Newt's newsletter about Scott Walker and Wisconsin

Excerpts from this week's newsletter:

It is vital that every one of us help Governor Scott Walker today.

In Madison, Wisconsin, we are witnessing a profound struggle between the right of the people to govern themselves and the power of entrenched, selfish interests to stop reforms and defy the will of the people.

In 2010, Wisconsin Republicans ran on a clear agenda of reforming government to gain control of spending. This agenda included many reforms to state government employee pay.

These reforms were desperately opposed by the Democrats and union bosses during the campaign and a full and vigorous debate on the merits of these reforms took place in the months before the election.

Then came the moment for the people of Wisconsin to make their choice – Election Day. And thanks in part to this bold agenda, the people of Wisconsin chose to switch control of the governorship, assembly and senate to Republicans.

The people of Wisconsin sent a clear message. They elected leaders that promised to change the way government operated in Madison. The will of the people was expressed through the ballot box, exactly how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy.

The showdown in Madison is precisely the crisis between elected self government and organized self interest seeking to impose their will through intimidation which led Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, during the coal miner’s strike of 1984-85, to warn, 'No government or no people can surrender to that kind of mob violence or intimidation, because if we did democracy would be finished.'

Callista and I helped launch the Scott Walker for Governor Campaign with a huge event in Milwaukee. During the following year I campaigned with him and heard him make the case for reforming the government unions.

At an event in October 2010, I remember Scott vividly describing the stakes, saying we can no longer function as a society “where the public employees are the ‘haves’ and the taxpayers who foot the bill are the ‘have-nots.’”

When the people of Wisconsin voted last November they knew exactly who they were electing.
Governor Scott Walker's union reform proposals today are precisely the union reform platform he campaigned on for all of 2010. Furthermore, the Governor's proposals were validated by the Republican state legislative successes.

It is in this context of fairly won elections in which Wisconsinites consciously chose reform over the status quo that the government employee unions and Democratic Party have decided they would side against the people.

Government employee union leaders know they are losing the battle for public opinion and that reform is coming. A Clarus Poll found that 64% of the American people do not think government employees should be represented by unions.

A victory for the forces of reform in Wisconsin would provide enormous energy on government reform efforts to balance budgets in Ohio, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere. It will also extend to other issues like meaningful education reform.

However, a defeat for Walker and the reformers would embolden those who seek to preserve the status quo. Yesterday, borrowing a play from their brethren in Wisconsin, Democrats in the Indiana House fled their state to prevent a vote on a measure that would make Indiana a right to work state.

That’s why it is vital for all who voted in favor of reforming government, wherever you live, to support Scott Walker and the Wisconsin reformers.

The most important way you can help is by articulating the case for self government and government reform to your friends and neighbors.

Newt includes a link to some facts about Wisconsin and a video of him on Fox News.

Newt discusses Scott Walker and Wisconsin (video)

In the interview on Fox and Friends, Gingrich notes that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker campaigned for two years on the policy that has led to the protests over the last week.

Newt also mentions that him and Callista were at "one of the first big events" of Walker's campaign a-year-and-a-half-ago.

Here is the entire interview, in which he discusses the federal budget showdown and Libya:

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.

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).

Herman Cain: Newt has bought office space in Atlanta for a run; ABC: Gingrich will form an exploratory committee within two weeks (video)

In an interview with National Journal, conservative businessman and 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain says that Newt, a fellow Georgian, has purchased office space in Atlanta. It will, as National Journal writes, "serve as headquarters for a presidential campaign."

From the article:

Cain had previously told Hotline on Call that Gingrich and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are the two potential candidates whom he could support for president. But surprisingly, Cain said Gingrich entering the race will encourage -- not deter -- him from doing the same.

'Newt will help elevate the debate and the discourse,' Cain said. 'With Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain up there on that debate stage, we're gonna be bringing the red meat. I don't want to be up there against three people who are using same, old political rhetoric. That doesn't bode well for the Republican Party.'

ABC News is reporting that those close to Newt are saying within the next two weeks, he will form an exploratory committee.

Gingrich mentions books "that mattered" to the conservative movement

He specifically mentions The Conscience of a Conservative, for its' impact on moving the Republican Party to the right; Losing Ground, which was about welfare policy; and The Way the World Works, because it "translat[ed]" Hayek and other Austrian school economists "into understandable" language for Americans.



Thank you to splicd.com.

Newt responds to CPAC critics

From his weekly newsletter:

During my speech to CPAC, I tried to lay out a substantive and compelling alternative to Obama and the Democrat's left wing governance, focusing on American energy and environmental policies. I proposed an aggressive, all-American energy strategy that would dramatically boost all sources of energy production in our country.

I also proposed replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with a new Environmental Solutions Agency which would focus on technological solutions to our environmental challenges and adopt a collaborative approach with business and local government, instead of the command and control regulatory model of the EPA.

...

The record crowd of over 11,000 attendees reacted strongly to this vision for lower energy prices, more jobs, better environmental outcomes and a safer America.

It was clear watching the crowd's reaction to my speech and the speeches of others that the conservative movement is energized by the possibility of winning an epic election in 2012. It's also clear they expect real conservative reform from a new conservative president and Congress.

Maybe that optimism and energy made some people nervous.

Before the event was even over, the mainstream media was hard at work trying to pour cold water on the fire that has been lit across this nation.

This article from the Associated Press sums up the doubt and skepticism that so many in our elite media seem intent on sewing amongst the American people.

The not-too-subtle message from these guardians against high expectations is crystal clear: Don't get your hopes up. Real change isn't possible in America. You might as well stay home.

In fact, this piece of conventional wisdom is both historically wrong and insidious.

History shows that real change is possible, but only if the American people are informed and engaged.

He then cites Ronald Reagan and the 1994 victory he led as "successful conservative reform[s]" that succeeded "because they understood that real power resides with the American people, not in Washington."

This rule was described to me by an associate of Reagan's as, 'I show the American people the light. They turn up the heat on Congress.'

Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, but he can better be understood as a great educator. He thought that if he could use his platform as a national figure to inform the American people, they would provide the pressure to implement conservative reform.

That's how Ronald Reagan was able to cut taxes, reduce spending, and reform burdensome regulations to revive the American economy despite having to deal with a Democratic Congress that was opposed to his agenda. Reagan understood that the American people would pressure the Congress into doing the right thing. All Reagan had to do was champion policies that reflect American values and treat the American people with respect by being honest and clear about the facts.

...

Similarly, when I was Speaker, the Republican Congress was able to achieve its principal goals despite having to work with a liberal Democratic President. We balanced the budget while cutting taxes and increasing military and defense spending. It is a historic fact that Clinton never proposed a balanced budget. It was the Republican House that made it happen.

...

All this was possible because we understood that President Clinton would eventually yield to the demands of the American people. That's why after twice vetoing another one of our principal goals, welfare reform, Clinton eventually signed it in 1996, before he ran for reelection. He knew he wouldn't be able to stand the heat from the American people if he didn't.

He then discusses the campaigns that preceded those two conservative reforms:

Ronald Reagan and the Republican Congress under my Speakership also delivered on our goals because the preceding election campaigns focused on the issues, not on personalities.

In 1980, Reagan offered a bold, competing vision for America's future that outshone the malaise and weakness of Jimmy Carter. He promised to cut taxes to boost economic growth, to renew America's strength in the world by standing up to the Soviet Union, and to restore America's civic confidence in its founding and unique purpose (American exceptionalism).

With a weak economy and the hostage crisis in Iran in 1980, Reagan could have simply run as 'not Carter' and emerged victorious. But then he would not have had a mandate to govern, and would never have been able to achieve his principal goals.

Similarly, in 1994, we explicitly crafted the Contract with America campaign around conservative reforms that we understood had overwhelming support in America (if not in the editorial pages of the NY Times) but had nonetheless been blocked by the Democratic House.

Consequently, despite having a liberal Democrat in the White House, we still managed to achieve a balanced budget, welfare reform, tax cuts, increased military and defense spending, and more.

Perhaps Republicans could have won control of the House in 1994 by simply running against Clinton. However, the Republican landslide would not have been as large, and we certainly would not have had the mandate necessary to enact real change.

As he has in the past, Gingrich criticized the 2004 Bush re-election effort for not engaging John Kerry on the issues:

I wrote a white paper in 2004 pointing out that on over 70 key issues, John Kerry was on the wrong side of public opinion by larger than a 70-30 margin. An election campaign run on these issues would put John Kerry at an impossible disadvantage and could have led to a landslide result with a true mandate for President Bush to govern.

However, the choice in the minds of most American voters in the fall of 2004 wasn't over two competing visions for America; it was between forged National Guard papers and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials. Accordingly, more people turned out to vote against John Kerry than to vote against George W. Bush. With no mandate to govern, is it any wonder that Bush's subsequent attempt to reform social security was dead on arrival?

Newt similarly attacks the 2008 McCain team that did not show how radical then-candidate Obama was.

Looking forward:

We will need candidates that have a clear and substantive plan to govern and who can explain conservative solutions to the American people in a way that gets them excited and engaged.

We will need a new Contract with America in 2012.

A new Contract with America with specific, substantive, conservative solutions to the great challenges facing our nation is the only way to gain the mandate from the American people needed to bust through all the embedded interests in Washington and the state capitals that will oppose change.

If a new conservative President and Congress develop and win based off of a new Contract with America in 2012, there is nothing that can stand in the way of true conservative reforms that will create jobs, make America safer, and maximize individual freedom and dignity for all Americans.

In two minutes, Newt lays out his solutions to get the economy roaring (video)

This clip is from a 2010 meeting with the editorial board of the Orange County Register.

The full video can be found on our videos page above (Part 2 of 5).

Newt on ABC's This Week (with link to video)

Video.

Gingrich was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour on Sunday morning, and they almost entirely discussed the Egypt situation.

Saying that President Obama should not be the focus, Gingrich said:

Our focus ought to be: what can America do now to make sure the military doesn't impose a new dictatorship for another thirty or forty years. And how do we, on the other hand, make sure that you don't end up with a Muslim Brotherhood staging a coup at some point over a three or four or five year period.

The only non-Egypt question dealt with 2012. And the response was one we have heard before:

Well, Callista and I will probably decide by the end of this month about whether to set up an exploratory committee.

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."