In June, after his top advisers bolted, Newt Gingrich was supposed to be finished. Four months later, after a series of sharp debates, his poll numbers are climbing and his coffers are stuffed. Behind the scenes, his aides aim to capitalize on the resurrection.
“There is plenty of room,” says R. C. Hammond, the campaign spokesman. He bets that by early January, when New Hampshire and Iowa are blanketed by snow, Gingrich’s “tortoise” campaign will inch ahead.
That optimism is backed up by cash, Hammond says. In the past week, the campaign has raised more money — nearly $200,000 — than it collected in July, the month the campaign nearly collapsed. The capital infusion has enabled Gingrich to hire early-state staffers, such as tea-party leader Andrew Hemingway in New Hampshire, and produce a slew of Web videos.
Advertisement
It is also erasing, albeit slowly, what has been a looming problem: the campaign’s debts. According to federal election filings, Gingrich reported over $1 million in debts through September 30, a figure nearly identical to when his initial senior team departed.
In presidential politics, such a hole can knock you out of the race; debt was, for example, a major factor in Tim Pawlenty’s withdrawal. Gingrich’s campaign has endured, Hammond says, by subsisting on the approximately $800,000 it has raised since July.
Gingrich’s inner circle, once a high-profile coterie of wonks and politicos dubbed “Newt Inc.,” was pared down. In recent months, only a handful of loyalists have remained on payroll, and they often work from home to save on expenses.
At one point, when prospects were dim, staffers shared a couple of Verizon wireless cards for their laptops, in order to avoid paying for office-wide Internet service.
Gingrich, for his part, has not flown on chartered aircraft since May, taking commercial flights to Des Moines and Manchester from his home in northern Virginia. He often travels with a lone staffer, if that. On the ground, grassroots activists are coordinating volunteers.
With about $500,000 in the bank, “we’ve been running lean,” Hammond says, and with much of the race centered on the debates, “that’s been the focus.”
Indeed, with dwindling funds, the campaign never attempted to engineer any grand comeback strategy, even when things were bleak and closing shop remained a distinct possibility. The immediate goal was surviving.
During a normal week, Gingrich would appear at events — maybe a speech in Iowa and another in South Carolina — but he would never spend weeks on the trail, burning cash. The little things that lead to strong debates — reviewing news items and making sure Gingrich had a Diet Coke before he went on stage — became priorities for his aides.
Back home in Virginia, Gingrich would, for the most part, keep quiet, in order to save money. Attending the next cattle call or debate was important, but unrelated political events and other potential commitments were axed from the schedule. His press load was lightened, with few interviews granted beyond Fox News and friendly radio outlets in primary states or the occasional Sunday-morning talk program.
When not on the phone with Amy Pass, his top money raiser, about fresh leads, he’d map his updated “Contract with America,” call close friends, and eye how “Lean Six Sigma,” a waste-reduction program popular with corporations, could be implemented within the federal government. He’d read and write history, taking notes about potential stories to weave into his public remarks or debate rhetoric.
Personally, I like Gingrich. In many occasions, he has shown to be the only one with the rare combination of three things--knowledge of the issues, debating skills, and fire in the belly.
When I imagine any of the candidates debating Obama, I sense that Newt is the one who can do so with the most effectiveness. I will never forget how he dressed down an MSNBC reporter over Palin's supposed lack of experience--taking the fight directly to the incompetence of Obama.
There were a couple big gaffes, to be sure--personal and political. But somehow, I prefer him to Romney, who always appears stilted, tepid and artificial, or to Cain, who, in spite of some great ideas and a likeable style, has never given me the impression of being a man of great political substance.
Perry has shown abysmal debating skills, a marginal knowledge of the issues, and outright petulance on several occasions (and I am yet to forgive his stance on illegal immigration). Bachmann I've stopped taking seriously the fiftieth time she has mentioned her 23 foster children. The others are just white noise.
The former speaker is my pick for the "non-Romney" slot. Or at least he is at the moment.
V...I will second your point that I also personally like Gingrich, and the more relevant point that he would generally win on points against Obama in a debate. And I realize that this seems (is?) important to the general perceptions of the Republican primary electorate, and even more so to the political geeks & pundits. Gingrich is one person who I would generally trust to draft the political platform for 2012, over anyone else on stage, and even the flavor of the month crowd.
However, Newt does have two intrinsic problems, that combined with no staff, no money and a following that remains at 10% or less, indicates that he will not be our candidate. The first problem is that Newt's attraction is cerebral and ideological, and is not grounded in a subjective likeability and trust. Secondly, as a natural consequence of the first problem, combined with Newt's established persona as a Fox talking head and member of the conservative intelligentsia, his run does not have the ring of authenticity to many. He comes across as a really bright and articulate professor, someone who acts as the debate "hall monitor", but not someone who really wants to be CIC.
I share your apparent reservations (and then some) about Romney (worst choice to me) and Cain (a new policy issue every day/week it seems), and Perry, but of those three, I find your criticism of Perry to be the least compelling. Slick debate performances do not translate into leadership and the movement of a genuine conservative agenda forward as POTUS. Certainly not in the case of this particular group of candidates, as most pundits have given Romney the nod on points in every debate. I wish your only valid (IMHO) criticism of Perry (in state tuition, immigration & 10th amendment) got more legitimate discussion here at NRO. It is a valid concern that should be discussed, but if debate scores and in state tuition are the strongest arguments against Perry people can muster, then our side is in pretty sad shape. I welcome an open debate on the question of who can and will do the best job as President, not who gives the best performance on stage. Votre reponse?
Touche' on my points (or non-points) on Perry. Truth is, I want to like the man. He was my governor for a few years while I lived in TX, and the positive things I remember about him far outweigh the negative. However, once on the National stage, he gave my confidence in him three noteworthy blows.
1 - His Pontius-Pilate stance on NY adopting gay marriage. On one hand, I could take solace in his laissez-faire stance concerning another state's decision; but at the time, I took this as an alarming sign of naive disregard for his base.
2 - His quip about heartlessness concerning illegal immigration. The National question is a hot-button issue for me, and I was greatly disappointed at his trotting out this cheap populist stance.
3 - His noticeable awkwardness and occasional petulance on stage.
Of these three points, I find the second to be the most egregious. The first, alone, I could easily overlook, were it not for the fact that it suggests to me (at best) a curious disregard for his base so early in the game--ergo, some inexplicable immaturity for the National stage.
The third point I could also forgive in a *president,* but it does alarm me greatly in a presidential *candidate.* If Perry handles himself so awkwardly in the friendly fire of a primary, I am less than confident that he would do any better against Obama. And, like it or not, debates do sway voters.
I want to like Perry--but as of yet, he is not giving me too many reasons to be enthusiastic about him. I hope this will change in the coming months.
Fueled by rhetoric? Gingrich has a strong public record he can run on as the former speaker of the House and the main leader of the Republican Revolution that took over Congress in 1994. There is only one candidate in this race who is running on rhetoric and rhetoric only because he has no public record to run on and that is Herman Cain.
Campaign cash means nothing to me or a lot of other people. We get our news from the web. I'm all for Newt, just as I'm all for Cain or Perry or Bachman. What I want is a leader who can explain CLEARLY to the public, on air, and in Obama's face, exactly what Obama really is and does to this country. "You lie" was giant and resounding. More, please!
Resurrection to what purpose? Does anyone - including Gingrich - think he stands even a 5 percent chance to be the nominee, much less the next president? Or is this whole campaign part of Newt's need to sell books, increase his speaking fees and re-up with Fox News?
Actually, he's rising in most polls and easily wins each debate (regardless of what the MSM pundits say). He has experience in limited government and is perhaps the most intelligent of the candidates. I'm not saying he will win. But you are incorrect to assume he can't win.
Newt's "coffers are full" after raising $200,000? Romney and Perry are raising tens of millions.
Gingrich has a better understanding of the important issues than any other candidate, including the incumbent. However, his shortcomings are in his personality. I do not trust him with power.
Newt will go nowhere until he issues some form of mea culpa for his less-than-conservative moments (e.g. his man-made global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi).
That he hasn't bothered to do so suggests to me that either he isn't terribly conservative on some key points or that his run for the Presidency is about something else rather than winning.
Agreed. He also needs a mea culpa on his personal life, and on his dumb comment regarding the Ryan medicare reforms (basically, a Ralph Kramden-style "I've got a BIG MOUTH" would be a sufficient mea culpa for the latter). One nice mea culpa speech, plus one uncomfortable news cycle on the subjects of the mea culpa, and NG might really start to take off. Voters are pretty foregiving, and Republicans are pretty hot for a credible conservative alternative to Romney. I sure am.
I'm afraid our desperation is causing us to wish for a Newt who doesn't exist. He is a lying hypocrite -- no way around that -- and a loose cannon as well. He cannot be depended upon. Impressive though he may be, wishful though we may be, Newt is Newt. No way is no way.
Do you remember newt telling his wife that he could do whatever he wanted because people didn't care about what he did only what he said...if Newt were ever the candidate, which he won't be, his personal life and emotional debilities will be torn apart and he will be laughed off the stage he so desperately desires. I'm an Independent and will never vote for Obama again - if Gingrich is the candidate, I won't vote at all...he is simply not to be trusted; he has no core values or principles - as for being brilliant - this puzzles me. Charles Krauthammer would leave Gingrinch behind in a debate...Gingrich has spent his life thinking up 'ideas' while trashing his wives, lying, cheating - etc. We want men and women of honor and of character - not just those with ideas who think they are so brilliant that they can get away with sleazy behavior.
Follow
