Chicago Tribune writer tries to argue Gingrich was for individual mandate

In an attempt to help sell Obamacare, liberals have tried to tie Republicans and conservatives in with some of the aspects of the legislation. In some instances, such as with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, they are correct. But their other attempts have fallen flat.

Recently, President Obama claimed that the premier conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, favored the exchanges set up in his health care bill. Heritage immediately came out to refute the claim -- as they had to do in 2008, when candidate Obama said the group favored his tax plan over John McCain's and as they have to do in the previous weeks over claims they support the White House's financial reform package.

In another example of liberal fibbing, Media Matters first "reported" -- and then numerous of lazy reporters parroted, including one from The Chicago Tribune -- that Newt Gingrich supported the individual mandate a few years ago. While Newt talked about the idea of forcing people to put up a bond equal to a health insurance policy -- to drastically reduce the number of free loaders -- he did not support the idea of forcing citizens to buy a private product in order to be in good standing.

A notable difference is that the money remains the individual's unless they need medical care. If they do not need it, it is still in their possession. It serves the purpose the mandate does while maintaining more liberty and not violating that pesky Constitution.

Paul Krugman and other mainstream writers get it entirely wrong

Admittedly, it is not such a huge surprise that Paul Krugman made a mistake in his New York Times column.

But this one was so flagrant that it deserves some attention. Newt Gingrich, in discussing the political fallout of Obamacare passing, said that the Democrats "will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing his Great Society legislation. The Washington Post, the source of the quotation, later made a point of writing that Gingrich was referring to the Great Society.

But Krugman -- and a host of others in the MSM -- took the remark to mean Gingrich was referring to civil rights legislaion. The Powerline blog notes one of the reasons that logic is absurb, commenting, "If Krugman knew anything about history, he would know that his fabrication made no sense, since Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more heavily than Democrats. But Krugman is both too ignorant to be aware of that well-known fact, and too lazy to look it up. To all appearances, he hasn't spent more than 30 minutes on a column in years."

The Times even issued a correction. Of course, by that point, it had been picked up on many blogs that Gingrich was trying to divide on the basis of race. Which, it turns out, Krugman and the others were guilty of.

Newt to campaign in Pennsylvania special election

In the election to fill the late John Murtha's House seat, Newt Gingrich will stump for businessman Tim Burns, who, according to the Democrat polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), is currently in the lead, 44-41%.

The district, PA-12, leans Republican -- R+1 -- and the only reason Murtha had such a commanding grip on the seat was because he was the king of pork.

The election, to be held on May 18, will be a good indicator of what to expect come November.

New Newt biography out late 2010 or early 2011

A few weeks ago it was announced that Craig Shirley, author of books chronicling Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign and 1980 campaign, would write Newt Gingrich's biography after Gingrich approached him. Mel Steely, a colleague of Newt's from West Georgia college, wrote The Gentleman from Georgia, a biography written in 2000.

But this one will focus more on politics, specifically the 104th Congress -- the first Republican-led Congress in 40 years. In an interview with Politico, Shirley said, “One thing that I hope to get into very deeply is the role of the 104th Congress...that Congress accomplished a lot.”

Of Gingrich in general, the conservative author said, “How many speakers have had so much of an effect on national politics before the speakership, during the speakership and after the speakership?....From my standpoint I think he’s one of the most interesting, complex and durable political figures of our time. “I know he liked my books on Reagan and we’re both fascinated by history and political science.”

For now, the title of the book is "Citizen Newt" and is tentatively scheduled for release late this year or early next year.

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.)

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.

Gingrich: "A victory over the political machine"

In January, the Supreme Court, ruling 5-to-4, finally struck a blow for political free speech in easing up restrictions, many of which were laid out in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. The case that was brought before the case involved Citizens United, David Bossie's production company, and their documentary "Hillary: the Movie."

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled that the movie, which went after much of Hillary Clinton's past history and policy views, "couldn't be aired or even advertised," wrote Newt in a January newsletter. "Their reason? Sen. Clinton was a candidate for federal office, so Bossie's film was illegal under campaign finance law."

Citizens United sued, saying the First Amendment did not allow the government to deny speech in such a way. The Supreme Court agreed. Says Gingrich:

And the Supreme Court decision announced last week was not only a vindication of the free speech rights of all Americans, it was a significant step toward dismantling the incumbent-protecting political machine created by bureaucratic campaign finance "reforms" like McCain-Feingold.

By declaring that government has no business suppressing the political speech of groups like Citizens United, the Supreme Court has begun to make it easier for middle class candidates to take on the rich and the powerful....

The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That's why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech -- incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people's discussion of whether they should remain in office.

Associatioins of citizens -- such as corporations and unions -- are not subject to government bureaucrats' rulings any longer as to arbitrary limits. Included in that was an overruling of a provision of McCain-Feingold that said corporate-funded ads could not be aired sixty days before federal elections and thirty days before primaries.

"Citizens United v. FEC doesn't threaten our democracy. It strengthens it by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents," writes Newt.

Newt's solution:

Real reform under our Constitution will only come when Americans and associations of Americans are allowed to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money to the candidates and campaigns of their choice. Dnors should be given this freedom and required to post on the Internet every night what they're spending and how they're spending. That way, voters would know who is funding whom, and how much. Armed with that knowledge, Americans can be trusted to make an informed, truly democratic choice. Predictably, just the prospect of voters making such a free and informed choice has the Washington establishment machine up in arms.

Countering President Obama's attack on the Court -- in which he said "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington -- Newt wrote, "This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people. This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie."

"But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people."

Newt with Georgia Governor Perdue

Numerous states -- fourteen at last count -- have filed a lawsuit against the federal government since the passage of Obamacare, with more contemplating one. Georgia is an interesting case, because it's Attorney General, a Democrat who is running for governor, has refused to file any such suit. However, the current governor, Republican Sonny Perdue, is in favor of one.

The day after Thurbert Baker announced his decision -- saying he looked at the Constitution and "came away with the feeling that there really is no legal basis" for suing -- Perdue said he would name a "special Attorney General" to challenge the federal health care legislation. "The governor said the state will probably go it alone on the suit to avoid any costs," wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution. "If Georgia joined with the other 14 state challenging the health legislation, it would incur some legal costs, Perdue said."

On the Thursday after the vote to pass a bill that is clearly unconstitutional -- if for no other reason than the federal government will require each citizen to buy a product or be put in jail -- Perdue and Newt Gingrich held a joint press conference discussing ways to roll back and replace the bill.

Newt condemned the threats against elected officials that have been on the rise -- though the media only seem to cover voice mails to Democrats and not when the second-ranking House Republican gets his office shot up -- but added: "But look, I think there’s something very disingenuous about the Democratic leaders who attacked the tea party movement, who refused to hold town hall meetings, who refused to go back home, who kept the Congress locked up in Washington, and are now shocked that people are angry."

"I think the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for having behaved with such arrogance, in such a hostile way, that the American people are deeply upset," Gingrich added. "So let’s be honest with this. This is a game that they’re playing." He went on to say the Democrats ran "a machine that used corrupt tactics that bought votes that bullied people, and as a result has enraged much of the American people."

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.

This Will Not Stand

Newt's e-mail today:

This will not stand.

No one should be confused about the outcome of Sunday's vote.

This is not the end of the fight - it is the beginning of the fight.

The American people spoke decisively against a big government, high tax, Washington knows best, pro-trial lawyer, centralized and bureaucratic health system.

In every recent poll the vast majority of Americans opposed this monstrosity.

Speaker Pelosi knew the country was against the bill. That is why she kept her members trapped in Washington and forced a vote on Sunday.

She knew if she let the members go home their constituents would convince them to vote no.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago.

Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.

It is hard to imagine how much pressure they brought to bear on congressman Stupak to get him to accept a cynical, phony clearly illegal and unconstitutional executive order on abortion. The ruthlessness and inhumanity of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine was most clearly on display in their public humiliation of Stupak.

The real principles of the machine were articulated by Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed from the bench as a federal judge, before being elected to the House when he said "There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something...All this talk about rules...When the deal goes down...we make 'em up as we go along."

It is hard for the American people to believe their leaders on the Left are this bad. They are.

The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future.

Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over

Together we will prove that this will not stand.

2010 and 2012 will be among the most important elections in American history.

These elections will allow us to save America from a left-wing machine of unparalleled corruption, arrogance and cynicism.

Sunday was one more step in the fight against a "Washington knows best" and "Washington should run everything" attitude.

Let us turn now to the Senate to continue this fight for real reform, for real self government, and for policies that create jobs, improve health outcomes, and increase freedom.

To help continue this fight, please consider making a contribution of $15, $25 or whatever you can, right here.

Together, we will ensure that this does not stand.