Newt’s Resurrection?

In June, after his top advisers bolted, Newt Gingrich was supposed to be finished. Four months later, after a series of sharp debates, his poll numbers are climbing and his coffers are stuffed. Behind the scenes, his aides aim to capitalize on the resurrection.

“There is plenty of room,” says R. C. Hammond, the campaign spokesman. He bets that by early January, when New Hampshire and Iowa are blanketed by snow, Gingrich’s “tortoise” campaign will inch ahead.

That optimism is backed up by cash, Hammond says. In the past week, the campaign has raised more money — nearly $200,000 — than it collected in July, the month the campaign nearly collapsed. The capital infusion has enabled Gingrich to hire early-state staffers, such as tea-party leader Andrew Hemingway in New Hampshire, and produce a slew of Web videos.

It is also erasing, albeit slowly, what has been a looming problem: the campaign’s debts. According to federal election filings, Gingrich reported over $1 million in debts through September 30, a figure nearly identical to when his initial senior team departed.

In presidential politics, such a hole can knock you out of the race; debt was, for example, a major factor in Tim Pawlenty’s withdrawal. Gingrich’s campaign has endured, Hammond says, by subsisting on the approximately $800,000 it has raised since July.

Gingrich’s inner circle, once a high-profile coterie of wonks and politicos dubbed “Newt Inc.,” was pared down. In recent months, only a handful of loyalists have remained on payroll, and they often work from home to save on expenses.

At one point, when prospects were dim, staffers shared a couple of Verizon wireless cards for their laptops, in order to avoid paying for office-wide Internet service.

Gingrich, for his part, has not flown on chartered aircraft since May, taking commercial flights to Des Moines and Manchester from his home in northern Virginia. He often travels with a lone staffer, if that. On the ground, grassroots activists are coordinating volunteers.

With about $500,000 in the bank, “we’ve been running lean,” Hammond says, and with much of the race centered on the debates, “that’s been the focus.”

Indeed, with dwindling funds, the campaign never attempted to engineer any grand comeback strategy, even when things were bleak and closing shop remained a distinct possibility. The immediate goal was surviving.

During a normal week, Gingrich would appear at events — maybe a speech in Iowa and another in South Carolina — but he would never spend weeks on the trail, burning cash. The little things that lead to strong debates — reviewing news items and making sure Gingrich had a Diet Coke before he went on stage — became priorities for his aides.

Back home in Virginia, Gingrich would, for the most part, keep quiet, in order to save money. Attending the next cattle call or debate was important, but unrelated political events and other potential commitments were axed from the schedule. His press load was lightened, with few interviews granted beyond Fox News and friendly radio outlets in primary states or the occasional Sunday-morning talk program.

When not on the phone with Amy Pass, his top money raiser, about fresh leads, he’d map his updated “Contract for America,” call close friends, and eye how “Lean Six Sigma,” a waste-reduction program popular with corporations, could be implemented within the federal government. He’d read and write history, taking notes about potential stories to weave into his public remarks or debate rhetoric.

Gingrich’s approach, his aides say, was to keep the entire campaign on a low simmer, slowly building support but never scrambling to join the news cycle. It took a few weeks for the campaign and candidate to wean themselves off near-daily television interviews. But for Gingrich, long a Beltway fixture with a penchant for pungent one-liners, it was a must. The campaign wanted him to avoid “becoming a reactor to events or competitors,” as one insider puts it, and reestablish his “authority” on policy and governing, not his abilities as a political pundit.

In the eyes of many Republicans, Gingrich had become a damaged candidate — respected, to be sure, but unworthy of support. He was, according to conventional wisdom, an aging veteran on the sidelines, nothing more. That had to be corrected. So running against the press, which largely dismissed his candidacy, became a key theme.

At first, Gingrich lashed out due to exasperation on the trail, irked by the media’s focus on his much-discussed Tiffany’s account and the summer meltdown. But things began to shift in Ames in mid-August, after Gingrich criticized Fox News moderator Chris Wallace for playing “Mickey Mouse games” and asking “gotcha questions” about his campaign.

As they heard the Iowa crowd roar at the comeuppance, Gingrich’s top advisers —Hammond, Pass, communications director Joe DeSantis, his wife Callista, campaign manager Michael Krull — sensed opportunity. If the former House speaker could speak up, with gusto, about the media’s horse-race obsession, perhaps he could fire up on-the-fence Republicans who agreed with the critique.

“Appealing on an emotional level was important,” says one source. “He knew that he needed to address the electability question, noting that with his record, to not consider him viable was an absurd media-driven narrative, not the GOP consensus.”

On September 7, at the GOP debate in California, Gingrich followed through, blasting the moderators, including Politico’s John Harris, for attempting to divide the field. “I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other,” Gingrich replied when pressed to differentiate between the health-care positions of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. “You would like to puff this up into some giant thing. The fact is, every person up here understands Obamacare is a disaster.”

Days later, at a CNN debate, Gingrich hammered the point again, wagging his finger at the moderators for making so much of the spat between Perry and Romney on Social Security: “I’m not particularly worried about Governor Perry and Governor Romney frightening the American people when President Obama scares them every single day.”

The response to the slams, coupled with some sharp policy jabs, was immediate, campaign sources say, and to this day remains the campaign’s sustenance — it fuels interest, garners headlines, and generates donations. The buzz, of course, is far from enough for Gingrich to win, or even get close to, the nomination. But in the minds of his advisers, it has kept him on stage — an achievement of its own.

Of course, “we’re never going to have Romney or Perry money,” cautions a source close to Gingrich. “Regardless, I think we’re going to have enough to compete because we’re going to continue to be a much lighter, leaner campaign than the rest. We plan to make up for it with energy.”

Energy, buzz, and debate acclaim may not be enough. Gingrich’s poll numbers remain steady, but unlike Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann, he has not had a moment where he has leaped above the rest. Gingrich insiders shrug this off, saying they’d rather peak late than early.

Still, there has not been a breakout. Only now, after countless debates, are they seeing the beginning of a boomlet. A Cain-like poll gain is hard to imagine. More likely would be a Cain fade, a Perry fade, and an eleventh-hour Gingrich bubble, should he continue to impress and connect with social conservatives in Iowa, in spite of his marital history.

As November nears, the RealClearPolitics average of national GOP polls shows Gingrich within reach of the top tier. He’s holding onto fourth place with 9.2 percent support, only 3 points behind Perry. And two October surveys — one by Public Policy Polling and another by Rasmussen — show him in double digits.

Even with the positive debate response, however, Gingrich’s nose remains pressed to the glass, as he hopes for a final, fleeting shot. In background conversations, top GOP consultants say the rise of Cain and Perry’s bank account may be too much for him to overcome in a compressed time period. “He’s calm, we’re calm,” Hammond says, when pressed on the odds. “Things in all the states remain fluid, even in New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney’s support is as thick as a November ice on Lake Winnipesaukee.”

Wait and see — that is the Gingrich mantra. In coming days, his team does not expect him to go negative against Cain, the latest Republican hotshot, but to poke holes, in a friendly manner, in aspects of the 9-9-9 tax plan. When Perry unveils his flat-tax proposal this week, look for Gingrich to trumpet his own flat-tax plan, which he released earlier this year. He’ll also likely challenge Perry to explain specifics, such as his chosen rate.

Meanwhile, finally, the campaign will spend some coin, opening offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. An outpost in Miami will expand, as will the operation in Atlanta, where the campaign’s main call center is housed.

And to the joy of political junkies, Gingrich will join Cain for a one-on-one discussion at a tea-party forum in Texas next month, an event the campaign hopes will spark tea-party voters to reconsider, on a policy basis, their Cain support. The battle for the “non-Romney” slot in the primary, at least in Newt World, has only begun.

“Of the two, Cain's 9-9-9 is the better plan”

Absolutely NOT!

The “FAIR TAX” is the ONLY and BEST solution out there. Been out there for 15 years or more. Not some campaign gimmick.

“What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.”

The FairTax:

“Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS”

Educate yourselves

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

J. Murry Bowden

Director

“The FairTax is appealing for both economic and political reasons. A simple consumption oriented tax (on goods and services above a subsidence level) is a simple and fair approach to taxation. The FairTax empowers each citizen to control the taxes he or she pays by controlling consumption.”

“The FairTax will unite our country by removing one of the most divisive political weapons created – class warfare. Unfortunately, the progressive income tax creates a class structure among taxpayers. The debate regarding the segregations of classes of taxpayers is divisive. We need big ideas to unite our country and move us forward together. The FairTax is a big idea – and a good one”

Thanks for your comments.

As far as environmental policy goes, All Newt (or any other professing “conservative”) has to do is stand behind (advocate) what I posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2796683/posts?page=12#12

IE:

Individuals, Liberty and the Environment The American Conservation Ethic
http://www.maninnature.com/ASC/NWI1.html

I. People are the most important resource.

All environmental policy should be based on the idea that people are the most important resource. The inherent value of each individual is greater than the inherent value of any other resource. Accordingly, the foremost measure of quality of our environment is human health, safety and well-being. A policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. The best judge of what is or is not desirable is the affected individual.

Human intellect and accumulated knowledge are the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved or modified. Environmental policies should inspire people to be good stewards. Within the framework of equity and liability individuals carry out deeds that create incremental benefits in the quality or quantity of a resource or improve some aspect of the environment. Cumulatively these deeds result in progress and provide direct and indirect environmental benefits to society.

II. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.

Renewable natural resources trees, plants, soil, air, water, fish and wildlife and collections thereof wetlands, deserts, forests and prairies are the resources we are dependent upon for food, clothing, medicine, shelter and to meet innumerable other human needs. Human life depends upon their use and conservation. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create them anew. While all living organisms and activities produce byproducts, nature has a profound ability to carry, recycle, recover and cleanse. These characteristics make it possible for us to wisely use renewable resources now while ensuring they are conserved for future generations. As Teddy Roosevelt, a founding father of conservation, recognized: “A Nation treats its resources well if it turns them over to the next generation improved and not impaired in value.”

III. The most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements lie in extending the protection of private property and unleashing the creative powers of the free market.

Ownership inspires stewardship. Private property stewards have the incentive to enhance their resources and the incentive to protect them. Polluting another’s property is to trespass or to cause injury. Polluters, not those most vulnerable in the political process, should pay for damages done to others. Good stewardship is the wise use or conservation of nature’s bounty, based on our needs. With some exception, where property rights are absent, we must seek to extend them. If this proves elusive, we must seek to bring the forces of the market to bear to the greatest extent possible. There is a direct and positive relationship between modern market economies and a clean, healthy and safe environment. There is also a direct and positive relationship between the complexity of a situation and the need for freedom. Markets reward efficiency, which is environmentally good, while minimizing the harm done by unwise actions. In the market, successes are spread by example, and since costs are not subsidized but are borne privately, unwise actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. As a result, such actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. We must work to decouple conservation policies from regulation or government ownership. In aggregate, markets not mandates, most accurately reflect what people value and therefore choose for their environment.

IV. Our efforts to reduce, control and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.

The term pollution is applied to a vast array of substances and conditions that vary greatly in their effect on man. It is used to describe fatal threats to human health, as well as to describe physically harmless conditions that fall short of someone’s aesthetic ideal. Pollutants occur naturally or can be a by-product of technology. Their origin does not determine their degree of threat. Most carcinogens, for example, occur naturally but do not engender popular fear to the same degree that man-made carcinogens do. Microbiological pollutants, bacteria and viruses, though natural, are by far the most injurious form of pollution. Technology and its byproducts must be respected but not feared. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health or assessing and measuring other environmental impacts. Health and well-being are our primary environmental measures. Science also provides a means of considering the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts so that we may have a cleaner, healthier and safer environment.

V. The Learning Curve is Green.

As we accumulate additional knowledge we learn how to get more output from less input. The more scientific, technical and artistic knowledge we have, the more efficient we are in meeting our needs. As we gain knowledge, we are able to conserve by substituting information for other resources. We get more miles per gallon, more board-feet per acre of timber, a higher agricultural yield per cultivated acre, more GNP per unit of energy. Technological advancement confers environmental benefits. Progress made it possible for the American farmer of today to feed and clothe a population more than two and a half times the size of the one we had in 1910 and triple exports over the same time frame while lowering the total acreage in production from 325 million to 297 million acres. That is 28 million acres less, an area larger than the state of Louisiana that is now available for other uses such as wildlife habitat. American agriculture has demonstrated that as an unintended consequence of seeking efficiencies, there are environmental benefits. As Warren Brookes used to put it simply , “The learning curve is green.” This phenomenon has a tremendous positive effect on our environment and progress along the learning curve is best advanced by the relentless competition in the market to find the best or wisest use of a resource.

VI. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site and situation specific basis.

Resource management should allow for variation of conditions from location to location and time to time. A site and situation specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those closest to a resource are best able to manage it. Such practices allow us to set priorities and break problems down into manageable units. Natural resource managers, on site and familiar with the situation, whether tending to the backyard garden or the back forty pasture, are best able to determine what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are able to adapt management strategies to account for feedback and changes. A site and situation specific management scheme fits the particulars as no government mandate or standard can. Additionally, a site and situation specific approach is more consistent with policies carried out at lesser political levels. The closer the management of natural resources is to the affected parties, the more likely it is to reflect their needs and desires. The more centralized management is, the more likely it is to be arbitrary, ineffectual or even counterproductive. A site and situation specific approach avoids the institutional power and ideological concerns that dominate politicized central planning.

VII. Science should be employed as a tool to guide public policy.

Societal decisions rely upon science but ultimately are the product of ethics, beliefs, consensus and many other processes outside the domain of science. Understanding science for what it is and is not is central to developing intelligent environmental polices. Science is the product of the scientific method, the process of asking questions and finding answers in an objective manner. It is a powerful tool for understanding our environment and measuring the consequences of various courses of action. Through science we can assess risks, as well as weigh costs against benefits. While science cannot be substituted for public policy, public policy on scientific subjects should reflect scientific knowledge. A law is a determination to force compliance with a code of conduct. Laws go beyond that which can be established with scientific certainty. Laws are based upon normative values and beliefs and are a commitment to use force. Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based upon scientific opinions rather than scientific facts. Such laws are likely to be wasteful, disruptive or even counterproductive, as scientific opinions change profoundly and often at a faster pace than public policy. The notion behind the Hippocratic oath first do no harm should govern the enactment of public policy.

VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.

Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.

Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.

More: Principles of the American Conservation Ethic http://www.maninnature.com/ASC/NWI1.html

The above is also referenced by Heritage here:

Effects of Environmental Policy on Private Property Rights
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Environmental-Policy.cfm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.