Rob Johnson as campaign manager, Joe Gaylord will reportedly stay at American Solutions

On Friday, there was the not-so-surprising news that Rob Johnson, who managed Texas Governor Rick Perry's 2010 Gubernatorial campaign, would become the campaign manager of Newt's Presidential run. Johnson first signed on with Newt -- in an advisory role -- back in March. (Another former Perry staffer -- called Perry's "top political consultant -- Dave Carney is helping Newt out in New Hampshire.)

Johnson's "special strength," says Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler, "is how to harness the Internet for modern campaigns. He did that in Texas and he will have the same capability for Gingrich nationally."

A bit shockingly:

In a surprise move, Tyler said Gingrich’s closest political adviser, Joe Gaylord, will remain as CEO of American Solutions for Winning the Future, the 527 political committee that Gingrich set up about five years ago to promulgate conservative positions.

Gaylord, a native of Iowa, had been widely expected to be a senior adviser to a Gingrich campaign.

In more staff news:

Tyler also said that Sam Dawson, a protégé of Lee Atwater who has been advising Gingrich this year as he explored making a run for the White House, will be a senior political consultant to the campaign. Dawson, who worked for former Gov. Carroll Campbell of South Carolina and has been close to Gingrich since the mid 1990s, also did a stint as the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Politico once again omits facts about Newt's fundraising

Once again, a Politico reporter writes a story in which they make it appear that Newt's entire fundraising success is due to millionaires writing checks to his groups. While he has received such contributions, those are the exception, not the norm.

This time, it is Ken Vogel who alleges that because Newt will not be able to accept contributions above $2500 that he will struggle to raise enough money. What Vogel -- and his colleagues Andy Barr and Zachary Abrahamson -- either does not know or is willfully omitting (and for alleged hard-news journalists, either is a damning statement) is that Newt's 527, American Solutions, received 300,000 contributions of $200 or less.

The source of that? The Washington Post, which talked of Newt's "fundraising prowess." CNN recently said that Newt would likely be the only possible GOP candidate who could match up with President Obama in fundraising.

The reason for those two mainstream outlets talking up Newt's ability to raise cash is obvious: the aforementioned 300,000 contributors, the roughly two million names and e-mail addresses of members of American Solutions, and the names and contact information from the numerous fundraising letters that different groups that have asked Newt to help them raise money over the years. (The groups, as part of the agreement with Gingrich, allow him to use the list of names that respond to his fundraising pitch.) A question for Politico: If Newt is such a terrible fundraiser, why do so many groups ask him to help them raise money? Is it because they wish to have as little money as possible?

Vogel also raises the question of why Newt's American Solutions PAC raised a comparatively little amount in the first quarter of 2011 -- then proceeds to give the answer: that the PAC started to wind down its fundraising push as Newt inches closer to becoming a Presidential candidate. So, by giving the reason that the PAC raised the amount it did, Vogel clearly shows that he understands the reason. However, the headline alleges that Newt is "struggl[ing]" raising money. If Vogel was being honest, he would have stopped writing the article once he realized that the PAC started to wind down. And he would never have started the article if he either did his homework or stopped misleading readers.

Barr did not reply to my question two months ago about his omission, and I asked Vogel tonight on Twitter. I have yet to hear from him. If I do, I will post his reply.

Politico on how a Gingrich campaign would look

In a mostly even-handed and thorough article, Jeanne Cummings of Politico detailed the strengths, challenges, and strategies of a Gingrich for President campaign.

The campaign's thoughts on the early states:

But if conservative voters are willing to cut him a break on his three marriages, the Gingrich team believes he has a shot at winning or doing well in Iowa.

With that momentum, the former speaker would emphasize his fiscal conservative credentials in New Hampshire. Gingrich believes he’ll have an advantage because he’s the only candidate who can say he balanced the federal budget. The others can only talk about it.

Gingrich’s strategists concede that Romney would be a formidable opponent in New Hampshire, a state the former Massachusetts governor has never stopped courting since his 2008 bid.

In addition, the former speaker will face an influential, behind-the-scenes adversary in New Hampshire: former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, who served under President George H. W. Bush. Many Bush loyalists blame Gingrich for leading an intra-party revolt over tax increases that contributed to the president’s re-election defeat in 1992.

(The fact that "Bush loyalists" still harbor bad feelings toward Newt nearly twenty years later is telling. Bush sunk his re-election chances by hiking taxes, and to blame Newt and other Republicans for opposing the wrong-headed strategy -- instead of the strategy itself -- is a perfect example of shuffling the blame.)

Cummings continues:

Still, the speaker’s advisers hope he can make a strong showing, if not a win. If all goes according to plan, Gingrich would head to friendlier turf in South Carolina, where he could face a key and – they hope — a crucial showdown with Barbour.

Cummings believes that the campaign's headquarters would be in Virginia -- which I have not seen anywhere else. Everyone else has reported it would be in Georgia -- where the campaign is "planning a major presence," writes Cummings.

Whether Cummings is speculating or has inside information that no one else has is not known.

Regardless, she continues:

So, Gingrich enters the race without the traditional home-state anchor that most presidential candidates use as a platform to launch and define their candidacies.

The speaker’s advisers are betting that geography is less important in the Internet age. They also are focused on coalition politics by assiduously courting tea party activists, as well as evangelicals.

Palin and Huckabee are clearly the tea party favorites, according to polls. But if both of them sit out the race, which seems increasingly likely, Gingrich is positioning himself to take their place.

During the 2010 midterms, he made appearances for tea party candidates – including Sharron Angle in Nevada, an early primary state. He’s become a regular at tea party rallies, including a recent one in South Carolina.

In addition, American Solutions, a Gingrich-founded conservative think-tank, last month organized a letter supporting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another tea party ally, signed by 86 local and national tea party activists. American Solutions also has been holding regular conversations with more than 300 tea party leaders throughout the country.

I beg to differ that Huckabee is a "tea party favorite," but the point stands: that without the former Arkansas Governor and Sarah Palin, Newt is helped.

The extensive outreach to tea party activists by Newt is something I have written about before.

Cummings writes that Newt's ability to be the only candidate who can say that he has actually balanced the federal budget before -- and not just talk about it -- is key to the courting of the Tea Party.

She then moves onto the issue of raising money, and as her colleagues at Politico did recently, skews the truth when it comes to who gave money to American Solutions. She makes it appear that all the money came from a few millionaires -- when in fact, as I have written before, citing the Washington Post, Newt had 300,000 donors give under $200.

Cummings then, however, cites some advantages that Newt will have over his competitors:

For instance, during his political hiatus, Gingrich signed fund-raising appeals for the Republican Governors Association, National Rifle Association, Republican National Committee, and other organizations. In exchange for his autograph, he received the names and addresses of everyone who sent in a check in response to his appeal. He still has those lists.

Through Facebook, he’s collected hundreds of thousands of followers and his Twitter account has more than a million. His private consulting firm, which manages his book sales, also has stored more than a million names of potential donors.

So, while Gingrich could use his core group of backers to build a big donor base, he also starts the exploratory phase of his candidacy with a small-donor list that stretches into the millions.

Building a massive grassroots operation is the only way to beat President Obama, and Newt has a significant leg up on the other Republican nominees when it comes to names and contact information.

More urgently, Newt, like every other candidate, will not be able to write himself a $50 million check as Mitt Romney could do if needed. He will need to have a wide base of financial support to supplant that.

Of his ability to stay on message, which I believe may be his biggest obstacle to the nomination, and ultimately the White House, Cummings writes:

However, those who have covered Gingrich for a long time know of another, more disciplined side to the speaker. He was an early convert to the notion that repetition is vital to breaking through with voters.

In 1993, when campaigning for House members, the former speaker delivered the same address, multiple times a day, for months, without significant or headline-grabbing variations.

The 67-year-old also has shown no signs of slowing down, flying coast-to-coast in a single day to make appearances only to get up and do it again the next day.

If Newt stays on message -- talking about jobs, energy, reducing the size and scope of government, civil society, and foreign policy -- and can build a large base of support online and on the ground, there is not a candidate who can match him in the GOP. And unless the economy improves against all forecasts, that would be enough to elect him the 45th President of the United States.

POLITICO skews the truth -- again

POLITICO.com once again fudged the facts when it came to a conservative.

In an article about Newt's fundraising, the website makes it seem that Newt's groups only get money from millionaires. The article says, "And because Gingrich raises little money that comes with the strings of FEC rules limiting donations, his actual fundraising ability as a presidential candidate remains unclear."

To get a contrasting view, one need not read a conservative web site or get a statement from Gingrich's camp.

One would just need to read the Washington Post, in whose pages was an article last week that talked of Newt's "fundraising prowess" and mentioned that "Gingrich's donor base includes nearly 300,000 contributors who gave $200 or less to American Solutions."

Having the name and e-mail addresses of 300,000 small dollar contributors would seem to indicate that he could raise money as a Presidential candidate, no matter how POLITICO wants to spin the facts.

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).

AJC: "Newt Gingrich tells Georgia Republicans he’ll be a candidate in ‘12"

The first line of the Atlanta Journal Constitution story reads:

In the last 24 hours, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich has touched base with several prominent Republicans in his former home state, telling them that he intends to make a run for president in 2012 using Georgia as his base -- and that he already has his eye on office space in Buckhead for a campaign headquarters.

AJC writer Jim Galloway:

The visits and conversations -- some face-to-face, others on the phone -- appear to be an attempt by Gingrich to revive his old campaign network and lock down as much support as possible in a state won by Republican Mike Huckabee in the 2008 presidential primary.

A spokeswoman for Johnny Isakson said Gingrich called the U.S. senator earlier this month -- adding that Gingrich was not definite about his plans in that conversation. In an interview on Friday, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he had not talked to Gingrich yet, but that the former U.S. House speaker had asked for an appointment in the near future. 'He said, ‘I need a significant amount of your time,’ ' Chambliss said.

...

Perhaps more important, fundraising for Gingrich’s American Solutions organization is conducted out of Atlanta.

However, Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Gingrich, contacted Friday, said the former House speaker’s schedule for deciding on a 2012 presidential run had not changed. 'His plans are to decide on whether to create an exploratory committee in late February, and make a decision about his candidacy in March,' Tyler said.

But Tyler said that Atlanta shouldn’t be ruled out as a headquarters -- should Gingrich join the presidential contest.

Quick Hits

Gentleman from Georgia:

[Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher] encouraged Gingrich to run for president because she thought he was the only politician, in either party, who was capable of running a campaign of hope and opportunity much like the 1980 Reagan campaign.

Matt Lewis from 2007:

The former House speaker from Georgia might be the only Republican presidential candidate, declared or otherwise, who has the potential to be romantic. Other people give speeches; when Newt speaks, the words have music. He's poetic. He's quixotic. He's...dangerous.

He's also incredibly intelligent. He's proposing cutting-edge solutions to vexing policy issues like health care and the tax code. He's offering a compelling vision for a limited but efficiently run federal government.

Something tells me we are heading into a time when conservatives will be willing to jump in the proverbial convertible and head to Vegas on a whim. Hey, Newt's driving.

Opensecrets.org gives the two 527s with the most funds raised so far in 2010:

American Solutions Winning the Future, $24,416,928
Service Employees International Union, $11,612,001

"Thank You For Helping Cut Taxes"

In a two-minute video sent out in an e-mail, titled "Thank You for Helping Cut Taxes," Newt talks about the role that American Solutions played in the mid-term elections and the debate over the Bush tax cuts.
Some notable points:

• American Solutions hosted seven Real Jobs summits that involved "over 5,500 people."
• Also hosted ten Jobs rallies, "where thousands of people came together all over the country."
• "[W]ith your help at tenmillionvoters.com, we organized over 10,000 activists who went out and turned out the vote."
• He highlights the temporary two-percent payroll tax cut, "so that every working American will have an increased take-home pay, which is a position that first appeared at American Solutions and was championed by Congressman Jordan in his Economic Freedom Act, which American Solutions worked for."
• He closes the video with: "So you are making a difference. You have made a difference. And we'll continue to work with you in 2011 to continue making a difference."

Newt's PAC raises second most among GOP, spends more in Iowa than anyone else.

According to FEC reports, American Solutions PAC raised $314,000 in the last quarter. Among Republicans, only Sarah Palin had more, with $469,000. Both her and Gingrich outpaced, as the Washington Post put it, "longtime fundraising leader" Mitt Romney. Of all the prospective Presidential candidates -- Palin, Romney, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, etc. -- Newt was the last to start a PAC. Yet in less than a year, he is competitive with the two top fundraisers: Palin, whose committee has been up for a couple of years, and Romney, whose PAC is nearly three years old.

So where was Gingrich spending this money? He spent the third most -- behind Romney and Palin -- on contributions "to other candidates and state parties."

And interestingly, much of Gingrich's money went to the state that has held the nation's first Presidential contest since 1972: Iowa.

Danielle Kurtzleben writes:

American Solutions, a political action committee founded and chaired by Gingrich, contributed $107,500 to Iowa politicians and the state party. Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC donated $82,000 in the state, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gave $50,100. Other possible presidential hopefuls spending on 2010 Iowa elections included Huckabee, who dropped $15,500; Palin, with $15,000....

Cary Covington, professor of political science at the University of Iowa, says that contributing to state officials' campaigns can go a long way toward mobilizing Republican voters. 'You need the support of the party at the local level,' says Covington. 'Getting people to come out on a cold winter night isn't easy, and (state-level politicians) are the people who have the connections and the organization to do that.'

On top of that, Newt's 527, American Solutions for Winning the Future, raised over 9.9 million dollars the first nine months of 2010. (527s can raise money in unlimited amounts, unlike PACs.)

Alexander Burns of Politico:

And even those figures won’t provide a full reckoning of Gingrich’s fundraising activities this cycle. According to data shared with Morning Score, Gingrich helped Republicans raise more than $7 million over the 2009-2010 cycle, through dozens of speeches and nearly $1.9 million raised for GOP campaign committees through direct mail. He also participated -- along with many others -- in a joint NRSC/NRCC fundraising dinner that brought in over $14 million for the two committees.

Gingrich spread his attention widely, but also put down deep financial markers in early primary states: In Iowa, Gingrich’s donations, speeches and other appeals guided some $256,000 to Republican candidates. In South Carolina, he generated $68,000 for the GOP. His New Hampshire presence was more limited, but he still brought in $5,000 at a speech to a state GOP breakfast and raised $18,000 for Sen.-elect Kelly Ayotte in combined small-dollar donations.

Given the earlier numbers, that means that through his "speeches and other appeals" in Iowa that Newt raised nearly $150,000.

Though it is not clear, it would appear that Newt's role in the larger campaign to remove three Iowa judges who called gay marriage a "constitutional right" does not count toward that above total as it was not a Republican Party effort.

Gingrich: The fight for repeal is beginning

In an e-mail sent out today, Newt Gingrich writes, "It's beginning. What will likely be at least a two year effort to repeal ObamaCare started this week." He then discusses the efforts of a few Senators "to repeal a requirement in the law that forces businesses to file paperwork for business transactions with a vendor or supplier if they amount to more than $600 a year, more commonly referred to as the '1099 provision.' "

Scott Brown is involved in that effort as well as taking out the individual mandate.

Gingrich ends the e-mail:

At American Solutions, we're continuing to build momentum for a grassroots, citizen-led push for repeal. In the coming months we're going to be developing a range of tools for all Americans to use to make this movement as big and as meaningful as it needs to be. We'll soon have an interactive map that includes contact information for each U.S. Senator, and we're also developing a citizen's guide to repeal, which will be a handbook describing how people can make a difference in this fight for repeal.

As always, thanks for everything you do, and stay tuned for more updates from me and American Solutions about ways we can work together to repeal ObamaCare.

If you do not receive e-mails from American Solutions on repealing Obamacare and other issues and wish to, here is where to sign up.

Newt's 12 in 2012 segment

The interview happened a week ago, but here are some of the highlights of Newt on Fox News' 12 in 2012 special:

• Will only run if there is a good chance to win. “If I just wanted to make noise, I could make noise without being a candidate. It's a lot less expensive.”
• The House Republican majority "have to" attempt to repeal Obamacare, take up spending cuts, and stopping the tax hikes.
• “Confronting” President Clinton so earnestly over spending, even factoring in the government shutdowns, was crucial to proving to the GOP base they were serious.
• When asked by host Bret Baier if he sometimes went too far, Newt responded: “Sure. Every once and awhile, I have to say, 'Well, that one wasn't all that clever, was it?' I think as a candidate, you'd have to be more disciplined, more careful, more methodical.”
• On his personal baggage possibly dragging down his candidacy, “If you think we need to go back to first principles, in terms of the Constitution, people may say, 'You know, Newt's been around a long time. He's the guy who can actually fix it.”
• Mara Liasson: “I think Newt Gingrich would love to run for President -- if only to be on stage with everyone else, driving the debate and coming up with more ideas than anybody else could.”
• When prompted for real spending cuts: Discretionary spending levels of 2008 would save a trillion over the next decade; “fundamentally rethink unemployment compensation,” thinks “it ought to become a training program; “would overhaul” the Pentagon procurement process as it is “absurd to take 15 or 20 years to get a weapons system.”

In a blog post on FoxNews.com, Chris Stirewalt wrote, Gingrich "also has a political action group American Solutions for Winning the Future that boasts a wide donor base and big fundraising. His mailing lists would be the envy of most of the 2012 field.”

Joe Gaylord

In my last post, I quote Joe Gaylord on a possible Gingrich run. As Thomas Beaumont made clear in that article, Gaylord would have a substantial role in such a campaign. And that is just natural since he has been Newt's right-hand man for many years. From his bio on AmericanSolutions.com:

Serving as the senior counselor to Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Speaker dubbed him the 'irreplaceable man' for his work as principal architect for the House leadership in mapping out and leading the effort to execute a blueprint to elect a Republican Majority in the House in 1994. For his achievement, his peers in the American Association of Political Consultants named him Co-Campaign Manager of the Year. He led the successful effort for the House leadership to re-elect the Republican House majority in 1996 and 1998 -- a feat not accomplished since the days of Herbert Hoover.

He has recently written his third book, Campaign Solutions, available for free in PDF or audio format.

A quick three-minute video from him:



Newt recounts a conversation weeks before the Revolution:

September 17, 1994, was the day that Joe Gaylord briefed the GOP team. We had a team that was going on a campaign swing on September 17 -- Dan Meyer, Steve Hanser, Kerry Knott, Joe Gaylord, and myself. Literally, as we were taking off at National, I asked both Kerry Knott, who headed up our planning operation, and Dan Meyer, what were we planning on the night after the election? At that time, I was still the minority whip and Bob Michel was still the GOP leader. I said, 'On election night, are we planning for me to be minority leader or to be Speaker?' And Gaylord broke in and said, 'Well, you better be planning to be Speaker, because you’re going to be.' Dan Meyer then turned to him and said, 'OK, before we do anything else, explain this prediction.' Gaylord started in Maine and, by memory, went through every congressional seat in the country and came up with a 52-seat gain. I think we gained 53, so he was off by 1.

Quick Hits

MFrom the New York Times:

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, is one of the biggest variables. Mr. Gingrich has not been openly buttonholing major donors for a presidential bid, fund-raisers said. Nevertheless, all the work he has been doing for his policy center, American Solutions, generating large contributions (the group is permitted to take in donations of unlimited size) and building donor lists, could form a strong financial foundation for a run.

From National Journal:

On NBC's 'Meet the Press,' former House GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich said that he would make a decision about running 'around February,' and that if he did decide to seek the presidency he would probably announce in 'late March.' Gingrich said he expected a full Republican field of 12 to 15 candidates, and he predicted 'you will not know who the (GOP) nominee is until very late in the spring of 2012.' Gingrich added that President Obama remains personally popular and that he would not be easy to defeat. 'This president has enormous capacity' to recover politically, said Gingrich. He cautioned that Obama 'is not beaten.'

Newt is gaining influence within the Tea Party

Given the Tea Party's dramatic influence on the upcoming midterm elections -- whether one looks at the moderate Republicans they have already played a part in defeating or the Democrats they will knock out on November 2 -- many have begun to speculate on the movement's role in the 2012 Presidential race.

The first part of that race, of course, is deciding who the GOP will nominate to take on President Obama. The general consensus has formed, within many conservative circles as well as liberal, that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be the movement's favorite.

However, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that, in the words of Pater Wallsten, "One third of Republicans support the tea party so strongly that they describe themselves as part of the movement more than they identify as Republicans. Among this group, Mr. Gingrich is considered the GOP's "most important leader."

Palin, however, does win among the Republicans who while supportive of the Tea Party movement "identifies more as Republicans."

The article also discusses the two different manners in which Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have prepared for possible White House bids.

The reason they have followed different paths is simple: they simply view the movement differently. Whereas Romney, according to his advisers, "is betting that the tea-party groundswell, while energizing fiscal conservatives, doesn't mark a fundamental shift in the preferences of GOP voters." Basically, the movement will wither and not have an influence for much longer.

Gingrich's view as described by Wallsten:

[Gingrich] views the tea-party revolt as the dawn of an enduring movement, and he has spent more time courting tea-party activists than forging ties to Republican party leaders. Mr. Gingrich has recast his American Solutions group, launched in 2007 to press for expanded oil drilling and other policy initiatives, into a tea-party clearinghouse of sorts -- creating a curriculum to teach activists, small business owners and first-time candidates how to run campaigns. He is keeping in touch with this potential army of volunteers.

So when it comes to building a base of support for a 2012 run, Governor Romney has courted a lot of party leaders. And Newt "is traveling the country to build alliances with local tea-party activists in key presidential primary and caucus states....assign[ing] a full-time staffer at American Solutions to recruit and work with local activists across the country. Many of those now in his database live in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- key early-voting states in the presidential primaries, where Mr. Gingrich has devoted time to meeting them in small groups."

Wallsten then gives the story of one such meeting:

Elisabet Wilson, a tea-party activist who lives near Greenville, S.C., said she received a call from a Gingrich aide last spring seeking her attendance at a May roundtable with the former speaker at a local hotel. When she arrived, she found a group of nearly 30 fellow activists.

"He went around the room and asked each of us, why did you get involved?" Ms. Wilson said.

Ms. Wilson later agreed to serve as a state coordinator for American Solutions.

Wallsten continues, "Mr. Gingrich said American Solutions was intended to boost the conservative movement whether or not he runs."

"It's certainly probably broadly helpful (to a presidential campaign), but it's not designed for that,' Gingrich said." "We're happy to share our ideas and our information with everybody, with all the different candidates."

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.”

Newt endorses Princella Smith for Congress

Princella Smith, former spokesperson for American Solutions, is running for the House in Arkansas-01. She came to fame in 2004 when she won a MTV essay contest and earned a spot at the Republican National Convention.


When Newt founded American Solutions, Princella came on board and one of her duties was to be the chief advocate of the Platform of the American People as well as promoting the very successful "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition. She went from there to being the communications director for Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA).

Now, she is running for an open House seat that has not been held by a Republican since 1875 but which voted for John McCain by a margin of 59-38%. But that overstates the chances of getting the seat in Republican hands, because Arkansas has a history of voting GOP for President and voting Democrat down the rest of the ballot.

Still, with a good, energized campaign, a conservative candidate has got a good chance to win this district. And Newt Gingrich feels that Smith is the person to run such a campaign. He sent an e-mail to his Arkansas supporters in which he wrote, "Princella needs your help to make sure she can effectively carry the message of free-market ideas, energy independence and conservative ideals to the voters of the large First District."

An Arkansas-centered blog, tolbertreport.com, says that Smith told him that she expects Gingrich to help with fundraising and phone calls, with a visit possible if the former Speaker's schedule permits.

(Former Arkansas governor and possible 2012 contender Mike Huckabee has endorsed Rick Crawford.)

Drillgate: Department of Interior cover up

When Congress lifted the 27-year-ban on offshore drilling in September 2008, many were skeptical if Barack Obama would actually allow for exploration if he ended up winning the election. Those doubts have proved to be well-deserved.

Any federal agency will undergo a "public comment" period when undergoing a a rule change such as that. That part of the process had already started by the time Obama was inaugurated. "Ken Salazar, Obama’s new Secretary of Interior, determined the decision about new offshore drilling was so important that he ordered a six-month extension to the comment period," writes Vince Haley on biggovernment.com. Haley, Newt Gingrich's former research director and current head of Renewing American Leadership, quotes Salazar a couple of months into the new administration saying that Obama sought “to make sure that we have an open and transparent government," adding “these are not decisions that are going to be made behind closed doors.”

Short of "maximizing the opportunity for the public to give us guidance on what it is that they want to do," as Salazar put it," Interior has yet to release the count -- even though the comment period ended five months ago. As could be surmised, the number of pro-drilling comments was much higher than those against. In fact, 530,000 comments were submitted. Roughly 350,000, or 2/3, favored the expansion of drilling; of those, "American Solutions alone delivered 90,358 pro-drilling comments, one of the largest submissions for a single organization."

Sensing something was fishy, Newt's 527, American Solutions began to request information about the tabulation, which wrapped up on September 25. A month later, after no results were released but "sources [indicating]" that the comments were already counted, the group filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. On that same day, a spokesman for the Minerals Management Service (MMS) said a "detailed breakdown" would be released soon.

Two weeks later, MMS says they do not have the final count and, in the words of American Solutions, say "the request was too large and asked for justification why releasing the information was in the public interest."

With nothing coming forth, a month after that "transparent" replay, American Solutions "filed a second, more specific, FOIA request with MMS explaining why it was in the public's interest to release the information." Ten days later, the agency says they will respond by January 19th -- only to push it back again using a 10-workday extension as the excuse.

Finally, MMS released internal e-mails, one of which Tyler writes about:

In an email dated October 27, 2009, Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals Management Service, informs other Interior officials that a preliminary tabulation of the results of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary Salazar, adding “[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments -- staff is still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that these guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”

That shows that the cover up began almost instantly after the early results came in.

Still, the day after the damning e-mails were released, MMS denies having a final tally, and claim that is the reason it has not been released to the public.

A second bath of documents were supposed to be released due to the FOIA request, but American Solutions' website says: "MMS wrote to American Solutions that it had taken a five business-day extension for processing the second half of the documents requested by the FOIA, due to inclement weather that had closed down federal offices. The letter was sent six days after MMS had promised that the documents would be delivered." Two days later, the agency says the papers in questions will be released "as soon as possible."

On the very next day, in a seperate matter, MMS informs the Justice Department they missed "a court-ordered environmental analysis of drilling in Alaska. The assessment began a year before and is required to be completed before any new drilling can begin in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi seas."

In the latest news surrounding Drillgate, American Solutions filed another FOIA request on March 2nd after confirmation that public comments ran 2-1.

This is another example of how government runs. Does anyone want this style of bureaucracy deciding when and where -- and even whether -- a life-saving operation will occur?

Newt's new PAC

Since leaving office after the 1998 elections, Newt has only started groups that advocated certain policies and had no hand in elections. Shortly, however, he will be starting a political action committee, with the same name as his 527: American Solutions. The goal of the PAC will be to support candidates who stand and fight for the policies that the 527 advances.

American Solutions raked in the third-most dollars -- 22.7 million -- of all 527s in 2008. And since it's inception three-plus years ago, $38 million.

Starting a PAC is often a sign of gearing up for a presidential run. When combined with his usual barnstorming of the country for candidates this year -- "Gingrich said that wants to be active for GOP candidates in the '10 midterm elections" -- he will have a lot of goodwill built up among elected Republicans, as well as getting a chance to talk to voters. And the latter's importance cannot be understated.

Pollster Frank Luntz, who worked with Gingrich on the Contract with America, found that when people in his focus groups during 2006 heard Gingrich, they "ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership," as Matthew Continetti wrote. "The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else," Luntz says. "While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts."

That is important because despite staying in the headlines pretty consistently in the eleven years since resigning as speaker, a Pew Research Center poll found that 26% of the public is undecided about him. His favorability split is 35/38, but if the remaining quarter of the electorate -- as well as "soft" opposition -- find his message as appealing as the focus groups that did not come in as Gingrichites, he could improve those numbers a lot. Having a full debate of the issues over the course of 2011 would likely benefit him more than any other candidate heading into Iowa and New Hampshire in the early part of 2012.

Newt hints at run in National Journal interview

In a recent interview with National Journal, Newt Gingrich said that 2012 "is different" than either 1996 or 2008, the two other times his name came up in presidential speculation.

How realistic a run in '96, right after he became the Speaker, was is in doubt. It was bandied about in some circles, including by Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard, and somewhat considered by Gingrich himself, but it never got close to happening. "I knew in '96 that it was hopeless. You couldn't have taken over the House for the first time in 40 years, be in a middle of fairly profound series of reforms, and cheerfully go off to run for president. It's not physically doable, it's absurd."

But leading up to the 2008 race, he thought about it more seriously, but once again a new venture played a part in him turning down the opportunity. He had just started American Solutions for Winning the Future, an issues-based 527 that is non-partisan, in late 2006 and did not want to abandon it. He also realized just how bad the environment was for Republicans, though he and American Solutions -- through the Drilll Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition did a lot to change that, bringing the GOP in the lead in polls before the financial crisis hit.

"I would have been so critical of the Republican policies that other than William Jennings Bryan in 1896, I couldn't imagine a circumstance where it made sense to. I was very acutely aware of how hard '08 was going to be and how likely it was that we were going to lose. '12 is different."

James Barnes writes, "One sign that Gingrich may be more serious about a presidential run in '12 than he was in the past is his recognition that in order to capture the GOP nomination he cannot get into the race late, as he thought he could in '08."

"One of the things I learned was that you have to start much earlier than I thought you did," said Gingrich. "It's just an objective reality of the way the modern system works." Back in 2007, he dismissed the idea of having to start a campaign early, waiting until September 29th to decide. That fact he has been talking for months about deciding in February or March of 2011 is a good a sign as any he may very well be very serious about running.

Barnes continued:

As he reflected on the arguments of a potential campaign, Gingrich mused, "I think that the three questions are: who are we [as a country], what do we have to do to compete successfully with China and India, and what threatens us and how do we stay safe?" If a GOPer could effectively organize a campaign around those themes, Gingrich said, "You'd be a [Ronald] Reagan or bigger majority coming together to say, 'Yep, that's the direction I want to go in."