Was the D.C. establishment -- gasp -- wrong about Newt's campaign?

Just a week or so ago, the common wisdom among journalists inside Washington D.C. was that Newt's campaign -- due to the comments about Paul Ryan and the surrounding dust up -- was on life support. Some even suggested he would drop out before July.

Then, the reports of overflow crowds at each and every of his Iowa appearances began to trickle in. As Newt has noted, the only national reporter to actually show up was NPR's Mara Liasson, who said the crowds and enthusiasm was nothing like she was hearing back in D.C. Chuck Todd, NBC's White House Correspondent, tweeted: "As folks prepare Sunday columns writing off Gingrich, riddle this: he's attracting large crowds; Conservative elite-Iowa grassroots split?"

Then, Newt has been in New Hampshire the past two days, talking to about 600 people total, says The Washington Post.

photo: R.C. Hammond











While the actual voters showed no interest in Newt's jewelry purchases, Nia-Malika Henderson passes along the following exchange with a fellow reporter and Newt:

Will your charge account at Tiffany sink your campaign, a Reuters reporter asked.

“I want you all to notice, finally, the citizens having failed to raise the most important question of the day. I was asked about a charge account at Tiffany’s,” he said, standing before a crowd of about 200 people, who didn’t boo but laughed at his sarcasm. “Now, I’m grateful that somebody here finally had the courage to go to one of the hot-button issues that will change America’s future.”

Henderson quotes Newt: “I’ve got to be more careful and make certain that it’s virtually impossible to misunderstand what I’m saying. I’ve got to be less academic and more explicit,” he said at the Conway Diner. “And we’ve got to get faster at responding to stories that are just totally false. We are still a half-step behind doing that. We eventually burn them out, but it takes longer than it should.”

Henderson included an interesting tidbit that I have not seen reported yet: "Over the next week, Gingrich will work on two major speeches to be delivered in June, one on foreign policy and another on the Federal Reserve."

So Newt had a great response in Iowa and New Hampshire (and he will be in South Carolina Friday, where he will discuss the federal power reach in the Boeing case.) National polls (here and here) show Newt still in good position.

With all that, it looks like the D.C. media was wrong about trying to stick a fork in Newt's campaign. Not that surprising when you consider just a few things the media has been wrong about;

It was also wrong about Ronald Reagan being unelectable. And wrong about Reagan's economic policies. (As Reagan himself said: "I could tell our economic policy was working when [the media] stopped calling it Reaganomics.") And Reagan's foreign policy.

The media laughed at Newt when he said the Republicans would gain a majority in the House. They said he would never become Speaker. Then they doubted Newt and the House Republicans would fulfill the Contract with America. Then the media doubted that welfare reform could be passed. And when it was passed, they predicted terrible things for those leaving welfare, not two of every three either going to work or school. The media said it was impossible to balance the budget.

So does it surprise anyone that they were wrong about this?

Ben Domenech's column on Newt

Domenech, no Gingrich partisan, wrote a column in which he defends the idea Newt put out on Sunday that conservatives first have to convince the public a change in policy is needed, not simply shove it down their throats. He also called those who said Newt's campaign is effectively over "unserious observers of politics."

Some of the highlights:

Gingrich went on to describe his support for a plan where “people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose” a policy solution on people. This was a key element of a proposal advanced last year by Bill Clinton’s former budget director, Alice Rivlin, and former Republican Senator Pete Domenici (N.M.). It’s the same policy position taken by former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Gingrich rival for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Indeed, it’s a policy solution that Ryan himself has said he would be open to in the past, calling it a “fine idea worth considering.”

Yet such facts are too inconvenient for the alliance of critics and opponents who turned Gingrich’s remarks into a radioactive rejection of Ryan’s entire plan. In so forcefully rallying to defend their fresh young idea man in Ryan, and blasting foolishly at the warning of the older, battle-tested idea man in Gingrich, that ideas must not be imposed, but first sold to the public, these individuals may unintentionally set themselves on a path to become the real life imitation of Walker Percy’s Knothead Party.

On Tuesday, Gingrich reiterated to me that he still would’ve voted for Ryan’s plan as a “first step” along these lines—and that he favors Ryan’s premium support system—yet he considers an essential alteration of the plan to be “giving seniors the right to choose.”

...

Making the case that controversial ideas need to be first sold to the public, and that they need to set aside compulsory social engineering in favor of consumer choice, is not something that should be rejected as anathema to conservative principle or end anyone’s presidential campaign.

...

Gingrich’s warning this week is clearly borne in part out of the experience he gained in the 1990s, when he saw so many unexpected outcomes—both in politics and policy—as a result of what were thought of as pro-reform policies favored by the right’s base. Tea Partiers and other new elements involved in politics today can dismiss this wisdom if they wish, but assuming top-down imposition of a new system will not lead to unintended consequences, does not need to be sold to the American people, and can set aside consumer choice is a dangerous path, one more in keeping with flights of fancy than serious policymaking.

...

In the 1990s, Gingrich frequently found ways to win an argument while losing the audience. Today, as he advises his allies on the right to remember to win both, too many critics seem bound and determined not to learn from past mistakes, even if Gingrich has. The future of entitlement reform may well depend on if they are willing to reconsider.

As I said in my last post, one of the common criticisms of Newt is that it is hypocritical to both take issue with part of Ryan's plan and say he would vote for it. So I suppose it is also hypocritical for those who argued Ryan's budget should have cut more spending but still who voted for it. Same principle.

Domenech's last point is a very important one. If the goal of those on the right who are tearing apart Newt is to actually implement serious entitlement reform, they should learn how to sell it to the American people. It is not enough to just have the right policy, which many have yet to realize.

Newt shares the same goal of entitlement reform, but he wants it done with the American people on board. Why needlessly sacrifice a number of Republicans in Congress if the right policy could be adopted with just a tweak in it?

Newt wants the Medicare changes to be optional, not compulsory

While much -- much -- has been written of Newt's appearance on Meet the Press Sunday and his criticism of Paul Ryan's proposed changes to Medicare, the journalists and others have missed a very important part of the story.

Newt does not oppose changing Medicare; instead, he wants seniors to have an option. Newt and Ryan both want to modify Medicare, making it a premium support system, but whereas Ryan forces seniors to buy private insurance, Newt would allow seniors to use the subsidies to purchase private insurance or stay in the traditional government-run insurance.

Much like how conservatives have proposed making any flat tax proposals optional -- so as to avoid political blowback and make important, needed reforms possible -- Newt is doing the same with Medicare. The current Ryan budget -- which is great policy -- is proving to be a headache for many House Republicans.

Newt's optional change to Medicare should not have been such a shock to people. On an April 20 Facebook post, Newt explained he wanted to "allow seniors to choose, on a voluntary basis, a more personal system with greater options for better care."

Many of the conservatives going after Newt today have intimated that it is contradictory for Gingrich to have said he would have voted for Ryan's budget -- and calling it "brave" -- and yet criticizing it. Which means that anyone who criticizes any piece of legislation cannot ultimately vote for it. That's nonsense.

John McCormack of The Weekly Standard writes:

I pointed out that Paul Ryan doesn't see much difference between his plan and what Gingrich was calling for on April 20, and Gingrich's spokesman agreed. "There is little daylight between Ryan and Gingrich," he wrote. "But look how it gets reported. Newt would fully support Ryan if it were not compulsory. We need to design a better system that people will voluntarily move to. That is a major difference in design but not substance."

But if there's "little daylight" between the two, why did Gingrich call Ryan's plan "radical" and "social engineering"?

"Radical means that politically you can't get to what Ryan wants from where we are," wrote Tyler. "It will be demagogued to death. Right wing social engineer refers simply to compelling people to participate without giving them a choice. That is a political mistake."

The biggest political mistake involving the issue was done by the House Republican leadership holding a vote on the issue, which exposed vulnerable members to the political heat -- when there was absolutely no chance of it passing with the current Senate and President.

Human Events: "Why Newt Gingrich Will Be a Formidable Contender"

Tony Lee, who is covering the 2012 Presidential election for the conservative newspaper Human Events, wrote an article touting Newt's "politics, policy, and publicity."

"Last week, Newt Gingrich showed why he will be a more than formidable candidate," Lee wrote. "During a series of events, he displayed how he can combine politics, policy, and publicity to leverage his ideas and brand."

Lee then recaps Newt's week. It started with a tele-townhall with Tea Party groups in which "Gingrich showed his depth and range on a variety of issues ranging from immigration, to allowing people to opt-in to a flat tax rate, to criticizing President Obama for seemingly caring more about offshore drilling in Brazil than in America."

Then he called on George Washington University to invite Paul Ryan to give a response to President Obama's speech in which he attacked Ryan after inviting the Wisconsin Republican to it.

Newt told CNBC host Larry Kudlow that he would not reappoint Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In front of Tea Party groups in Charleston, South Carolina, Newt ran through what his energy policy would look like:

1) Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

2) End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount oil as Saudi Arabia.

3) Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing so that state’s budgets directly benefits from offshore development.

4) Enact a loser-pays law to force the losers in environmental lawsuits to pay all legal costs for the prevailing side, which will reduce frivolous lawsuits that are employed simply to stop energy production.

5) Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.

6) Appoint a commission of engineers and scientists, not politicians, to study the damaged nuclear reactor in Japan and determine if any changes need to be made to US nuclear power standards.

Gingrich wrapped up his week at the Brookings Institution ,at which he gave a detailed speech about health care policy.

Lee concludes:

When on his A-game, Gingrich is an intellectual force and heavyweight who knows how to market his ideas in a compelling way that is understandable by the general public. Gingrich is also savvy and nimble in framing how his ideas can be solutions for contemporary problems that the country faces at the moment.

The more the 2012 contest is focused on wonkish policy, Gingrich will have more of a homecourt advantage and the better off he will be.

Lee's point about Newt being able to market his ideas is an important one. He not only is the best ideas man in the party; he also is the one who comes up with such slogans as "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."

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.

10 Health Care Ideas

In a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich and John C. Goodman laid out ten health care ideas that so far have been ignored in the health care debate and which -- as opposed to most of the ideas pushed in Washington -- would go a long way to solving the problem of too few insured and high prices. Among the ideas proposed were making health insurance portable and electronic.

For years, Gingrich has been one of the few Republicans who could speak intelligently about health care. He has not been afraid to engage in discussions about the issue, also unlike many in his Party. He started the Center for Health Transformation in 2003 and has written many words about the issue.

Such a high-profile piece can only help to refute the claim from liberals that the Republicans only are screaming, "No!" to everything. They can keep sticking to that position, but in light of more writings like this and Paul Ryan's "A Roadmap for America's Future," it will only look ridiculous.