Rasmussen poll: Newt 38, Romney 17

Jeffrey H. Anderson writes in The Weekly Standard that the poll "suggests that Gingrich is uniting the Tea Party and establishment wings of the Republican Party. The poll shows that among likely Republican primary voters who do not consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party, Gingrich is winning by 11 percentage points -- 32 to 21 percent (over Romney). Among those who do consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party, he’s winning by 37 points -- 47 to 10 percent (over Romney and Herman Cain). Among those who aren’t sure, he’s winning by 26 points -- 42 to 16 percent (over Romney)."

The Public Policy Polling surveys in Florida and Montana Wednesday showed the same thing -- that Newt is winning both the moderate and tea party vote. Nobody -- not Romney, not Perry, etc. -- has done that this year.

The Weekly Standard: The Iowa Frontrunner

From Michael Warren's piece:

Those oddities aside, Gingrich is likely catching on in Iowa because he’s usually one of the most eloquent Republican critics of Obama-style liberalism—within both government and the media. The audience in Jefferson groans in angry disbelief when he relates a familiar story about a dentist in New York defrauding Medicaid by filing 991 procedures a day. “[This] dental office in Brooklyn,” Gingrich says, “had somebody who stood out front and said, ‘If you loan us your Medicaid card, we’ll give you a free DVD player.’ ”

Voters across the largely agricultural state cheer when Gingrich takes on the regulatory regime of the Environmental Protection Agency, particularly a recent, widely reported proposed rule on dust. Gingrich says he guesses the regulation was written by “some person who lived in a high-rise air-conditioned apartment, who went down to ride in an air-conditioned subway to go to a high-rise air-conditioned office building [and who] sat in his windowless office and imagined dust.” In a part of the country where farming the dry prairie is a way of life and everyone regularly stirs up a cloud of dust while driving down a dirt road, that’s steak-tartare-quality red meat.

Warren quotes Newt:

“The real pedigree of this campaign is Goldwater in ’62 to ’64, and then Reagan from ’75 to ’80 in that they were idea-generated movements which evolved into a campaign,” he tells me. “They weren’t campaigns in the traditional Republican meaning of the word. And I think that’s essentially what we’re trying to do.”

Fred Barnes, who noticed McCain's surge at about this time in 2007, writes about Newt

Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard:

Before you dismiss Newt Gingrich for having too much “baggage” to win the Republican presidential nomination, much less the presidency, consider this:

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, President Carter’s advisers were thrilled. They’d done extensive opposition research. By pointing to what Reagan had said in speeches, radio commentaries, newspaper columns, and conversations, they assumed it would be easy to characterize him as a right-wing extremist. And enough voters would reject him and reelect Carter.

They were wrong. It wasn’t that voters ignored Reagan’s offbeat comments. They just didn’t think eccentric statements he’d made over the years were important. Bigger things were at stake, like Soviet aggression and a stagnant economy. And Reagan had better answers than Carter.

Jonathan Martin of Politico tweeted: "Btw, it was about this time 4 yrs ago that Barnes put his finger on McCain surge."

Newt has gained 21 points among indepedents against President Obama in 3 weeks

The Weekly Standard writes about 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.

Newt the favorite among Iowa Republicans in a focus group (video)

Last week, Frank Luntz had a focus group of 26 Iowa Republicans who voted in the 2008 Presidential caucus. Some of the reactions can be seen in the above video.

The rules, according to U.S. News and World Report: "Like the television show Survivor, the 26 would discuss the candidates after Luntz showed videos of each. Then one would be voted out of the 2012 Iowa Caucus."

The results unfolded like this, writes Paul Bedard:

Some went fast. Daniels was 'boring,' Barbour’s southern accent was 'a turnoff,' and Santorum was 'yesterday’s news.' Romney went down next, labeled 'another Obama.' Next was Thune, though the Iowans say he has potential. Christie, who doesn’t want to run, went next. The reason, says one panelist to Luntz, author of the hit Words That Work and the upcoming Win: “He doesn’t want the job, so why should we give it to him?”

The Iowans then argued for their favorites, like Pawlenty, whose 'blue collar conservatism' and victories in Democratic-dominated Minnesota were a hit. When he was next to go, some of his supporters vowed that he’d make the cut down the road.

That left four: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and Bachmann, who then bested Palin because Bachmann was 'less polarizing.' But because Bachmann was seen by the group as the least presidential of the remaining three, she was dumped, followed by Huckabee, making Gingrich the surprise winner.

They liked a video of Gingrich effectively blasting the national debt and the radical fixes proposed by Obama’s debt commission, like ending the home mortgage deduction. One panel member says, 'We want to see him dismantle Obama in the debates, and he can do it.' Luntz’s own conclusion is, 'Principles matter more than pragmatism to these voters, and principles with solid debating skills matter most.'

This focus group squares with another Luntz group, back in 2005:

Gingrich continues to enjoy a gut connection with Republican voters. Back in 2005, consultant Frank Luntz held focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire on the Republican candidates. In a report published afterward, Luntz wrote, 'We were genuinely surprised by the strongly favorable reaction' to Gingrich's 'speeches and interviews.' According to Luntz, voters ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership. 'The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else,' Luntz went on. 'While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts.' Out of office, Gingrich has remained largely insulated from the scandals and debacles of the Bush Republicans. In fact, the 2006 midterm election results could be viewed as confirmation of what Gingrich has been saying for some time: that the Republican party and broader conservative movement have lost their way, and the time has come for a rebirth of the reform impulse that in 1994 brought the GOP to congressional majority status for the first time in 40 years.

If Gingrich jumps in, he needs to continue with the same message -- not dampen it down like so many candidates do -- and he needs to keep being willing to talk about it anywhere he goes.

If he does that, and if Luntz's focus groups are any indication, he could make up the small deficit he has in the current polls -- in a hurry.

"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.

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.

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."