Newt's newsletter previews his CPAC speech

In today's newsletter, Gingrich describes the setting in which the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will take place.

Over 10,000 conservatives attended last year's CPAC, worried about the left-wing overreach of the Obama administration and determined to do what it takes to defeat the Left at the polls in November.

This historic attendance at CPAC in 2010 was followed by a historic election, in which we saw the largest one party pickup in the House of Representatives since 1948. It was an enormous victory for the power of conservative principles.

Of course, after such a historic victory, there is the question, "Now what?"

Remarkably, attendance for this year's CPAC will be even larger than last year's record attendance. Almost 12,000 people have registered. It is clear that the momentum against President Obama and the left is building as people realize the 2012 elections will be a decisive moment for the country.

The needed strategy:

Many conservatives, however, also recognize that the next two years should not only be spent preparing to win at the polls. We must also develop broad support for a governing agenda that can be implemented by a new conservative President and conservative Congress.

In other words, CPAC this year will be important not just in outlining why we must reject the left wing governance of the Obama administration and Reid Senate, but also in articulating what a center right coalition would replace it with.

He previews his speech:

With this challenge of replacement in mind, I will focus my speech tomorrow at CPAC on one such area that badly needs replacement if we are to keep America safe and create robust economic growth with millions of new jobs: American energy policy.

I will be driving four main themes during my speech:

* It is in our national security interest to produce more American energy. We must reduce the world's dependence on oil from dangerous and unstable countries, especially in the Middle East.

* In contrast to this urgent national security need, the Obama administration's policy has been almost the exact opposite of what is required. In effect, they have been waging war against the American energy industry.

* A comprehensive energy strategy that maximized all forms of American energy development would not only make the US and our allies dramatically safer, it would make us much better off economically.

* Part of this strategy would be to replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency ] that achieves better environmental outcomes through an emphasis on the transformative power of new technology and a collaborative approach with industry and state and local governments (as opposed to the bureaucratic, regulatory model of the current EPA that does more to kill jobs and halt American energy development than it does to protect the environment).

You can watch my speech live at 12:30 ET tomorrow by signing up at the CPAC website.

Newt quotes from Reagan's 1978 CPAC address:

"The themes of a sound foreign policy should be no mystery, nor the result of endless agonizing reappraisals. They are rooted in our past -- in our very beginning as a nation....Our principles were revolutionary...Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless...To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less."

"To carry out that purpose, our fundamental aim in foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and to protect those others who share our values. Under no circumstances should we have any illusions about the intentions of those who are enemies of freedom."

"...If we are to continue to be that example -- if we are to preserve our own freedom -- we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination."

On what our foreign policy goals should be:

First, it must be the policy of the United States to defend consistently and resolutely the standards for the universal rights of man outlined in the Declaration of Independence and codified into law in the Constitution.

This principle has much deeper and more complicated ramifications than a shallow support for democratic elections. Instead, we should be on the side of genuine freedom for the people of the world.

The fact that the two U.S. backed democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq are refusing to protect the religious liberty of Christians and other minority religions (or worse, are complicit in their persecution) is evidence of a total lack of clarity regarding the purpose of US foreign policy. (See here and here for examples.)

Newt closes with:

This is our generation's rendezvous with destiny. And ultimately, Ronald Reagan's most instructive message for meeting our challenge would probably be, "I did my generation's job. Now it's your turn."

The Party of Yes

Among the most annoying liberal talking points of the last year and a half is them labeling the Republican Party, due to opposition of President Obama's agenda, "the party of no." Despite having plenty of counter proposals to Obama's ideas -- from the stimulus to health care reform -- the line has been repeated over and over.

Finally, Obama himself had to admit the GOP had plenty of their own ideas when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) detailed what his idea of health reform would be at the President's health care summit. But that has not stopped the refrain in general.

Some conservatives have said they were fine with being so labeled. One of those is former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice president nominee Sarah Palin, who remarked at a recent rally: "And we’re saying, 'What's wrong with being the Party of No when you consider what it is that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to do to our country? So be it!' "

In a statement before his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Newt Gingrich took a different approach. It read:

It's not enough to say no to the radical agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Tonight's speech will explain why real leadership requires Republicans to offer a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom that stands in vivid contrast to Obama's secular, socialist, machine now running Washington.

On weeklystandard.com, Mary Katharine Ham wrote, "The problem with Republican communicators and politicians is that their 'compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom' too often consists of saying, 'we have a compelling vision of safety, prosperity, and freedom.' " But, she said, "Newt's pretty good at making policy talk interesting -- creating a compelling vision with action items -- so it will be interesting to hear what I'd guess will be a practical vision wrapped up with some pretty good prose."

She was right, as he went down his usual laundry list of policies, including reducing the payroll tax and increased energy exploration. And on the topic of how to oppose policies from, in his words, "the most radical" in American history: "Our first answer should be, 'Let me tell you what I'm for,' and the answer should be first principles."

Coming out with "Eye of the Tiger" blasting, as he did at CPAC, he delivered the speech without a teleprompter. That led him to zing Obama that "when you speak from the heart, you don't need a teleprompter" and to add Obama "only reads parts of things, and he pretends to understand them."

In addition to talking up his past accomplishments, he discussed how to not just repeal and replace Obamacare but each piece of "radical" legislation passed by this President and Congress. "Stage one of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund it," said Gingrich. Mocking those who have said it is not possible to repeal Obamacare, Newt snarked, "I think they forget that once upon a time I used to be Speaker of the House and I actually understand the legislative process. Under our Constitution, Congress doesn't have to pass the funding."

In setting up another compare-and-contrast between conservatives and progressives, he said, "This is a fundamental fight over the core definition of America...The more we make this a choice about the nature of America, the weaker they are."

National Journal wrote, "Before his SRLC address, several attendees expressed admiration for ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R), but said they backed Gingrich because he was a more complete package."

Video and transcript of the speech can be found here at newt.org.

2012 polls

It needs to be said at the beginning that relying on polls two years before the Iowa caucuses is not the best thing to do. However, they do serve some purpose, and as such, a quick overview can reveal some things.One of the knocks against running Gingrich is his divisiveness. While that was true when he stepped down as Speaker of the House, he has done a very good job in recent years of rehabbing his image. Some of those events -- when he met with Hillary Clinton over health information technology, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry on the climate, and most recently, Al Sharpton and President Obama on education -- have drawn ire from many conservatives.Their criticism has been largely silly, acting as if Gingrich has advocated for large-scale surrender of principles. All is he has done is tried to open a dialogue -- and he is confident his ideas will beat out those of the liberals he has met with. It was a message he spoke forcefully at CPAC.

Combined with that, as well as his focus on actual ideas and solutions, his popularity has been rising. In fact, in a June 2009 poll -- the last such poll I can find -- his popularity number with independents is split 37-38%. Being able to hold his own with that bloc is vital, of course, to any chance of victory. And chances are, when exposed to more of Newt's ideas, the 29% undecided will break more for him, handing him a win among unaffilated voters.

One of the interesting things the poll shows is that those under 30 are much more undecided than those above that age. Of course, much of that is because the older crowd remembers his days as Speaker, when he was target number one of the Clinton White House and liberal groups. The more people focus on the issues and reality, not the media spin and half-truths, the better it is for Newt.

Gingrich's standing in polls against President Obama have been improving, better than than the other top Republican contenders. A Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic firm, survey from April 2009 showed Obama winning, 52-39%. But just two months later, the lead was down to 49-41% and Newt's numbers were better than Mike Huckabee (50-43) or Sarah Palin (52-40) and very close to Mitt Romney (48-40).

The next poll that pitted Obama and Gingrich was one from Clarus. It had Obama winning 48-36, right in the middle of the pack of GOP candidates. Romney did much better than every other Republican in the poll, trailing just by four points. Of course, that could be an outlier, or just an obvious result of having spent all of 2007 and two months in 2008 running for President already. His name identification is high.

President of Clarus Ron Faucheux said, "Gingrich improved his standing since the August poll when he was trailing Obama by 18 points. He's narrowed the gap to 12 points. Relative to Obama, Huckabee and Palin experienced only minimal improvement since August."

That is a pretty obvious sign that Gingrich is doing something that Huckabee and Palin are failing at. When combined with the results of Frank Luntz's focus groups that showed people warmed very much to Gingrich after actually his policy proposals, it would seem to suggest that over the course of a months-long campaign, Newt would only rise in the polls, while others would stagnate or fall.

Clarus also confirmed the findings of many polls that the former Speaker is at the top of the list of Republican spokesman, trailing only 2008 GOP Presidential nominee John McCain and the man who was second to McCain when he dropped out, Romney, among Republican voters. A Gallup poll from May 2009, for example, found Gingrich tied with Rush Limbaugh for first.

The Health Care Summit

On February 27th, President Obama hosted congressional leaders for a health care summit. In advancement of it, Newt laid out his vision, both in a Time article and at the Conservative Political Action Conference, for how Republicans should handle it; many conservatives bashed him, with some wanting to boycott the event altogether. To them, even saying "bipartisanship" was treasonous; a member of redstate.com created a thread titled "Newt Gingrich is a freaking idiot." But Newt's idea of bipartisanship is much different than, say, Lindsay Graham's, which the critics did not understand.

Much of what the Republicans did at the summit -- list specifically what they had problems with and offer alternative solutions -- was what Newt advocated; he did not advocate for an agreement for the sake of a deal.

The Republicans came out looking so good, with even the mainstream media saying they had concrete proposals, that many who called for them to skip the event -- including radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- admitted they were wrong; Limbaugh doing so just a few hours into the summit.

Those two did not viciously attack the former Speaker the way many online. And worse, none of them retracted their criticism of him after the fact that his strategy worked out very well. While the effort the Republicans put forth may not, in the end, stop health care reform from passing -- but it did stop the media from prattling on about the "party of no" and put a good face on the party.

Newt hosted a health care summit of his own -- much like he has had held his own job summits the same week as Obama's -- and filmed a recap of it.

Newt at CPAC

Yesterday, Gingrich gave a speech at the 37th annual Conservative Political Action Confrence (CPAC). Walking to the stage through a standing room only crowd -- the man who introduced him, David Bossie, said it was the largest crowd he saw this weekend up to that point and The New York Times called it "a rock-star-like entrance" -- with "Eye of the Tiger" playing on the speakers, Newt began with his speech. (He was the only speaker to walk through the crowd; one commentator called it a "great tactic -- the energy built as he moved across the room and the applause continued."

He said he believed that this was the most important CPAC since Ronald Reagan called for a party of "bold colors" and no "pale pastels." He wanted to correct Evan Bayh, the Indiana senator who last week announced his retirement. Bayh said that if all he did was enter the private sector and get a job, that that "would be more than Congress has created in the last six months." Gingrich jokingly said, “I think that's an exaggeration. President Obama has created at least three jobs that I know of: Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown. And I guarantee you, as an historian, without Barack Obama, Scott Brown could not have won in Massachusetts.” He took another swipe at Obama later: “I know from a Chicago, Springfield background that it's hard to fully grasp that honesty could be a part of government.”

In the same vein as the Scott Brown victory, what Gingrich calls the “coming, massive conservative majority that will recenter this country decisively for the first time in seventy years” would not have been possible without the "Pelosi-Reid-Obama machine." That machine, says the former Speaker, is "secular-socialist" and “anti-ethical to the survival of America as a prosperous, healthy country based on sound principles."

One of the themes of it was "Principled Bipartisanship." He has received heat from some conservatives for an alleged "selling out" for the idea he first raised in a Time article on February 18th. While he never called for an abandoment of principles, some purists consider any talking at all to be a terrible idea. But if they listened to Gingrich's plan -- which is to demand the right to bring anyone the Republican negotatiors want, not just the ones Obama wishes to invite; that each side would get an equal amount of time to present their case; and that each side could propose their own ideas, not simply responding to the current bill -- they would know it was not a squishy proposal. In fact, Gingrich quoted Reagan on any such talks: "Trust but verify."

The fact that Obama proposed a health care summit is a good sign because "[h]e's figured out they can't pass the health bill without somehow pretending it's not the health bill."

He pointed out that when he was Speaker, spending was cut to its lowest level since the 1920s, balancing the budget "while cutting taxes to raise jobs" -- mentioning the conservative possibility of such bipartisan talks and talking up his own record at the same time.

He advocated bipartisan talks in future issues besides health care, predicting that the GOP would retake the House and Senate this Novemeber -- and the White House in 2012. But until then, Republicans could not sit on their hands. "[H]istory doesn't stand by. History doesn't say, 'Okay, can you all do nothing for three years?' "

The point of recalling that half of the Democrats voted for welfare reform because they would have faced serious trouble in their districts for opposing it was that it is possible to create proposals that are supported by 70%-plus of the American people, isolating the left. “Let's work together until we finish defeating the left, and then we won't have to work with them as much," Gingrich said. And then with tongue-in-cheek, added, “But candidly, we should adopt rules that say even when they are in a small minority, down to the last 15 or 20 left wingers in the Senate, the last 100 or so in the House, we should still have rules that allow them to bring their ides to the table -- because we are not afraid.”