

This article from the Associated Press sums up the doubt and skepticism that so many in our elite media seem intent on sewing amongst the American people.

The not-too-subtle message from these guardians against high expectations is crystal clear: Don't get your hopes up. Real change isn't possible in America. You might as well stay home.

In fact, this piece of conventional wisdom is both historically wrong and insidious.

History shows that real change is possible, but only if the American people are informed and engaged.

He then cites Ronald Reagan and the 1994 victory he led as "successful conservative reform[s]" that succeeded "because they understood that real power resides with the American people, not in Washington."

This rule was described to me by an associate of Reagan's as, 'I show the American people the light. They turn up the heat on Congress.'

Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, but he can better be understood as a great educator. He thought that if he could use his platform as a national figure to inform the American people, they would provide the pressure to implement conservative reform.

That's how Ronald Reagan was able to cut taxes, reduce spending, and reform burdensome regulations to revive the American economy despite having to deal with a Democratic Congress that was opposed to his agenda. Reagan understood that the American people would pressure the Congress into doing the right thing. All Reagan had to do was champion policies that reflect American values and treat the American people with respect by being honest and clear about the facts.

...

Similarly, when I was Speaker, the Republican Congress was able to achieve its principal goals despite having to work with a liberal Democratic President. We balanced the budget while cutting taxes and increasing military and defense spending. It is a historic fact that Clinton never proposed a balanced budget. It was the Republican House that made it happen.

...

All this was possible because we understood that President Clinton would eventually yield to the demands of the American people. That's why after twice vetoing another one of our principal goals, welfare reform, Clinton eventually signed it in 1996, before he ran for reelection. He knew he wouldn't be able to stand the heat from the American people if he didn't.

He then discusses the campaigns that preceded those two conservative reforms:

Ronald Reagan and the Republican Congress under my Speakership also delivered on our goals because the preceding election campaigns focused on the issues, not on personalities.

In 1980, Reagan offered a bold, competing vision for America's future that outshone the malaise and weakness of Jimmy Carter. He promised to cut taxes to boost economic growth, to renew America's strength in the world by standing up to the Soviet Union, and to restore America's civic confidence in its founding and unique purpose (American exceptionalism).

With a weak economy and the hostage crisis in Iran in 1980, Reagan could have simply run as 'not Carter' and emerged victorious. But then he would not have had a mandate to govern, and would never have been able to achieve his principal goals.

Similarly, in 1994, we explicitly crafted the Contract with America campaign around conservative reforms that we understood had overwhelming support in America (if not in the editorial pages of the NY Times) but had nonetheless been blocked by the Democratic House.

Consequently, despite having a liberal Democrat in the White House, we still managed to achieve a balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts, increased military and defense spending, and more.

Perhaps Republicans could have won control of the House in 1994 by simply running against Clinton. However, the Republican landslide would not have been as large, and we certainly would not have had the mandate necessary to enact real change.

As he has in the past, Gingrich criticized the 2004 Bush re-election effort for not engaging John Kerry on the issues:

I wrote a white paper in 2004 pointing out that on over 70 key issues, John Kerry was on the wrong side of public opinion by larger than a 70-30 margin. An election campaign run on these issues would put John Kerry at an impossible disadvantage and could have led to a landslide result with a true mandate for President Bush to govern.

However, the choice in the minds of most American voters in the fall of 2004 wasn't over two competing visions for America; it was between forged National Guard papers and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials. Accordingly, more people turned out to vote against John Kerry than to vote against George W. Bush. With no mandate to govern, is it any wonder that Bush's subsequent attempt to reform social security was dead on arrival?

Newt similarly attacks the 2008 McCain team that did not show how radical then-candidate Obama was.

Looking forward:

We will need candidates that have a clear and substantive plan to govern and who can explain conservative solutions to the American people in a way that gets them excited and engaged.

We will need a new Contract with America in 2012.

A new Contract with America with specific, substantive, conservative solutions to the great challenges facing our nation is the only way to gain the mandate from the American people needed to bust through all the embedded interests in Washington and the state capitals that will oppose change.

If a new conservative President and Congress develop and win based off of a new Contract with America in 2012, there is nothing that can stand in the way of true conservative reforms that will create jobs, make America safer, and maximize individual freedom and dignity for all Americans.

In two minutes, Newt lays out his solutions to get the economy roaring (video)

This clip is from a 2010 meeting with the editorial board of the Orange County Register.

The full video can be found on our videos page above (Part 2 of 5).

Newt on ABC's This Week (with link to video)

Video.

Gingrich was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour on Sunday morning, and they almost entirely discussed the Egypt situation.

Saying that President Obama should not be the focus, Gingrich said:

Our focus ought to be: what can America do now to make sure the military doesn't impose a new dictatorship for another thirty or forty years. And how do we, on the other hand, make sure that you don't end up with a Muslim Brotherhood staging a coup at some point over a three or four or five year period.

The only non-Egypt question dealt with 2012. And the response was one we have heard before:

Well, Callista and I will probably decide by the end of this month about whether to set up an exploratory committee.