John Bohrer

What Newt’s really running for (Hint: It’s not president)

The way the former House speaker is raising money says a lot about the game he's playing

Newt Gingrich. Right: Adlai Stevenson

The Los Angeles Times recently marked the 50th anniversary of the 1960 Democratic National Convention by posting a few rare photos from its archive. In one, a group of young intellectuals prop up signs for the last-minute effort to draft two-time nominee Adlai Stevenson. What slogan do you pick for a candidate who has just been rejected in consecutive landslides?

“America wants him NOW.”

America most certainly didn’t want him, but the other main contenders — John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson — looked flawed enough that perhaps Stevenson could get his name on the ballot, or at least get the presidential treatment one more time. The whiff of the presidency had always enticed him, just as it has with Newt Gingrich, whose flirtation with the Oval Office began anew this month when he declared in Iowa, “I’ve never been this serious [about a White House bid].”

But do not be fooled: “This serious” isn’t that serious. Like Stevenson, Newt Gingrich isn’t running for president (though he’ll go along with an “if-you-must-have-me” nomination, if they’re offering). What Gingrich is going for is something closer to running for ex-president.

It’s a campaign to be treated like that of the elder statesman he sees every time he looks into the mirror, to retain the dignitary-behind-the-closed-door lifestyle. Whether for his personal or professional failings, Newt never secured the permanence in stature afforded to former heads of state and Washington giants, the lasting transition from middle-aged gray hair to senior citizen graybeard. And he wants it. Desperately.

So for now, an air must be cultivated. Gingrich is engaging in the travel (“ten states in the last fourteen days”), the Sunday political talk shows, and the speeches at conservative think tanks that mark the schedule of any presidential player. What gives him away is the manner in which he has raised his money.

His groups took in about $3.5 million in the second quarter — the same amount it took Mitt Romney twice that time to raise. But while Mitt’s money went into a PAC that limits how much individuals can contribute each year, Newt’s went into a 527 group where all bets are off. Politico looked at the numbers and found that $935,000 of it was over the legal limit or from corporations, which PACs cannot receive money from. $100,000 came from a company engaged in deepwater oil drilling. $500,000 from a controversial casino magnate.

In exchange for the limitless donations, 527 groups are hindered in how they can spend money, prohibited from directly collaborating with campaigns the way Romney’s fund can. So far, Newt’s spent his coin on “a 20-plus-person staff, polling, a slick Web presence and travels across the country via private jet,” according to Politico. It amounts to a personal policy center like an ex-president’s — not bad for the legacy, but no good for winning present-day allies either. And while Newt’s done a little PAC business in recent months, it’s still peanuts compared to that of his would-be rivals.

But who says that you have to go the modern route to the nomination? Adlai Stevenson sure didn’t think so. At this time in the 1960 cycle — the summer of ’58 — he was denouncing the primary process as too expensive and too exhausting to participate in. He then left for a long tour of the Soviet Union, receiving special dispensation to visit areas barred to Westerners, the mantle of statesman safely in tow.

It only tided him over for so long, and he allowed the Los Angeles convention to attempt to draft him, to keep him in the swim of national politics. Surely the presidency was a distant light by then. But there was also a very real, very certain outcome to his flirtation: sustenance for his dignitary lifestyle. So it is with Newt. Rack up enough 527 money in the next six months, and he can kick his heels up on those private jets for a long time.

At least, until the next presidential campaign.

Tea Party mad at Menendez for BP/Lockerbie letter

It's the "height of hypocrisy," the leader of an effort to recall the New Jersey senator roars

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 14, 2010, to discuss asking the State Department to investigate whether oil giant BP played a role in winning last year's release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie airliner bombing. (AP Photo/Drew Angerer)(Credit: Drew Angerer)

Two months after their embarrassing hearing before the state Supreme Court, the New Jersey Tea Partiers trying to recall Sen. Bob Menendez are flailing for attention. Their new ploy: criticizing Menendez for leading the way in pursuing Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.

Meghrahi, the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Pan Am airliner bombing that killed 270 people (189 of whom were Americans), is in the news this week, with BP now admitting that it lobbied the British government for his release last year in exchange for contracts to drill off of Libya’s coast. Megrahi was released in August of 2009 on humanitarian grounds, since he supposedly had a terminal case of prostate cancer and would be dead within three months  (although 11 months later, he’s still alive). 

On Tuesday, before BP made its admission, Menendez and other senators sent the State Department a letter asking, “[W]as this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?”

That prompted this reaction on Thursday from RoseAnn Salanitri, the New Jersey recall effort’s leader: “For Menendez now to be calling for a man like al-Megrahi to be put back in [prison], after voting against sensible national-security measures all the time he’s been in the Senate, is the height of hypocrisy.”

The self-proclaimed constitutional purists are upset that Menendez and other senators refused to give the federal government greater surveillance powers. Of course, a Republican was in the White House then.

The New Jersey Supreme Court is yet to rule on whether to grant the Tea Partiers recall wishes. Their chances don’t look good, though, as Menendez’s lawyer argued on the basis of the federal constitution, and the Tea Party’s lawyer argued on the basis of an ambiguous 1787 letter from George Washington to his nephew.

Continue Reading Close

Teabaggers will need some John Hancocks

The tea party-fueled effort to remove Sen. Ben Nelson from office is a reminder of how difficult recalls are

FILE - In this Dec. 21, 2009 file photo, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg, File)(Credit: AP)

On Monday, a small band of Nebraskans, angered by Sen. Ben Nelson’s healthcare vote, began organizing a ballot initiative to add recall elections to the state’s constitution. If they can collect 113,000 signatures by July 2, the question will reach voters in November and Nebraska might become the 20th state to permit the recall of elected officials by petition.

Nelson, of course, probably shouldn’t be sweating this one. Eighteen states now have provisions for recall elections. (The 19th, Virginia, allows for recall trials.) And while recall elections are regularly held at the local level in these states, there have only been three successful statewide recall efforts in American history: in North Dakota in 1921, Arizona in 1988, and California in 2003. (While the Arizona petitioners qualified to recall Gov. Evan Mecham, he was impeached before the scheduled election could be held.)

Still, the proposed recall rule in Nebraska is notable because the signature requirement would make for one of the laxer recall laws in America.

According to the Omaha World-Herald, the petitioners’ amendment would require the signatures of 30 percent of the total votes cast for that official in the last election — not the total votes cast in that election; just the total votes cast for that official in that election. So if the last election featured a close two-party contest, petitioners would need signatures from about 15 percent of all those who voted. (This does offer a significant advantage to politicians who dominated their most recent general elections.)

Compare this with the signature standard in most recall states: 25 percent of all votes cast in the last election. Or consider the case of New Jersey, where a tea party group trying to recall Sen. Robert Menendez is scrambling to collect 25 percent of the total number of registered voters — about 1.3 million certified signatures.

The lowest standard for any state arguably belongs to Montana, which requires just 10 percent of the total registered voters at the time of the last election. Kansas’ signature qualification is the steepest: 40 percent of the entire vote cast in the last election for that office.

There are other restrictions that make recall elections difficult: the amount of time that needs to lapse between the inauguration and the start of the recall drive, for instance, or the number of days that petitioners are given to collect the needed signatures. Some states even require the listing of legitimate grievances.

So as Republicans look for ways to rage against the new healthcare law, get ready to see more attempts at recalls — though “attempt” ought to remain the operative word there.

Continue Reading Close