Newt Gingrich

Lott's losing control

Impeachment proceedings in the Senate could get as ugly as in the House.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Hopes for an expedited Senate trial and a speedy resolution of the impeachment crisis were dimming Tuesday as senators returned to Washington for the beginning of the 106th Congress.

Only a week ago it seemed that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was well on his way to cobbling together a bipartisan coalition in favor of a rapid Senate impeachment trial — a formality that could be brought to a speedy conclusion by a procedural vote, after the equivalent of opening arguments. But early Tuesday afternoon Lott met the press to announce that trial proceedings would begin Thursday, while studiously avoiding any mention of how the trial would be conducted or how long it would last.

That’s because he has no idea. Lott didn’t take any questions at his brief press conference, and it’s little surprise. The Senate impeachment trial is Lott’s first real moment in the public spotlight since he assumed the post of party leader when Bob Dole resigned from the Senate in 1996. But Lott’s chances of concluding the mess in a way that will enhance his stature and save the GOP from further misfortune seem to be fading fast. Like so many times before, a new act in the long-standing impeachment drama is about to begin with no script for how it will end.

In a development that should alarm senators on both sides of the aisle, the events in the Senate are progressing much the way they did in the House. Bipartisan sobriety is giving way to extremism and political infighting, and reducing the possibility of a swift resolution to the crisis.

Many House Republicans got on the impeachment bandwagon because they saw it as a free vote — the Senate would rapidly conclude the matter, and certainly stop short of removing Clinton from office. And at first it seemed likely to turn out that way. Bipartisan negotiations to settle the matter quickly got under way. But just as occurred in the House, the Senate Republicans who are most committed to the impeachment program have become increasingly emboldened to fight all attempts at compromise. And neither the members of the Senate Republican leadership nor party elders have seemed able to stem the tide.

Most Republicans recognize that a long, drawn-out trial would do their party great harm for the foreseeable future. Yet few of those senators who have publicly criticized Lott’s efforts seem to have any game plan for avoiding such an outcome. Just as in the House, Republican calls to follow what they call “the constitutional process” have placed them on a course of seemingly unstoppable forward motion. When Henry Hyde sent his 81 questions to President Clinton just after the November election, he set in motion a chain of events that moved ineluctably toward impeachment. Republican criticism of Lott’s efforts to organize a quick trial are propelling the Senate in a similar direction — toward a protracted and possibly agonizing trial in which no one will emerge unscathed.

- – - – - – - – - -

To get a sense of the drift of events you only have to look at the numerous options that have been on the table recently. Just after the House voted articles of impeachment, the question for the Senate was whether there had to be a trial, or whether the Senate could just move immediately to censure. Then the issue was whether a trial would have to at least formally start before the Senate could move to censure. In the last few days the choice became trial-lite or a full-blown trial with witnesses. Now even many Democrats are conceding that some witnesses will likely be called. Their only question is how many and for how long.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Besides the Senate’s generally more sober attitude, one of the factors that seemed to make compromise more likely in the Senate was the leadership of Trent Lott. Newt Gingrich’s fall from power — and the leadership vacuum it created — greatly quickened the progress of impeachment in the House. Without the steadying hand of strong leadership, initiative in the House quickly fell to firebrands like Tom DeLay and the stalwarts on the House Judiciary Committee. Lott was supposed to stem the rebellion with his effective party leadership. But he has hardly fared better. Sen. James Inofe of Oklahoma said that the Lott plan would mean “shirking our constitutional duty,” and called it “a whitewash.” On Tuesday night all signs pointed to the conclusion that the process was quickly spinning out of Lott’s control.

The reason for all this is not difficult to understand. Just as it was when the House was considering articles of impeachment against the president late last year, the chorus of pressure and vituperation from the Republican activist base has been intense and unremitting. “If the conservative base feels like Clinton is getting off the hook,” GOP campaign consultant Jay Severin told Salon on Monday, “they’ll never forgive or forget, especially if Lott has something to do with it. There’s no excuse, no excuse.”

The problem for Republicans who are inclined to make a deal is that impeachment and punishment have become for many Republicans an idée fixe — a single dominating obsession, and one that brings together all the diverse complaints and discontents that have characterized American conservatism in the late 1990s. “Conservatives have never had something like this to build a jihad around,” says Severin, and they realize that they may never get this kind of chance again.

Senate Republican staffers who spoke to Salon early this week seemed indifferent to the political repercussions Republicans may face for prolonging the impeachment drama. But then many of those who are most intent on pushing forward come from conservative states where they are unlikely to themselves face consequences for their actions. Senate conservatives don’t seem willing to antagonize their right-wing base to help Republicans from more moderate states, who will likely pay the heaviest political price for a long Senate trial.

But while media accounts of the debate within the Senate have been cast as a struggle between the Republican Party’s moderate and conservative wings, it actually has relatively little to do with ideology. (Lott is not a Rockefeller Republican.) It’s more a struggle between the party’s pragmatic establishment — the people who like to win elections — and its committed activist grass roots. While it is widely, and probably correctly, assumed that most of the Republican Senate moderates would welcome some bipartisan deal to cut short a trial, none of the GOP senators who have been most conspicuous in support of the trial-lite option come from the party’s moderate wing. These include Lott, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Slade Gorton of Washington and Thad Cochran of Mississippi. All come from the party’s conservative wing; Lott and McConnell are among the Senate’s most conservative members.

Despite their protestations about the rule of law and the constitutional process, Republicans too can read the polls. And the dip in GOP favorability ratings over recent weeks has been precipitous. Ever since late December members of the party establishment — regardless of partisan complexion — have been clamoring for some sort of conclusion to the impasse. Rich Galen, executive director of GOPAC — Newt Gingrich’s former organization — sent out a private memo the week after the impeachment that said that Lott, Bob Dole, Democratic Sen. Bob Byrd and former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell should be locked in a room and shouldn’t be let out “until they come up with a solution which stops short of a trial, but goes far enough so the White House can’t claim a victory.”

That sort of thinking is shared by senators like Lott and McConnell, who want to get the Republicans out of the impeachment circus and back to the sort of policy agenda that they will need to position themselves for a solid showing in 2000. As majority leader, it’s Lott’s responsibility to get the Republicans through 2000 with their majority intact. McConnell is the Senate Republicans’ lord of soft money and the head of their campaign committee. Unlike many grass-roots GOP activists, he has his eyes firmly on winning in 2000.

What has received less attention in the impeachment coverage is that 2000 was already going to be a shaky year for the Republicans in the Senate. This is something Lott and McConnell haven’t forgotten. The senators who have to run in 2000 are those who last ran in the Republican jubilee year of 1994. A number of the Republican freshman senators are strongly ideological conservatives from moderate-to-liberal states who just managed to squeak into office on 1994′s Republican tide. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Spencer Abraham of Michigan, both of whom managed only narrow victories in 1994, are in this category, and Democrats have been waiting to get a crack at them for six years. Lott and McConnell want to do everything they can to lay the groundwork to retain those seats. And a long impeachment trial that could range into the middle of the year certainly will not help.

Many on both sides of the aisle also understand that the window of opportunity for a relatively harmonious compromise may be closing. Washington journalists frequently bandy about clichés about how the Senate is more reasoned and bipartisan than the boisterous and rancorous House. And it’s true, but only so far: Senators may be more insulated from public pressures, and more friendships may exist between senators across party lines, but the same passions and pressures that pushed the House to the brink of chaos in December are also present within the Senate.

And once the back-channel negotiations break down into open confrontation it may be very difficult to put the cat back into the bag. If and when witnesses are called, tempers and passions could quickly become too inflamed to find any solution short of a trial, and a vote on conviction or acquittal. As of late Tuesday afternoon, unity among Senate Democrats seemed to be strong and, if anything, strengthening. So removal from office still seems a distant possibility. But the chances for ending the impeachment drama quickly are rapidly diminishing.

Joshua Micah Marshall, a Salon contributing writer, writes Talking Points Memo.

Gingrich Inc: Out of business

Newt stayed in the race too long -- and now even his old private companies are struggling. Will Romney rescue him?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Gingrich Inc: Out of businessNewt Gingrich (Credit: Reuters/Benjamin Myers)

When the House of Representatives censured Newt Gingrich in 1997 for ethics violations — the first time ever for a sitting Speaker in 200 years — the vote was 395 to 28, with 196 Republicans joining. “Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said then-Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who is now running for a Senate seat in Michigan. Gingrich resigned a year later, “in disgrace,” as Mitt Romney said in January.

Gingrich spent the next decade in the wilderness, but in a near-miraculous twist of the classic American redemption story, Gingrich’s quixotic bid for the presidency this year actually succeeded, for a time. For a few brief moments, he actually led the pack and felt confident enough to declare on national TV, “I’m going to be the nominee.” Of course, it all came crashing down eventually, as Gingrich’s rise was more a product of the comic weakness of the GOP field and its real front-runner than Gingrich’s strengths, but he still vastly outperformed all expectations and managed to redeem a badly-tarnished reputation.

But Gingrich just couldn’t help himself, and he stayed in the race long past his sell-by date, scuttling his once-in-a-lifetime shot at reclaiming his political career and, we now learn, potentially destroying his financial well-being.

Before he entered the race last year, Newt Gingrich headed a small empire of business and nonprofits that made more than a $110 million over the past decade. But Reuters reports today that the companies may vanish, along with Gingrich’s political career, because they are facing bankruptcies and debt.

Gingrich left the companies and sold his ownership stakes when he ran for the presidency, which may have pushed the already struggling companies over the edge. The biggest was the Center for Health Transformation, Gingrich’s healthcare consultancy, which advocated for an individual mandate much like Obamacare’s, though he later disavowed that.

CHT declared bankruptcy last month, citing declining membership. “Newt was the attraction,” said Steve Hanser, one of the people to whom Gingrich sold the company. He had “a big, magnetic personality, especially in the board room,” and membership went down when he left, Hanser said.

Gingrich may never see most of the $6.4 million he sold his stake for in 2011, as he was to be paid out in increments over a long period of time. And despite the lucrative companies, Gingrich was never extraordinarily wealthy — his six-figure debt at Tiffany became an early campaign issue — and he’s now also facing nearly $5 million in campaign debt left over from his presidential bid, campaign finance reports released this week show.

So, he’s done the only thing he can do and hitched his ride to Romney, who helped former GOP candidate Tim Pawlenty pay off his outstanding campaign debt. It must be humiliating for Gingrich, whose huge pride seems matched only by his hatred of Mitt Romney during the primary, to have to sycophantically campaign for the presumed nominee and apologize for all of his previous attacks.

One can’t help but think this all could have been avoided if Gingrich had just bowed out sometime in February, when he could have left with his head held high, his reputation miraculously redeemed, and in a position to influence whoever emerged as the nominee. He certainly wouldn’t have as much campaign debt, and he may have been able to save his companies. Instead, he stayed long past the bitter end, after reporters had stopped bothering to cover him and the Secret Service had refused to provide him with protection.

Rick Santorum, who also left Congress under a cloud and managed to salvage his reputation this year, seems to offer the alternative. Santorum has gone from a joke with the Google problem who lost his Senate seat by one of the largest margins in recent memories to a early front-runner for the 2016 presidential race, given Republicans’ habit of nominating the person who came in second last time.

Continue Reading Close

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email him at aseitz-wald@salon.com, and follow him on Twitter @aseitzwald.

SPIN METER: Rivals airbrush anti-Romney words

After the nastiness of the Republican primary race, former candidates have collective amnesia about Romney disses

  • more
    • All Share Services

SPIN METER: Rivals airbrush anti-Romney wordsFILE - In this Jan. 26, 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney talk during a commercial break at the Republican presidential candidates debate in Jacksonville, Fla. Remember Gingrich calling Romney a liar? Michele Bachmann saying Romney's unelectable? Rick Santorum calling Romney "the worst Republican in the country" to run against Obama? They're hoping you don't. And acting like it never happened _ even though most of their words are just clicks away online. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)(Credit: AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Remember Newt Gingrich calling Mitt Romney a liar? Michele Bachmann saying Romney’s unelectable? Rick Santorum calling Romney “the worst Republican in the country” to run against President Barack Obama?

They’re hoping you don’t. And acting like it never happened (even though most of their words are just clicks away online.)

One by one — with the exception of holdout Ron Paul — the GOP also-rans have coughed up endorsements of their onetime rival. And as they do, they’re pulling rhetorical backflips to distance themselves from their former harsh assessments of Romney.

Don’t try this at home, folks. It takes a professional politician to pull it off with a straight face.

A sampling of the also-rans’ anti-Romney rhetoric when they were candidates and their obligatory niceness after endorsing Romney.

___

RICK SANTORUM

The former Pennsylvania senator still doesn’t have trouble curbing his enthusiasm for Romney. He waited a month after dropping out of the race to endorse Romney, then emailed his tepid endorsement in the dead of night. He finally got out the E-word in the 13th paragraph of his 16-paragraph statement.

THEN:

—”He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama.” Santorum later said he was referring to Romney’s standing on health care reform.

—”If Mitt Romney’s an economic heavyweight, we’re in trouble, because he was 47th out of 50 in job creation in the state of Massachusetts when he was governor. He may have had some success at making money for himself and his partners at Bain Capital, and I give him a lot of credit for doing so, but that’s a very different thing than going out and creating an atmosphere for people to create — that create jobs.”

NOW:

—”There are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Gov. Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Gov. Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it.” — Endorsement emailed to Santorum supporters.

___

NEWT GINGRICH

Gingrich didn’t formally endorse Romney when he dropped out of the race but spoke well of him and later said that was close enough. The guy who promised not to run down his GOP opponents at the start of the race had some withering things to say about Romney during the heat of the campaign. Gingrich, a former House speaker, would rather you forget that now, though: His anti-Romney videos on YouTube, once public, are now private. The man who repeatedly branded Romney a “Massachusetts moderate” now calls him a “solid conservative.”

THEN:

—”Someone who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when he is president.”

—Are you calling Mitt Romney a liar? “Yes.” Questioned about his previous comment.

—”Can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?” To Romney during a debate.

—”Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

—”We are not going to beat Barack Obama with some guy who has Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Island accounts, owns shares of Goldman Sachs while it forecloses on Florida and is himself a stockholder in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while he tries to think the rest of us are too stupid to put the dots together and understand what this is all about.”

—”I think that a bold Reagan conservative with a very strong economic plan is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than a relatively timid Massachusetts moderate who even The Wall Street Journal said had an economic plan so timid it resembled Obama.”

NOW:

—”I’m going to campaign for him, I favor him over Obama. I went through, like, seven different issues where I favor him. I’ll do everything I can to help elect Romney. … As far as I’m concerned, I’ve endorsed him.”

—”Compared to Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is a solid conservative. And I think you have to come down to, what’s the choice this November? And the choice is the most radical president in American history and a failed president at the economy and somebody who has a solid record on jobs and who, in fact, on basic principles, is conservative. And I think you can get into arguments about who’s how conservative, but compared to Obama, Mitt Romney is a solid conservative.”

___

MICHELE BACHMANN

Bachmann waited four months after dropping out before she endorsed Romney. The congresswoman from Minnesota campaigned with him in Virginia earlier this month but didn’t bring up health care in their joint appearance.

THEN:

—”He can’t beat Obama because his policy is the basis of Obamacare. The signature issue of Obama is Obamacare. You can’t have a candidate who has given the blueprint for Obamacare. It’s too identical. It’s not going to happen.”

—”He’s been very inconsistent on his positions. He’s been on both sides of the abortion issue, on both sides of the issue with same-sex marriage … he was for the TARP bill, the $700 billion bailout and the global warming initiatives.”

NOW:

—”I am endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney for president of the United States, a man who will preserve the American dream of prosperity and liberty.”

—”This is what victory looks like.” Campaigning with Romney in Portsmouth, Va., on the day she endorsed him.

—”He’s very smart. He has a very optimistic message. Women trust him because they see, this is a man who started a business from scratch, for heaven’s sake.”

—”One thing that Mitt Romney has demonstrated, he will repeal Obamacare. That’s a big compare and contrast between Barack Obama. We will never get rid of socialized medicine, which is Obamacare, under Barack Obama. Mitt Romney has committed himself to repealing Obamacare. … A lot of people know Mitt Romney’s positive agenda.”

___

RICK PERRY

If he couldn’t have the GOP nomination himself, Perry still wasn’t about to back Romney. As he dropped out of the race, the Texas governor endorsed Gingrich. He didn’t come around to endorsing Romney until Gingrich announced last month that he was planning to drop out.

THEN:

—”While you were the governor of Massachusetts in that period of time, you were 47th in the nation in job creation. … You failed as the governor of Massachusetts.”

—”If you are a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina to tell you he feels your pain. Because he caused it.”

—”I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he’d have enough of them to hand out.”

NOW:

—”Mitt Romney has earned the Republican presidential nomination through hard work, a strong organization and a disciplined message of restoring America after nearly four years of failed, job-killing policies from President Obama and his administration.”

___

JON HUNTSMAN

The former Utah governor endorsed Romney at the same time he dropped out of the race in January, but there was no joint appearance.

THEN:

—”You can’t be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day.”

—”Gov. Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs.”

—”When you combine a record of uncertainty — running first as a senator, as a liberal; governor as a moderate; then as a conservative for the presidency, people wonder where your core is.”

—”He’s been on three sides of every major issue of the day. And because of that it’s going to be very tough in the end to be able to make that trust argument to the American people.”

NOW:

—”It is now time for our party to unite around the candidate best equipped to defeat Barack Obama. Despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues, I believe that candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

—”I think he’s the best equipped by far to deal with the economic issues and challenges that confront us. … He’s grown a lot, he’s learned a lot. He’s probably better prepared to lead.”

___

RON PAUL

The scrappy Texas congressman was the last man standing among Romney’s GOP opponents, and he’s not ready to make nice yet. Paul announced this week that he won’t campaign anymore, but he’s still collecting delegates at state party conventions and could give Romney grief at the national nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., come August. Paul ran some scorching ads against Romney earlier this year but shied away from going after Romney in person.

THEN:

—Narrator in Ron Paul radio ad: “Mitt Romney can’t fight against Obamacare because he supported the same mandates and government takeovers as governor of Massachusetts. Romney can’t stand up against more bailouts because he supported them. He can’t lead the charge to shrink the government because he has grown it. Romney’s record is liberal and putting him up against Obama is a recipe for defeat.”

NOW:

—”Not soon.” Paul’s answer when he asked Tuesday when he’ll endorse Romney.

___

Associated Press writer Jack Gillum contributed to this report.

Continue Reading Close

Goodnight, sweet Newt

The rise and fall, rise and fall, and rise and fall of the Gingrich 2012 campaign

  • more
    • All Share Services

Goodnight, sweet Newt (Credit: AP/David Duprey)

Today is another fine day for Newt Gingrich, although not his best. After months of neglect, he’ll get the political media to pay attention to him for a final 10 or so minutes. “All of us have an obligation, I think,” he said in Tuesday’s video announcing his announcement of his resignation today, which he first announced last week, “to do everything we can to defeat Barack Obama.” For Gingrich, this typically would mean attacking Mitt Romney. But Newt seems serious about dropping out this time, as shameful as that is for the erstwhile “definer of civilization,” as he called himself in some early-1990s doodles.

Tragic! For now we know that Gingrich won’t even reach that steppingstone, the presidency of the United States, to his predetermined world-historical greatness. And yet he came so close: He was briefly viable at three separate points in this race, before, predictably, tossing it all away — or having Mitt Romney’s super PAC attack snatch it away from him. Let’s recall these three Rises and Falls of Would-Be President Gingrich and share in our despair that the funniest possible presidential nominee, Newt Gingrich in 2012, was not selected in a national primary of his peers.

The Dawn

Rise: For whatever reason (name recognition, actually; that was the reason), many considered Newt a “top-tier candidate” when he first entered the race. “He is in the top tier of prospective candidates but ranks below some of the other contenders,” CNN.com wrote in May 2011, when a CNN.com poll showed him trailing aforementioned “other contenders” Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. (For more on how all presidential punditry in 2011 was crap, see this.) That same week, Gingrich decided not to participate in the season’s first debate in South Carolina, joining a “batch” of fellow “top-tier Republican prospects — including Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin… Mitch Daniels and Mike Huckabee,” as Politico wrote, who also fancied themselves too prominent to face such lesser candidates as Rick Santorum. Gingrich, a bold-faced name who’d long toyed with a presidential candidacy, had convinced much of the media, without lifting a finger, that he was a Contender.

Fall: Here’s the sort of reception Gingrich would get from his fellow foot soldiers in the Gingrich Revolution after calling Paul Ryan’s Medicare-busting budget “right-wing social engineering” on “Meet the Press,” shortly after entering the race: “”Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.”

That didn’t help build support from a Republican Party that had just bet its marbles on the purity and truth of all things Paul Ryan. Shortly thereafter, he and Callista went on a cruise through the Greek Islands — not the greatest sign for doubters who thought he lacked the discipline to carry through a presidential campaign. His six-figure debts to jeweler Tiffany & Co., a stupid, private bit of opposition research that didn’t have any relation to soaring federal deficits, still did not sit well with a party fixated on restoring fiscal responsibility. And then, the June Mutiny, when most of his top aides quit en masse — including spokesman (and later top Gingrich super PAC official) Rick Tyler, who a few weeks earlier had testified to Gingrich’s resilience with this glorious, tongue-in-cheek statement to the press:

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

And so Gingrich would reemerge at the top, six months later, for a couple of weeks or so.

The Newtening

Rise: Well, all those Herman Cain supporters who wanted a new unhinged screw-up with tons of baggage only had one place to go once Herman Cain left, right? Bachmann was nothing, Perry was nothing, Santorum (at that point) was nothing, and so the party base turned to its former commander, Newt Gingrich, to once more be the grenade that destroyed another Democratic administration’s chance at effective center-left governance. He’d crush Obama in the debates, after all! By mid-December 2011, Gingrich had hit 40 percent in national polls, opening double-digit leads against Mitt Romney both nationwide and in key early states. “I’m going to be the nominee,” he famously predicted that December. “It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

Fall: By Dec. 19, Newt Gingrich had fallen to the mid-teens in Iowa polls. He finished fourth in the state’s kickoff caucuses and fifth in the following week’s New Hampshire primary. When he had had the lead, see, he had pledged to run on positivity ads only — a promise candidates make when their campaigns have no money. Mitt Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, did have money, though, and proceeded to remind voters of all the terrible things Newt Gingrich did, both personally and publicly, in the 1990s. It worked, and Gingrich was pissed.

The South Carolina Putsch

Rise: When Gingrich went to South Carolina, his goal was mostly just to pulverize Mitt Romney out of electability, to show the masses, the cretins, what a horrible choice they were making — a “Massachusetts Moderate” instead of a “Bold Reagan Conservative,” as he defined the choice in typically comical fashion. Winning Our Future, the super PAC largely funded by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, helped him in this regard, by giving him the attack ad money he needed to keep the campaign alive. Romney, to conservatives’ horror, was trashed as a “vulture capitalist” whose record in private equity at Bain Capital saw him buying and “looting” companies that frequently went out of business, while Romney collected fees regardless of the outcome.

But what really worked for Newt was yelling at a couple of debate moderators. No, really, that was it. He first returned fire at black Fox News correspondent Juan Williams, who had asked him whether he thought it could possibly be offensive to label the first black president a “food stamp president” or to suggest that poor, urban youths would need to become janitors at their schools to learn the value of Hard Work. “Only the elites despise earning money,” Gingrich said, to roaring applause from white males. Then, a few days later, he took on highly targetable, wishy-washy CNN anchor John King, who opened a debate by asking him to address his (second) ex-wife’s tell-all appearance on ABC News that same day. Gingrich was ready with his dismissal of both this question and the mainstream media in general:

Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am, frankly, astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

He would defeat Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary by double digits. The party, disrespectfully, forced Gingrich to continue campaigning in the 40+ remaining states’ contests, instead of simply crowning him president then and there.

Fall: Oh, you know this — Romney’s campaign and super PAC spent nearly quadruple the amount of money on ads in Florida that Gingrich and Co. did. Money: It works! As for the debates, which Gingrich had begun touting as the No. 1 reason to select him to face President Obama one-on-one — well, Mitt Romney, in a vintage Mitt Romney move, hired a new debate coach to teach him not to lose miserably to Newt goddamn Gingrich, and it worked. Gingrich couldn’t even flatten CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer, who essentially wears a sign saying “FLATTEN ME” at all times, when he tried. Romney won the state, and from there on out his chief not-really-challenging rival became Rick Santorum. Gingrich was done.

– – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – –

A shame, really. Not that Gingrich left much of an impact at all on the election, or could have guided America to better days if he’d become president. He was just funny to watch, is all. And some of his choicest attack lines on rival Mitt Romney will live on through November, thanks to the Obama campaign’s ad team.

Will Newt Gingrich run again? It’s hard to say no definitively, since he is insane. Most likely he’ll do the pre-2012 Newt Gingrich presidency routine, where he pretends that he may run for a little while, just long enough to build up enough PAC donations that can then be converted into a comfortable salary for himself for another few years. We’ll see. If he does run again, though, don’t expect him to do things any differently. He is incapable of change. We salute him.

Continue Reading Close

Jim Newell has covered politics for Wonkette and Gawker and is a contributor to the Guardian.

How much gasoline is a GOP primary voter worth?

Gas prices have barely budged compared to the cost of buying votes in the GOP primaries

  • more
    • All Share Services

How much gasoline is a GOP primary voter worth?Republican presidential candidate former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks at his primary night election rally with wife Callista on Tuesday, March 13, 2012, in Birmingham, Ala. (Credit: AP/Butch Dill)

The rising price of gas has become a pressing political concern, with Republicans hammering President Obama for not finding some way to bring prices down. Newt Gingrich has promised to bring the cost of gas down to $2.50, using space technology borrowed from native Martians at our Lunar Trading Post, and he has forced his followers to carry large totems featuring “gas pump” icons.

But as gas prices have soared since the beginning of the year, the cost of a Republican primary vote has plummeted. A few months ago, campaigns were spending a fortune in ad buys and organizations in the small early states. In Iowa, Mitt Romney and the PACs affiliated with his campaign spent around $144 for each vote received. By Florida that number was down to $19. On Super Tuesday, only $2.89 was spent by each campaign for each vote cast nationwide.

Is the price of gas correlated to the price of a primary vote? I decided to chart the price fluctuations in gasoline against the price fluctuations of Republican voters since the Iowa caucuses, because the Internet loves charts and campaign finance. If you think filling up your car is expensive, try running for president! (That is probably something Mitt Romney will say on camera at some point this week.)

Here is the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded versus the average amount spent by all the Republican campaigns per vote cast in each primary and caucus so far: (Click all images to enlarge.)

The same chart, without pricey Iowa distorting the scale:

As you can see, the price of gas has actually barely budged and everyone should calm down.

Now, with millions of dollars spent and votes cast, your typical Republican voter is probably asking himself, “How many gallons of gas am I worth, based on what the campaign spent convincing me to vote for them? We’re here to help, typical Republican voter!

I’ve charted how many gallons of gas each campaign could’ve bought with the money spent per vote received so far. (For example: Ron Paul has spent approximately $31.55 for every vote received. This makes each one of his voters worth a whopping 8.24 gallons!)

In primary battles, as in all aspects of life under capitalism, some people are worth more than others. Delegates, for example. While Mitt Romney has spent about $17 per vote received, he has spent $67,000 for each delegate he’s been awarded. So I added Romney delegates to the preceding chart, in order to properly illustrate just how worthless your vote actually is:

A Mitt Romney delegate is worth 1,700 gallons of gas. That is enough to fill 1,000 Cadillacs!

Data from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department of Energy, AAA, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Will Newt give up if he starts losing the Old South?

He can't keep this up forever, right?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Will Newt give up if he starts losing the Old South?Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt "Rocket Man" Gingrich is seen during a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire December 21, 2011. (Credit: Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters)

Newt Gingrich’s “path to the nomination” is basically a Billy-from-The Family Circus-style dotted line through his rich fantasy life, but he’s remaining in the race for the time being, because he performs well in the Old South, where likely nominee Mitt Romney does not. There is also a weird casino billionaire who keeps funding his campaign, maybe in part because he thinks it aids Mitt Romney by hurting Rick Santorum.

Well, Newt Gingrich remaining in the race might be hurting Rick Santorum, but by no means would Rick Santorum be winning if Gingrich wasn’t around. Give Santorum all of Gingrich’s delegates, he’s still losing to Mitt Romney. More realistically, as Nate Silver wrote earlier this morning, no Newt would mean more delegates for Rick and Mitt.

Still, Newt’s excuse for remaining in the race (besides as a means of confounding the “elite” who are terrified of his multitude of big ideas) is that the GOP nominee needs to win the South, and only he can win the South. He is basically campaigning right now solely to win Mississippi and Alabama next Tuesday.

But polls now show Mitt Romney beating Gingrich in Alabama. Alabama State University’s Center for Leadership and Public Policy has 22.7 percent for Santorum, 18.7 percent for Romney, and 13.8 percent for Gingrich. The Alabama Education Association has Romney winning at 31 percent with Gingrich 10 points back.

I haven’t seen any recent polls in Mississippi, but Rick Santorum’s super PAC is spending big in both states.

Losing either Alabama or Mississippi — or both — would be bad news for what everyone has taken to calling Newt Gingrich’s “Southern Strategy.” (I am guessing half the people mentioning Newt’s “Southern strategy” on Fox every day have no idea what they’re referring to and the other half know perfectly well and think it’s funny.) It would effectively end his campaign, even if for some weird reason Gingrich decided to just keep going for a while longer, because he has some weird point to make.

Gingrich is either exhausted or still enjoying himself, depending on how you read his dancing with his wife to “Rocket Man” last night. (“The song evokes Gingrich’s support for space exploration and desire to develop a colony on the moon,” according to the Post.) He certainly hates Mitt Romney and believes that The People will eventually see the brilliance of Newt Gingrich if only he’s given a national platform. But I’m not sure Gingrich is insane enough to continue past next week. He has already achieved what was arguably his primary goal in running: significantly increasing his earning power.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 55 in Newt Gingrich