Newt Gingrich

Letters to the editor

Compared to the U.S., Germany treats its immigrants well Plus: Macs need to be popular, hello, for Apple to survive; Newt the adulterer/Newt the hero

  • more
    • All Share Services


Germany shuns “foreign” families

BY ALLISON LINN AND AYLA JEAN YACKLEY
(01/06/00)

I am an Australian citizen, and a permanent legal resident of the United States,
thanks to my American wife, and I have three American children. I have
lived here for seven years. I pay taxes like everyone else, however I
am
not eligible for most of the benefits that citizens are provided. I am
not
eligible for student loans, I am not eligible for Social Security, even
though I have it taken out of my paycheck every month. I am not
eligible
for unemployment benefits even though my company pays unemployment
insurance for me. The list of programs I am not eligible for is long.

Germany’s policy by comparison is wonderful. They allow their legal
residents all the same programs as their citizens, except for this one
program. I could lose my job and be on the street with my American
family
tomorrow because I am not eligible for most assistance. This all
happened
when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility Act a number of years
ago. That was publicized as solving illegal immigrant problems, however
it also affected legal immigrants in many ways.

When we write an article that condemns another country for a
supposed double standard, we need to look at ourselves first to ensure
we
are not a greater offender.

– Scott Martin

Your recent article “Germany shuns ‘foreign’ families” was one-sided and
weak on the
facts.

You claim that all child subsidy benefits are denied to foreigners in
Baden-Wuerttemburg, which is false. All parents are entitled to a
federal
child subsidy of about $130/month until the age of 18, and if one
parent
stays home, $300/month for two years. This includes anybody who lives
in
Germany, German or foreign. The subsidy in question was an additional
$200
(not $315) for low-income German families who are long-term permanent
residents of the state of Baden-Wuerttenburg. While I can’t defend the
exclusion of foreigners, the vast majority of Germans are also
ineligible,
since they don’t live in Baden-Wuerttemburg.

The lavish level of federal and state support for children and parents
in
Germany is unheard of in America. It includes not only direct payments
but
also subsidies for child care programs and family leave and vacation
laws
that would blow most Americans’ minds.

Germany has recently changed its centuries-old “Ius Sanguinis”
citizenship law, granting children born of legal residents
German citizenship and significantly liberalizing the naturalization
requirements for adults. However, dual citizenship past the age of 23
is
not allowed (it’s
18 in the U.S.).

This isn’t enough for many Turkish groups who demand dual
citizenship for adults as well. Germans say that people wanting to enjoy
the undeniably generous monetary benefits of life in Germany
should be willing to assimilate into German society, learn
the German language and democratic system of government and
break formal ties with their country of origin. The United States demands the
same, and most Germans feel it is reasonable.

Seeing as the current German law is among the more liberal in the first
world, it is irresponsible to imply that it’s racist and xenophobic.

– Jonathan E. Snow

Max-Planck Institut f|r Chemie, Abt. Geochemie

Mainz, Germany

I am a German living in New Mexico. I was born and raised in
former
East Germany. While most information in the article is correct, the
information that is left out unfortunately gives it an
unjustified bias.

Germany so far does not allow dual citizenship. Ethnically Turkish
children
and their parents can obtain German citizenship, but do not want to
give up
their Turkish citizenship. (The same rule prevents me from ever getting
U.S.
citizenship without losing my German passport.) The article, however
gives
the impression that German
government agencies have an ethnic bias. I believe this to be untrue.

Germany has an asylum/immigration policy that is fundamentally
different
from that of the United States. Germany in the
aftermath
of WWII instituted the most generous asylum policy in the developed
world.
During the war in Bosnia, Germany housed more than 1 million Yugoslav
refugees at taxpayer cost. On a per-capita-basis in the U.S. this would
compare to at least 4 million refugees. When did the U.S. last commit
so
much for refugees?

The family described has, as admitted, access to extra welfare
payments,
but out of shame does not use them. This is regrettable, but cannot be
compared with the situation that immigrants in the U.S. face. If I (a
graduate student living here since 1992) cannot prove that I have ample
funds to support myself and my family, then I will simply be deported.
I
do not have the right to work to support myself.

– Peter Dorn

What
happened to the exclusive Club Mac?

BY DONNA LADD

(01/21/00)

I was confused by Donna Ladd’s article. First she takes Apple to task

sorta — for opening wide the doors to new customers, and then takes
them
to task for proprietary practices on their Web site. These sound like
two
different issues, neither of which are anything to get riled up about.

To complain that Apple is making itself too accessible to customers
with
its new designs and software is like William Tell shooting his son in
the
head instead of the apple. Do we really want to go back to the days of
Amelio, slumping market share, confusing product lines and uninspired
boxes? As a Mac lover since 1984, I certainly don’t. With its (probably) perpetual niche market share, Apple needs as many customers as it
can
get, and to stand out, it will have to innovate, something that can’t
be
said in any meaningful way for any PC manufacturer.

Secondly, there’s nothing forcing Macheads to use Apple’s new site.
Unlike
PCs, Macs are easily customizable and simple to set to a new home page.
It’s infinitely easier for newbies to change to Yahoo or Microsoft or
whatever than if they were on a Dell or — God forbid — a Compaq.

So I don’t see the reason for the concern. Apple’s resurgence should be
celebrated, not something over which to fret.

– Chris Allbritton

What are these bozos talking about? As I hear constantly from the Mac
faithful, the whole point of a Mac was to make it easy for anyone to
use a
computer. Or as they would put it, “Get the computer out of the way
and let
me work.” Now they are complaining about the hand-holding that has made
me
avoid the Mac since it came out? Gotta wonder who it is that has been
“thinking different” all these years.

– Jim Roberts-Miller

I refuse to use any list of “best” sites generated by any of the big
portals, or by Apple and probably soon Microsoft too, and for two
reasons. First, who are they to tell me what’s best? The Net is one of
the
most
subjective creations ever made. As writer Donna Ladd said, beauty is
in
the eye of the
beholder.

Second, and more important, is the corruption factor. How long does
anyone think it will last before we start finding out that money has to
change hands before a site is considered “best”? Just like a certain
search engine with “go” in its name, these lists will become nothing
more
than advertisements for preferred clients.

Apple is already starting this trend with the OS9 requirement mentioned
in Ladd’s article. There’s only one direction this can go, and it’s a
direction I’d rather not follow.

– Andrew Ray

Down the up staircase
BY JOE CONASON

(01/21/00)

The recent attacks on John McCain and his record are mostly rooted in
half-truths and misinformation. Your article contains the same. John
McCain is attacking the pervasive influence of “soft-money,” millions
of
unregulated dollars being poured into the coffers of the DNC and RNC.
The
monies that you criticize him for are “hard-money” donations. The
letters
he wrote “on behalf” of his contributors asked for no specific ruling,
only
for a speedy end to a process long delayed by the FCC. That is a matter
of
record. It escapes me why the text of these letters which absolves
McCain
of these charges is never published. Additionally, in the article
“Buying the President 2000,” the author refers to McCain’s contributions
over his entire political career. Are these the “enormous
contributions”
you speak of? Why not include some actual facts in your reporting?
Then
we would be able to decide if there is actually a story here.

– Jeremy Aldridge


Newt’s makeover

BY DAVID CORN

(01/20/00)

Newt Gingrich seeks to distinguish himself from President Clinton on
the
basis that Gingrich never lied under oath. (He grudgingly concedes
adultery, although he refuses to call it that, during his second
marriage;
he still denies adultery during his first marriage, although his wife
No.
2 was one of his various girlfriends during marriage No. 1.)

Gosh Newt, didn’t you take an oath during both marriage ceremonies
(you
know, in church, in front of God) to “forsake all others” until “death
do
us part”? Clinton lied before an earthly grand jury (and did his own
lying
in front of a minister, too, but after all, he is not a good Christian
like you), but you lied twice before God. Why is adultery OK for
Republican Christians?

– John K. Cotter

Gingrich took over as speaker of the House
when long-term interest rates were rising, Alice Rivlin said the
deficit
would hit $400 billion by fiscal year 2000, welfare reform was bogged
down,
economic
growth had slipped to 1.7 percent, and Somalia and Haiti were messy
U.S.
foreign
ventures. At the end of his tenure, without any tax increases, what has
been accomplished? Eight million people off welfare and working; the
economy
growing at average 3.7 percent since; the budget balanced; from
fiscal years 1995-2000
projected deficits of close to $2 trillion have been turned around
where the
current five-year projections are for $500 billion non-Social Security
surplus. And this was all during a period when taxes on American
families and investors have been reduced.

All Corn can do is obsess about the speaker’s
sex life. Just as we should not care about Clinton’s affairs, nor
should we about the former speaker’s.

– Peter Rosenstock Huessy

Your story on Newt Gingrich’s address on the future was read with eager
delight by this less than fascinated observer of his actions over the
years. In my mind, Gingrich was a pompous self-aggrandizer with highly
questionable personal morals. Unfortunately he left a trail of pain
for
many in his years as majority leader of the House.

– Cy Shaun

Rear
Window

BY CHARLES TAYLOR

(01/21/00)

Charles Taylor’s examination of the voyeuristic aspects of “Rear
Window”
ignores a few key moments of the film which further complicate the
issue
at hand. Hitchcock not only avoids condemnation of peeping, he
implicates
the peeped in their desire to be peeped upon.

Early in the film, we are introduced to a married couple that sleeps on
their fire escape. The most intimate aspect of their marriage (aside
from
actual copulation) is willfully displayed for the entire courtyard to
see.
They have surrendered their privacy. Moreover, Miss Lonelyheart’s
phantom
date not only shows her solitude, it illustrates her desire to treat
her
own life as an exercise in role-playing. As Hitchcock strongly
establishes the connection between real-life voyeurism and the act of
watching a film, so too is there a connection between performing and
living
one’s life. As playing a role satisfies, to a point, one’s desire to
live,
so does being watched.

– Chad Levinson

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