http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXAFY9d_MpU

As gas prices continue to increase, Congress continues to blame others while ignoring practical steps to stop the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. To lower gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we need real solutions to our energy challenges.

Head over to American Solutions and sign the petition here. One-million people have already signed and they are headed towards three-million before the conventions.

Speaker Gingrich made the case on CBS’s Face the Nation (H/T - The Hill):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “would be far and away the best candidate” to appear on the Republican presidential ticket with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

Gingrich, who appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” heaped praise upon the former congressman, saying that he is a “spectacular” governor and predicted that Jindal would be a presidential candidate in the future.

However, Jindal, who also was a guest on the show, said that he already holds the job he wants.

“I’m certainly supporting Sen. McCain, will do whatever I can to help him get elected, but I’m focused on being governor of Louisiana,” Jindal stated.

Asked whether it could be a problem that the governor, who is 37, might be perceived as not ready to lead the country in case he would have to replace McCain, Gingrich said the case can be made that Jindal’s “experience in the executive branch and in the legislative branch is greater than” that of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

“It strikes me that it’s going to be very hard for Obama’s campaign to explain that Jindal, as a governor, who has served as an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, has served as a congressional staffer, has served as a congressman, is not qualified but Sen. Obama is qualified,” Gingrich said.

On the issue, he added that voters are “not going to reject Sen. Obama on inexperience.”

Gingrich argued that a GOP attempt to win the election by casting the Democrat as inexperienced would fail.

“Obama is a very articulate, very intelligent, Harvard law graduate, who is extraordinarily smart, and he’s not going to come across in a debate like some guy who’s dopey,” Gingrich said. “He’s going to come across as fully prepared. He knows how to study all this stuff. He has the military advisers.”

However, Gingrich added, “The problem with Obama is he’s wrong. It’s not that he’s inexperienced. It’s that his policies are wrong.”

The last few posts had got me a thinkin’ about possible v.p. picks for McCain, and then I stumbled across this doozy from the Newter. Here’s Rubin’s report:

Newt Gingrich in an interview on “Good Morning America” threw out names including Sanford, Florida Governor Charlie Crist (who helped McCain secure Florida but is looked upon with suspicion by conservatives), and former Arkansas Governor and still-rival Mike Huckabee. He even suggested a “unity ticket” with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.

This man has blown any little cred he had left, or at least any last little bit of good will I had left for him. Methinks Newt wants the GOP to lose so he can run in 2012.

From Michael Reagan’s Blog on the possibility of the race going to the convention:

Who, then, could conservatives end up backing? Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who’s doing all the shows talking about his new book? Who is advocating common-sense solutions to the most pressing problems America faces?

Newt Gingrich, that’s who. He was out of the race for a long time, he toyed with the idea of running until Fred Thompson entered the race, and then he more or less pulled back.

Why Newt? Ask yourself why Ronald Reagan won. He won because he was able to excite a group of people in America that the liberal wing of the Republican party has never excited — the grass roots.

Newt Gingrich is the last Republican to have done that — to reach out to the grass roots, to all those conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Remember, it was Newt who engineered the miraculous Republican take-over of Congress in 1994 — something that was deemed impossible two years after Bill Clinton won the White House.

I’ve had it with Newt. He’s unelectable. He pulled a stunt back in November. You know something? I wouldn’t put it past him… screwing up the whole race to try and find a backdoor to the nomination.

So, you’d think that Romney supporters would be dampened by the 2nd place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Say it with me: “NOT!”

Today, in Boston, fundraisers and friends gathered and raised over 5 Million dollars for the Mitt Romney campaign.  Compare that to Hillary who raised $750,000 the day after her stunning victory.

By the way, they raised almost $110,000 out of Arizona alone!  Does that top McCain’s total take.

Marc Ambinder has the story…notice Newt Gingrich will be there…and as a pro-family candidate…

But you won’t find it on his public schedule.

Today or tomorrow, Huckabee is a featured guest at the latest pastor briefing of the “Iowa Renewal Project,” which aims, in the words of an e-mail Don Wildmon sent to pastors, to “encourage pastors and their congregations to take a stand for morality in their daily lives.”

Don Wildmon, is, of course, the president of the American Family Association, one of the Project’s key sponsors. He’s also endorsed Huckabee.

There is no overt coordination between the project, which has affiliates in South Carolina and New Hampshire, and the Huckabee campaign. But to the extent that pastors who attend the project’s briefings are familiar with Huckabee and Wildmon’s support for his candidacy, Huckabee’s rivals worry that the group amounts to a “campaign organization for pastors” operating on Huckabee’s behalf.

As an aside, note that former Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist helped underwrite the Iowa Renewal Project two years ago when he was attempting to jump-start his presidential campaign.

The briefing takes place the Des Moines Marriott and is closed to the press. Huckabee is listed as a guest on the invitation but does not list the event on the schedule his campaign distributed to reporters Sunday.

Newt’s announcement that he will not seek the 2008 Republican nomination created quite a bit of debate here this weekend as to what current candidate he believes would most embody the ideals that he would have championed as a candidate himself.

Gingrich has ruled out an official endorsement. But he did comment on the current GOP field on ABC’s This Week yesterday (courtesy Hotline):

On the state of the GOP: “I think it’s conceivable if we nominate the wrong person you could end up in a ‘64. I think it’s more likely you end up in a 1976.”

Asked what that means: “That Senator Clinton comes out of the Democratic Convention ahead, that the Republicans nominate somebody and that they close the gap every day until the election but don’t quite win, because I think Senator Clinton, in the end, is such a polarizing figure that while I think she’s the most likely winner, I don’t think she’s likely to be a landslide winner under the circumstances.”

More: “The Republicans have got to get out from under Washington. And if we nominate somebody who is a continuation of where we are right now, we’re going to lose.”

Asked which GOPer comes closest to advocating his ideas: “Both Giuliani and Romney are beginning to articulate really dramatic change. I think that Thompson has not yet — I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight.”

Asked if Huckabee can win: “He’s got to get money. I mean, if he gets money, he becomes instantly competitive, I think.”

So, what really happened with Newt 2008? Many pundits, here and elsewhere, divined his Newteness’ most recent statements as an indication that he would run after all. Then, with an obscure legal explanation, he puts the stops on. What’s really going on here?

The intrepid Byron York recites the more lengthy legal explanations behind Newt’s exit and notes:

The problem is that all that can be perfectly true and one can still ask why Gingrich did not know until Saturday morning that his going forward could involve possible violations of the campaign finance laws. Why go so far – creating a campaign website, securing pledges, taking a leave from Fox – without knowing the basic rules?

As the old maxim goes: “it is the first obligation of a statesman to get elected.” It appears that Newt & Co. just couldn’t figure out a legal way to get their message across and raise money at the same time. So instead… they folded.

Compare this to Mitt Romney, who set up the Commonwealth PAC, reaching into local state entities, raising money for local leaders, and taking the money leftover to pursue a run for the President — all of it through a legal, political vehicle. This took years of research, planning and preparation. And it worked.

Newt, for all his incredible ideas, is apparently handicapped when it comes to execution. Perhaps… his exit is all for the best.

NYT:

Newt Gingrich has sent so many hints pointing in so many different directions that we’re dizzy trying to follow them all. But now, it appears, he’s made up his mind.

Rick Tyler, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, confirmed today that the former Republican House speaker has decided against a presidential run in 2008.

Mr. Gingrich was “presented with legal advice this morning,” said Mr. Tyler in a quick phone interview. “There was a choice presented.”

The choice was to remain chairman of his political action committee, American Solutions, or to allow advisers to move forward with an exploratory committee. But he could not, legally, do both, Mr. Tyler explained.
“So Mr. Gingrich made a choice to remain a citizen activist,” he said.Mr. Gingrich’s flirtation with a candidacy has been long and replete with mixed signals. Throughout the spring, he mocked the other candidates for starting their campaigns so early, and he said then that if a “void” existed after his American Solutions conference in September, he would consider jumping in.

He seemed to be leaning against a run when Fred D. Thompson’s candidacy started to spur excitement among Republicans, but as Mr. Thompson’s campaign got off to a slow start, Mr. Gingrich appeared somewhat interested again.

He said that if his supporters could raise $30 million by November, he would have enough to compete. Then, as Katharine Q. Seelye reported yesterday, he set up a “feasibility assessment” to determine his chances, and he said he would make up his mind by Oct. 21. Well, in a rare occurrence in politics, Mr. Gingrich beat his own deadline.

Mr. Tyler said news on an official announcement from Mr. Gingrich would be forthcoming. Mr. Gingrich was to appear on Fox News today at 5 p.m.

UPDATE: The word from Gingrich is that there will be no endorsements in the forseeable future.

Newt’s Ideas, just recieved via email:

Tonight at 7:00 p.m. (EDT), our inaugural American Solutions Day workshops on the Internet at AmericanSolutions.com, on the Dish Network (channel 219) and on DirecTV (channel 577) will begin.

Saturday, September 29, at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) there will be a series of 35 workshops available at AmericanSolutions.com. Selected workshops will also be available on the Dish Network (channel 219) and on DirecTV (channel 577).

These workshops are so important that I wanted to send you this special edition of our “Winning the Future” newsletter.

What Is Happening Is the Beginning of Real Change.

What is happening is the beginning of a process that has the potential to take our schools back from the bureaucrats, to safeguard our country by protecting our borders, to have a government under which levies don’t break and bridges don’t fall.

And much, much more.

The Anniversary of the Contract with America

Today is the 13th anniversary of the Contract with America.

It’s hard to believe that 13 years ago today on the steps of the West Front of the Capitol hundred of candidates for Congress signed the Contract with America. The Contract was the beginning of real change in welfare, which resulted in 65% of the people on welfare either going to school or going to work.

The Contract was the beginning of real change in the budget, producing four consecutive balanced budgets that included the first tax cut in 16 years, real control of federal spending and the first new defense and intelligence investments since Reagan.

Those were real changes. Now it is time for real change again.

Tonight, I will be broadcasting and web casting from the Cobb Galleria Centre in Atlanta. It brings back a lot of memories, because it was the election night headquarters in 1994 when we learned we had elected the first Republican majority in 40 years.

Americans voted for real change then, and we need real change again.

A lot of people pretend to be for change, but they offer only the same tired old excuses.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is when you think that by doing more of what you are already doing you can get a different outcome.” An awful lot of our politics and government is insane by Einstein’s standards.

Let’s look at what real change might look like.

Here are 10 examples of real change:

1. Levees shouldn’t break, and the Corps of Engineers should be changed until it is reliable.

2. Bridges shouldn’t fall, and our federal and state highway programs should be changed until we have reliable inspection and repair.

3. Students should learn, and the bureaucrats and bureaucracies that dominate failing educational systems should be changed every day until the students are learning.

4. The border should be protected for national security reasons, and it should be protected now.

5. English should be the official language of government, and first-generation Americans should be offered intensive English education.

6. Congress should control spending and spend within its budget, so we can get back to the balanced budgets we had when I left the speakership.

7. The death tax should be abolished permanently.

8. The capital gains tax should be abolished to increase the money in our retirement accounts and to help create jobs in America.

9. An energy strategy should be implemented to meet national security, environmental and economic goals and to eliminate the danger of foreign dictators who are manipulating us through our energy needs.

10. Americans should not be bogged down in long, indecisive campaigns: We need a strategy for defeating our enemies, defending our friends, winning the campaign in Iraq and bringing our troops home. (Watch my speech at the American Enterprise Institute on September 10 for how to do this.)

These are the kinds of real changes you don’t get in Washington today or in most of our state capitals.

More Principles for Real Change

Consider some of the following principles for real change:

• There ought to be an optional single-rate tax simple enough to be filled out in one page. The optional single-rate tax ought to have a 17% rate for both individuals and corporations, so we can create more jobs in America instead of seeing them go overseas.
• We need a strategy to reindustrialize America and bring jobs back to America.
• There should be tax incentives for companies that make their headquarters in the United States and want to bring jobs to America.
• We need a decisive series of reforms to keep New York City the financial capital of the world. There must be changes in litigation, regulation, taxation and the visa system if New York is to remain the best place for investment in the world. Every American has a stake in keeping investment activity in the United States, and we need this change quickly or London may replace New York by the end of the decade.
• Social Security today is not facing up to the reality of people living longer, and it should be reformed to ensure it is stable and reliable and taken away from the politicians so the younger generation can rely on it. People should have the option to have a personal account in Social Security that they can invest to get a bigger retirement income. Any money left over in their personal Social Security account should belong to them, and they should be able to leave it to their family — something they cannot do today.
• Since we have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations, we need a new program of scientific and technological change and entrepreneurial leadership to meet the environmental and energy challenges.
• We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science learning and keep reforming and innovating until the failing bureaucracies in education are replaced by systems in which young Americans learn better than their foreign competitors.
• There should be a prize for breakthroughs in the environment and for highly fuel-efficient vehicles.
• Companies that invest in cutting emissions ought to get a tax credit to accelerate lowering carbon in the atmosphere.
• Homeowners should get tax credits for modernizing their homes and reducing energy use.
• The United States could reduce the carbon going into the atmosphere by 2,200,000,000 tons a year and be 15% better than the Kyoto standard if we simply produced the same percentage of electricity from nuclear power as France does today. There should be a strong effort to develop safe, reliable, 21st-Century models of nuclear plants which could be built quickly and reliably.
• Schools should be encouraged to open each day with a moment of silent prayer so those students who want to have a chance to be reverent at the beginning of each school day can do so.
• American history should be reemphasized in both K-12 and in college, and being able to pass a basic test in American history should be a part of both high school and all publicly funded college graduation requirements.
• We should reassert and reemphasize what is written in our Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator and are unalienable, and we should insist on the constitutionality of saying “One Nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.
• The McCain-Feingold Censorship Act is unconstitutional and is a big part of why we now have destructive two-year long campaigns, and it should be repealed and replaced with a simple system of reporting all contributions every night on the Internet so everyone can see where every candidate’s support comes from.

Real Change Is Possible

The above list is just the tip of the iceberg.

America needs a continuing process of innovation and reform if we are to continue to be the most successful society in history.

Americans can insist on real change, and we have done it before. The politicians, interest groups, elite media and bureaucrats can be forced to reform by the sheer weight of the American people.

From the Amspec:

With Newt Gingrich’s group holding its Solutions Day today, specualtion is rife over wether he will jump into the presidential sweepstakes, so it’s worth taking a quick look at how his entrance might affect the race. Ultimately, I don’t think he can win the nomination given that it’s unlikely he could overcome his huge negatives to be seen as electable nationally, and Fred Thompson’s entrance into the race has already filled much of the demand for another conservative alternative. But that doesn’t mean that his entrance will not impact the race.

In March, I wrote about how a Gingrich candidacy could prod the other Republican candidates into having a more serious dialogue about the nation’s challenges. Given his historic role in the modern conservative movement, all of the other candidates are likely to be somewhat deferential to Gingrich, hoping for an endorsement.

It’s time for a little bedtime story…

The year was 1994. I was then a young man of 16; full of ambition and determination, and it was then that I first met him.

Well, it sort of went that way…

Actually, my first meeting with Newt Gingrich came when I was to have lunch with him during my two years in Georgia (the two years I spent out of the state of Tennessee). Young and ambitious? Hardly. I was a perennial screw up; drunk stoned, and dethroned- to quote the Jesus & Mary Chain. However, along with a few others, my achievements athletically led to my being selected for this rare opportunity to share lunch with the newly minted “2nd most powerful man in America.” I was completely blown away by the Speaker. To this day, he is one of the most articulate people I have ever met. I’ve met him a couple of more times and have only nice things to say about Gingrich as a person. I don’t judge his morality. I do think he has numerous issues that would be nails in his coffin, but I don’t hold his admitted affairs against him.

First of all, I don’t think he is running unless he really does raise 30 million dollars. Why? Well, first of all, it’s highly unlikely that anyone could raise 30 million dollars in one month in the current state of the GOP, and Gingrich is potentially an even tougher sell. The party is to fractured and divided, and Gingrich is not blameless in this task. In 1994, the Republicans had completely demolished any hope of a future for the democrat party. However, the 1994 election was in many ways similar to the 2006 mid-term elections and the return of the Democrat majority. Many prominent democrat officeholders were under investigation for corruption; Bill Clinton was then considered a sure one term president, and the Republicans promised America a fresh start under a banner brilliantly titled the “Contract With America.” The GOP, without the presidency and no former president still calling the shots, were led by the Contract architect, Congressman Newt Gingrich. The promise to the American people was to clean up the mess. Gingrich campaigned for GOP challengers to democratic held seats, and his gamble paid off. The Republican Party was swept into control and there was a sense of revolution in the air. These were not the same old pork barrel politicians. There were new prominent, fresh faces; “young and ambitious” new congressmen like Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Lindsay Graham, Mark Sanford, and J.C. Watts. The revolution didn’t stop in the House of Representatives, but spilled over into governors’ mansions and the Senate as well. We had new GOP governors like George Pataki of NY, Frank Keating of OK, Tom Ridge of PA, and most notably, George W. Bush of TX. In the Senate, the GOP now had fresh rising stars such as Bill Frist of TN, Jon Kyl of AZ, James Inhofe of OK, Rick Santorum of PA, and Fred Dalton Thompson of TN. These new lawmakers represented a bold change in Washington. It was the first time since 1918 that a party ran on a national platform and represented the ideals of smaller government and less federal spending. It specifically avoided social issues like abortion and school prayer, while focusing on smaller government, waste, and ultimately, reform. It was a brilliant strategy, and Clinton was surely the next target. However, things didn’t turn out they way 1994 predicted.

First, there was the resurgence of Bill Clinton’s popularity. Clinton handled a national tragedy (the Oklahoma bombing in 1995) with grace and his popularity began to recover. He relied greatly on his old advisor Dick Morris to rekindle his image and he succeeded. Morris, the apolitical, amoral strategist, advised Clinton to attack the republicans and Newt Gingrich on their cuts in areas like Medicare; an area Gingrich, who had come to believe that he was invincible, was trying to overhaul. It was a noble idea, but Gingrich was an idea man at heart, and Clinton ran circles around him repeatedly. Gingrich shut down the federal government after a stalemate over the Medicare budget. Clinton politically crippled Gingrich and Newt was forced to reopen the government, to the dismay of many of the class of 1994.

More and more of the original legislation of the contract was either compromised, abandoned, or defeated, like the term limits bill in 1994, which was to hold elected officials to term limits in the house and senate, authored by a freshman senator named Fred Thompson.

Clinton was back on his own turf, now free to work with the republicans. He won public victory after public victory, continuously handing Gingrich blow after blow. Gingrich said at the time, “I’m not a natural leader. I’m a natural intellectual gadfly.” By 1997, it was clear that many of the old guard who had remained in office were set in their ways, and there was little Gingrich could do about it. The class of 1994 ran as reformers, but they couldn’t fight the democrats and the holdovers of the GOP at the same time. By 1998, the revolution was over, though not officially dead until the 2004 midterm election. Gingrich was so weakened by 1998 that he couldn’t even lead the party during the Lewinsky scandal. By the end of that year, his own party forced him out of office. Originally, Bob Livingstone was picked to lead the party into the 2000 elections, but that idea fell through (for details, google it). Gingrich’s ultimate replacement was Dennis Hastert. Hastert, however, wasn’t the leader of the GOP. That designation went to Tom DeLay, and republicans know how he turned out. Ironically, if Dick Cheney had not been named Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in 1989, it would’ve been him and not Gingrich that was first in line for Speaker and likely leadership of the party.

So what do I think of a possible Gingrich candidacy? I would welcome him to the race. Would I jump off the Thompson train to support Gingrich? No. If Thompson failed to last the primaries would I support Gingrich? It’s a possibility. It remains to be seen if he could survive the primaries without being a dead man walking. One of the biggest problems he has is that Hillary Clinton is cruising to the nomination. Gingrich wants to bring a new attitude to the race. I’m all for it, but I doubt the current candidates research teams would play nice with him. Think the press has had a field day scrutinizing Thompson’s every move? It would be that x 10 for Gingrich. Thompson is still playing catch up in organization, learning that you can’t do the virtual campaign without campaigning on foot like the rest of the candidates. Gingrich would undoubtedly have to build a national organization, facing the same problems that plagued Thompson over the summer. Gingrich is another ideas guy who would have to organize quickly, but unlike Thompson, doesn’t have eight months to do so. In the end, it’s really not fair to him. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, campaigns didn’t start until the November preceding the election year. In the last few elections, candidates have declared earlier and earlier, to the point of ridiculousness and leading to public burnout before the primaries have even begun.

Gingrich is a lot of things, but dumb is definitely not one of them. He has gone up against the Clinton’s before and been beaten, or make that badly beaten. The dirt sheets the democrats have on Gingrich are unprecedented. He spent six years being the most hated man by the democrat party during the Clinton era. For those of you who don’t remember the 1990’s or were too young, let me put it this way, Gingrich was roughly as polarizing then as Dick Cheney is today, and much of America still remembers the public image of him quietly crafted by Clinton advisor Dick Morris. Morris is thankfully irrelevant these days, but the damage his surgical dismantling caused Gingrich has not healed, and neither has the damage Gingrich brought upon himself with his own personal behavior.

So, do I think Gingrich will run? In the end, probably not. He has set himself an incredibly high bar of 30 million in one month. He knows it’s not likely, but if he achieved it, why not! Gingrich is admittedly no fan of the current debate process, and is now subject to the same criticism Thompson has been since he declared his candidacy. Do you think Romney and Giuliani will give him a pass when he’s not at the October debates? Of course not, we’ll hear that “Newt doesn’t want to debate the other candidates.” Gingrich’s likely motivation is still to control the agenda of the GOP platform. It is no secret that there have been meetings between Thompson and Gingrich over the summer, and Gingrich has said before that he was waiting on Thompson. When asked whether Gingrich was satisfied with Fred’s candidacy so far, he said, “some good and some bad.” So what is Gingrich waiting for? Well, we’ll find out soon enough, but the Thompson campaign knows. His upcoming stragegy (which race42008 was the second newssource to break, after the Weekly Standard) will be unveiled before the end of October. The punchline… “Where were you during the Revolution of 1994?” Gingrich’s strategy, one way or another, will again be a part of the debate, with or without its architect. It is possible that his flirtation with running is meant to push Thompson towards his political ideas quickly, or he may just be itching to jump back into the national race. Either way, I welcome him back to prominence and possibly the national spotlight. Before Thompson decided that he might run, I was leaning towards Gingrich, and I’m happy to have him involved as a candidate.

What does a possible Gingrich run mean to me as an unflinching Thompson supporter? He becomes my backup candidate, along with one or two others, who I would have no problem supporting if Thompson doesn’t succeed.

From Newt Gingrich’s most recent newsletter:

You may have noticed that the media has been persistent in asking if I will run for President in 2008. I have consistently said I will not even begin thinking about such a race until after the American Solutions workshops this week.

As I detailed above, American Solutions is developing a broad set of nonpartisan solutions for all 513,000 elected officials across America. Its polls are available with equal access for Democrats, Republicans and independents. And American Solutions workshops are available for free to all citizens without regard to party affiliation. Democrats, Republicans and libertarians are giving workshops on September 29.

In short, American Solutions is not a campaign but a movement.

Because there has been so much speculation about a possible candidacy, I have asked my friend and adviser Randy Evans to consult with people after the workshops, but not before.

My most likely course of action will be to focus on creating a series of state solution programs (we had great response to the idea of a nonpartisan solutions in Michigan last weekend) and to begin preparing both for a series of bold new initiatives in developing training, education and collaborative tools on the Internet and beginning to develop a vastly larger and more comprehensive second annual American Solutions Day for September 2009.

If Randy Evans reports such overwhelming interest in a candidacy that we have to think about a different future, I will report to you promptly.

Until then, you can rest assured that I am focused on solutions and not campaigns.

The Prowler has the inside story on Dr. Dobson’s attacks on Thompson:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is examining whether or not to enter a “testing the waters” campaign phase beginning the first week of October. According to Gingrich associates, he is mulling an announcement tour that would include appearances on one major Sunday morning show next weekend, along with several Fox News shows on Monday, as well as an appearance on Dr. James Dobson’s radio show.

“It’s not a coincidence that you saw Dr. Dobson attacking Fred Thompson when he did,” says a former associate of Dobson’s. “There’s a strategy here, and it’s about clearing the way for Gingrich to get in.”

Shortly after Gingrich appeared on Dobson’s radio show earlier this year and poured his heart our to Dobson, who forgave him for past personal indiscretions, Dobson attacked Thompson for not being — in Dobson’s view — a Christian. That attack was interpreted by many to be Dobson’s attempt to deflate what was then growing support for Thompson within the social conservative movement.

Last week, Dobson again attacked Thompson by leaking an email to the Associated Press slamming the former Tennessee Senator who currently sits second in most national polls. Across the south, he generally holds the top position. Most recently, the Mason Dixon poll in Florida had Thompson within the margin of error of top dog Rudy Giuliani.

According to other Gingrich associates, their man had held off any plans for entering the race until seeing how well Thompson’s launch would proceed. “In Newt’s eyes, it’s been mixed. Some good, some bad. But what he’s been looking for are details and ideas from Thompson, many of which he’s shared with him, but there’s been nothing, no specifics,” says another adviser. “Newt still sees an opening.”

The “testing the waters” process would allow Gingrich to raise some funds over a short period of time (the FEC generally assumes a period of no more than four months, and usually not more than five million or so dollars). Gingrich last week stated that he wouldn’t run unless there was a certainty of about $30 million.

According to Gingrich insiders, the former Speaker of the House has kept his fundraising network largely intact and on the sidelines during the campaign fundraising cycle, and believes he could easily raise between $10 and $15 million in the month of October.

Update: Former GOP Candidate in 2000 and president of American Values Gary Bauer is not happy with Dr. Dobson or his email.

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer stupidity of so many fellow republicans, especially those that hold or have held office after campaigns based on conservative principles, that lack the courage of their convictions to aggressively advocate their beliefs to the unconvinced.

The disgraceful refusal of the top tier in polls of our would be champions for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination to attend a debate targeting minority issues is a case in point.

Given our party’s undeserved low vote percentages from Blacks, and the supposed difficulty of getting our message to break thru the MSM lib-dem din, one would think that when the msm offers TV air time, specifically to let us get our message to Blacks, that we would leap at the opportunity to speak to a captive audience.

Not Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain.

Three of the four leading Republican presidential candidates turned down invitations to a PBS debate this month at a historically black college in Baltimore, leading moderator Tavis Smiley on Thursday to accuse them of ignoring minority voters.

But at least some of our guys will show up:

The four leading contenders, Rudolph W. Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, have each said they will not participate in the forum focusing on issues facing minority voters. Their absence has drawn the ire of Tavis Smiley, the talk-show host who is moderating and organizing the debate at Morgan State University; he said the candidates are making a mistake in not reaching out to black voters.

A list of confirmed participants released yesterday also omits Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a staunch opponent of current immigration policy. Confirmed are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Alan L. Keyes of Maryland, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, organizers said./blockquote>

I join President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent republicans in strongly urging the no-shows to attend and take on PC liberal condescension the democrats showed when they appeared at a similar forum weeks ago.

If for no other reason, they should show up just to promise they won’t do a “Joe Biden” tour of black neighborhoods purporting to teach them that wearing a condom is not manly!

And while they are there, they might even consider treating blacks as equals and advocate policies that treat them as equals and ask them how long they are going to sit silently as white liberal democrats treat them like children.

I have rightly lambasted the dems for refusing to debate on Fox News Channel as evidence they fear Brit Hume.

Do we fear Tavis Smiley?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/

Newt Gingrich is calling for a clean break with the current national Republican establishment, as well as with the Bush White House. The former Speaker joins a growing number of Republicans and conservatives who are attempting to tear asunder the cocoon that seems to envelop the GOP base these days.

About ten years ago, while sitting in my dorm room during my undergrad days, simultaneously reading Locke and watching the late-night political talk show, Politically Incorrect, conservative talking head Dinesh D’Souza made a statement about the coming presidential election in 2000 that struck a chord with me and that has remained a part of my political psyche ever since. Unfortunately, there was no YouTube at the time to capture this moment, but the gist of D’Souza’s statement was that Al Gore, like Bill Clinton, was a New Democrat, one that had moved beyond the hope for a revived FDR coalition and had accepted the changes that had taken place in the American economy and in American society that disallowed a return to New Deal era politics. Bill Clinton’s victory in 1996, said D’Souza, showed that a New Democrat could beat an Old Republican. In 2000, said D’Souza, Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush, who seemed poised to move beyond the battles of the ’80s, would demonstrate whether or not a New Republican can beat a New Democrat.

A decade later, I no longer have the luxury of being able to stay up until the wee hours of the night, munching on cold pizza and watching political schmack while debating whether or not I should go to class in the morning. But while we’ve all changed in the past ten years, the political dynamics of the nation have not. We are once again entering an era where a new type of Republican is needed to defeat the New Democrats: a combination of DLCesque centrists, like Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton, and populist “red-state Democrats” like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. The latter are socially moderate and fiscally populist, while the former are fiscally prudent and socially liberal. Together, they routed the GOP in 2006 and will win again next year if a new grassroots movement doesn’t move the Republican Party forward into the 21st Century on domestic issues.

As I have pointed out, and as several readers have echoed, the GOP is stuck in the past on domestic issues. I would argue that the GWOT has consumed so much of the GOP’s energy in the past six years that the party is effectively stuck on 9/10/01 on domestic issues. The president’s compassionate conservatism, which was supposed to be a way of marrying fiscal prudence and low taxes with market-based government services in areas like education and health care, got put on the back burner after 9/11. The result has been a Republican domestic record that has consisted almost entirely of failures, with the bloated Medicare bill promising to bust future budgets, a Social Security reform that was ill-conceived and got nowhere fast, and a series of “reforms” that were simply Potemkin measures to shovel billions upon billions of taxpayers’ dollars into the coffers of special interests. And then we wonder why Americans trust the Democrats more on every single domestic issue.

Yet the GOP base doesn’t seem at all interested in learning how to move forward. Instead, Republicans seem perfectly happy to engage in a good, old-fashioned, left v. right primary fight that totally ignores the broader concerns of Middle America. Republicans want to party like it’s 1989 as they fight over guns, abortion, and religiosity while promising to solve all of America’s ills with more tax cuts (or tax cuts by any other name). No one loves Reagan more than me. But it’s been nearly two decades since Reagan left the White House. The issues have changed because the world has changed, and it’s time for the party to change.

Many will interpret this as a call for the party to move leftward. They shouldn’t. In fact, this likely misinterpretation that will almost certainly appear in the comments section is just another example of the degree to which Republicans are still unaware that it doesn’t matter how much we move left or right if we aren’t willing to move forward. Nowhere is this more clear than in the fledgling race for John Warner’s Senate seat in Virginia. Mark Warner epitomizes the New Democrat of the 21st Century. Republicans, however, are planning to fight to the death over two candidates — a liberal and a conservative — who both lose to Warner by double digits. Republicans want to rehash the same old issues just one more time. What they don’t seem willing to do is accept the fact that Americans have moved beyond those issues and nominate a Republican like, say, Rep. Eric Cantor, who knows how to win white collar, suburban voters in a high-growth area while still functioning as a conservative. Cantor is cut from the same cloth as popular Republican governors like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty and Alaska’s Sarah Palin. These are 21st Century Republicans who are no longer mired in the debates of the 1980s and 1990s. They understand the demands of a 21st Century America and respond to those demands in a conservative way. And they are the future of the Republican Party, though if the Republican Party is to have a future at all, it’s going to require an influx of new voters who will move the party forward kicking and screaming, even as the regulars continue to engage in a shouting match over every divisive issue of the past 40 years.

But back to Newt. I believe that Newt is supremely unelectable, but I welcome him into the race, as he’s the only major candidate who seems to understand what it takes to move forward. This is troubling, as all of our top tier candidates have the potential to make the same argument. Rudy, Romney, and McCain all began this race well positioned to run a Sarkozy-style campaign and call both the GOP establishment and the Democrats on their respective crap. But the GOP base is a particularly intimidating Inquisitor. By Labor Day of ‘07, Rudy had been transformed into Milton Friedman on economics and Jack Bauer on terrorism while Romney had morphed into Rick Santorum on social issues. None of those stances really represents the big leap forward Republicans need in order to beat a New Democrat in 2008. This race will largely be decided by moderate voters in the Midwest and border states. Those voters like balanced budgets and low taxes, but they also want health care and more investment in education. A Forbesian campaign on economics will not appeal to them. Similarly, these voters prefer an understated cultural conservative like John Engler or Tommy Thompson. A proactive social conservative like Santorum gets obliterated in a moderate state like Pennsylvania, which is why Romney’s move to the right on culture has been so much overkill in my view. Meanwhile, McCain purposely attempted to take ownership of Iraq to prove himself to the base, and his campaign now lies in ruin. Fred Thompson came in with a real opportunity to run a McCain 2000 sort of campaign and, unlike McCain, could have used his southern-ness to cover for his secular habits that killed McCain among conservative Christians in South Carolina. But Thompson seems to be perpetually running on empty and seems to stand for conservative nostalgia more than anything. Again, looking back is not going to win this race. Moving forward will. Ironically, it may take a few years of President Hillary Clinton to send a swarm of new voters into the GOP who will break the stranglehold of the Bush base on the party apparatus and who will begin a new grassroots movement that will bring forth more Cantors and fewer Gilmores and Davises.

Brody File has the story:

This morning in Washington, Newt Gingrich gathered with a handful of national reporters for a discussion about his new venture called “American Solutions” and to wax poetic about everything from whether or not he’ll run for President to the current crop of presidential candidates.

Gingrich says that starting next Sunday (September 30th) he’ll have his staff start to inquire whether there’s enough support out there for him to run. More specifically, Gingrich says if he can get 30 million dollars in pledges, then he says it’ll be hard to say no. He says he’s concerned about Mitt Romney writing a huge check so he needs major money to be competitive. If he does run, he thinks he’ll do some sort of “national Television address” and he’ll only take part in debates if they are one on one, 90 minutes long where he can debate a Republican or a Democrat. He doesn’t like the current squeezed format and says, “I’m not a penguin”

From the Prince, himself:

Fred Thompson’s decision to announce his presidential candidacy with a video was suggested by Newt Gingrich, who is considered a possible contender himself.

Former House Speaker Gingrich has indicated he will run only if Thompson does not or his late-starting campaign crashes and burns. Actor-politician Thompson plans to follow the model of Democrat Hillary Clinton by launching his campaign with a video, followed by a fly-around to several cities.

Gingrich has expressed contempt for becoming one of many announced Republican candidates at crowded debates. Thompson has decided to be one of many at the Sept. 27 debate at Baltimore’s Morgan State University.

Michael Barone interviews Speaker Newt Gingrich.

According to MSNBC’s First Read, Newt Gingrich will decide in October whether or not to jump in the GOP race for President. What will help him make his decision?

Gingrich said the response he receives from the Web forum will be a determining factor in his decision to wade into presidential politics. “After that I’ll look at the race.” Gingrich said… he would consider a presidential run only if there “was a large enough vacuum…large enough demand” from the public.

As most of you know, Newt Gingrich has been in contact with Fred Thompson, and Newt has now confirmed this. Some might ignore it, or brush it off, but a Gingrich endorsement still carries weight. See what former senator and GOP nominee Bob Dole had to say a couple of days ago, via Bloomberg:

Bob Dole says his preferred presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, is fading and that his support is likely to be “picked up” by Fred Thompson, who is expected to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in September.

It has been reported on every major news outlet that Gingrich has been aiding the Thompson team, and been involved with policy discussion. He is leaving the door open for his own possible run, but only if Thompson fails to hold his traction in the polls, according to earlier reports.

from ABC:

ABC News’ Tahman Bradley Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich R-Ga., confirmed that he and his wife Calista recently had dinner with Republican presidential-candidate-in-waiting Fred Thompson and his wife Jeri.

“Yes, we had a very nice dinner with Jerri and Fred?,” Gingrich said Sunday in an interview on Fox News.

Gingrich did not answer a question about whether he would endorse Thompson if and when the former Tennessee senator enters the race, but said he believes Thompson will be “a very formidable candidate” in a Republican presidential field that features several strong candidates.

Don’t forget that former Gingrich aide Rich Galen has signed on with Thompson as well. If the Thompson run fails, wanna take a wild guess where at least 20 of his 25% support goes? Here’s a thought…. it would split, with Gingrich picking up the southern loyalists and the majority, and the rest likely going back to Rudy Giuliani, unless he declares full out war with Thompson this early in the game, which would alienate the large number of staunch Thompson backers. Remember that it is Giuliani who has gone from near 40% to 24% since Fred spoke of a possible run, and it is quite likely much of that support would trend back, or to Newt. So in reality, Fred is a win-win situation for Rudy. Granted, Rudy has to fight off Thompson for the nomination, but if Thompson failed, he would be a beneficiary, along with Gingrich. And before you bring up all of Newt’s baggage, let me leave you with a quote from none other than Ronald Reagan, from Robert Novak’s fascinating autobiography, ‘The Prince of Darkness’:

“After my marriage (to Jane Wyman) broke up, Reagan said, I tried to go to bed with every starlet in Hollywood. [Reagan paused and smiled] And I damn near succeeded. That was before I met Nancy.”
- Robert Novak: The Prince of Darkness, p. 270

Gosh, where have I heard something that sounds very similar to that and is being scrutinized by some? Now, I not only bring this up to refer to the comments on Thompson’s trophy wife and bachelor life during the 1990’s. I bring this up because some have been quick to scrutinize the private lives of Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich as well. Who are we to criticize failed marriages? Before anybody claims moral superiority, let’s remember who every candidate constantly likes to remind us of. Would you have been as judgemental of Reagan in 1980 if that quote was leaked to the press? If today’s media had covered politics back then and our candidates attacked each others personal lives, we probably would’ve had two terms of Jimmy the Peanut Carter, if 1980 had our partisan atmosphere. Maybe that’s something we should think about.

I have refrained for posting about this, as I had no confirmation besides internal sources, but have known this for a while, and have given a few subtle hints. Gingrich has been involved in Thompson’s policy briefings lately.

From Politico:

Newt Gingrich’s long, slow striptease over whether he will seek the presidency in 2008 looks like it might come to an unexpected conclusion: a date with Fred Thompson.

Publicly, Gingrich has been sending signals making clear that a presidential candidacy for him is becoming less likely. Privately, he and some of his closest advisers have been meeting with — and, in at least one prominent case, going to work for — the lobbyist-actor and former Tennessee senator.

The same day that Gingrich made his comments, his former communications director, Rich Galen, disclosed that he had signed on as an adviser to Thompson’s campaign in waiting. In an interview, Galen termed the coincidence “an unfortunate confluence of events,” denying that there was any link.

But that was not the only evidence of a possible Thompson-Gingrich alliance in 2008. Gingrich and his wife, Calista, had dinner with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, at the former senator’s home in McLean, Va., on July 16, according to two Republican sources close to both men. A Thompson aide would say only that “a good policy discussion” was had over the meal.

If a Gingrich endorsement of Thompson happens, it probably won’t be until at least October. For one thing, Thompson isn’t likely to formally announce his candidacy until after Labor Day. But Gingrich has also said repeatedly that he would hold off any decision until after he marks the 13th anniversary of the Contract With America — the manifesto that spurred the GOP takeover of the House in 1994 — by holding an online policy seminar in late September.

From the AP:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that a White House bid by fellow Southerner Fred Thompson would make him less likely to join the race.

“If Fred Thompson runs and he does well, then I think that makes it easier for me to not run,” Gingrich said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “On the other hand, just given what you’ve seen with (John) McCain the last few months, how can you predict?”

Gingrich, a Republican who in recent months has been actively promoting his ideas for reforming government, reiterated that he would wait until early October to make a decision.

He has at times offered conflicting hints about his plans.

In May, he said “it is a great possibility” that he would pursue the presidency. But a month later he said the probability was “4-to-1 odds” against.

In a related development, Rich Galen, a former top aide to Gingrich, will become a top adviser to Thompson, the former Republican Tennessee senator who is likely to officially enter the presidential race in September.

I have always felt fairly confident that Newt was going to enter the race due to the signals he has sent out such as the Cooper Union conference and his upcoming event that is slated to occur on the anniversary of the unveiling of the Contract with America in September.

However, FDT’s campaign seems to be unfolding in much the way that hopefuls envisioned Newt’s would (being viewed as the conservative alternative, a prolonged draft phase, etc…)

With Thompson to enter the race with considerable resources and momentum, how much room would be left for Newt’s candidacy?

As I’m on way out the door headed for Thompson Central in Nashville, Newt is quietly telling GOP insiders what I predicted he’d wait on, according to the Prince of Darkness himself, Novak:

Newt Gingrich is telling Republican insiders that his decision in September whether to run for President in 2008 depends on the progress of Fred Thompson?s imminent candidacy.
If Thompson runs a vigorous and effective campaign, Gingrich says privately, he probably will not get in the race himself. If Thompson proves a dud, however, the former House speaker will seriously consider making a run. That implies that the others in the field look to Gingrich like losers in the general election.

Pretty tough words from the man with the plan. Have a great day.

I’ve been thinking about doing this exact thing myself, actually — “this” being what I found on pollster.com this afternoon: statistical graphs of support for the candidates, state-by-state.

“This” is different (and better, IMO) than what RCP does because it uses statistical models to draw trend lines through data sets, instead of simply taking the mean of all the poll numbers together. (Everyone remember their Stats 1000 or 2000 level class from college?) Basically what it means is a program plots all the data points (percentages in recent polls by dates in chronological order), then adjusts for outliers, determines the natural trends, and draws a trend line.

Pollster.com now has up their graphs for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida (along with one for Nevada, but there aren’t enough data points to determine a trend there yet). Here they are, for your viewing enjoyment. They should give one of the most realistic looks at the state of each early primary, and there are hundreds of things you can analyze on them, so have fun!

(More below the fold…)
(more…)

I don’t know if this officially qualifies as a campaign ad, but it’s the latest from Camp Gingrich. Check out Newt’s new ad:

Rudy Giuliani

• Giuliani Meets With Israel’s Olmert
• Most Experienced Presidential Candidates
• Giuliani campaign moving into Lisle
• Rudy Eyes a Sweet $16M
• America’s Most Appealing Candidates