Columbia, S.C. — As Newt Gingrich toured the Palmetto State this week, holding four town-hall meetings, national headlines focused on his stray comments about Mitt Romney. But on the ground, it was Gingrich’s well-informed takes on state issues, from labor policy to immigration, that drew interest — and stirred applause at Tommy’s Ham House in Greenville and at the Sottile Theatre in Charleston.
“All politics is local,” of course, is a familiar axiom. Every politician caters to the hometown crowd. But as the winter primaries near, Mitt Romney should take note: Gingrich’s eagerness to discuss state concerns, and make data-driven arguments, is bolstering the former speaker. He may not have Romney’s organizational strength, but when it comes to wooing undecided voters, Gingrich’s knowledge is power.
Advertisement
At recent events, Gingrich has spoken extemporaneously, often for an hour, taking questions from attendees and bantering with locals. In South Carolina, he won rave reviews for this approach. All of the head nods, however, were more than a response to Gingrich’s well-organized presentations. Watching the crowds, one saw that Gingrich’s substance on regional issues was crucial to his success.
During stops in Charleston and Bluffton, for example, Gingrich’s command on seaport policy, an arcane topic within the Beltway, was largely ignored by campaign reporters. But South Carolina Republicans noticed. They cheered when Gingrich pledged to help “modernize” the state’s ports, which, residents say, need to be deepened in order to sustain the state’s competitiveness, not only globally but also with neighboring Georgia, which has decided to dredge the Savannah River.
How he made this point was striking. A former college professor, Gingrich used his understanding to detail his own solutions and simultaneously showcase his grasp of the changing shipping economy. He addressed the port’s key commercial challenge — accommodating supertankers, which will be arriving to Charleston in droves after the Panama Canal expands — with ease and, more notably, statistics.
Standing up on stage, his arms outstretched, Gingrich empathized with South Carolina’s economic situation, and went beyond conventional talking points, blending his energy platform with city politics and growing complaints about federal inaction. To an outsider’s ear, Gingrich’s state-related rhetoric could be incomprehensible, full of terms rarely heard on cable news. Yet it clicked with those he was looking to reach.
“There’s 29 billion dollars’ worth of natural gas offshore,” Gingrich said in Charleston, offering drilling as a potential revenue boost for the ports. He explained, “I’d like to see it developed, with 50 percent of the resources going to the federal government, 37.5 percent going to the state government here, and 12.5 percent going to infrastructure and to the development of land conservation,” including ample funds for port renovation.
Sources close to Gingrich tell me that this über-local, studied routine is not a recent project but an important campaign strategy. When many of Gingrich’s senior political advisers resigned in July, the candidate was forced to rethink his candidacy. Battling the Washington press corps during debates, a widely discussed Gingrich maneuver, became one of his chief focuses. The second focus, less mentioned, was his commitment to run a “positive, solutions-oriented campaign,” and he told his team to keep prepping him on myriad issues, local and national, in case he surged.
Now, after months of quietly rebuilding his political team, Gingrich reenters the limelight ready to tangle with Romney, to be sure, but also ready to assert himself as the “non-establishment” contender, as the Republican who can connect with Main Street voters in small towns. For Gingrich, a multimillionaire consultant, to make this convincing, he needs to sound convincing. So far, campaign sources believe he is succeeding. They’re pleased with the South Carolina swing. While Romney is producing videos about President Obama, and doing few retail events, Gingrich is wowing them on seaports.
Re: "Pumped fists and claps ensued. Same for when Gingrich cited his port-funding solutions.
Wait a second. What Gingrich was proposing was a Federalized Crony-Capitalist solution.
Of course there were pumped fists and applause. Because Newt is already picking winners (Charleston) and implicitly losers, (Norfolk, Baltimore, Philadelphia, etc.) You think Pennsylvanians would have pumped their fists if the event had been simulcast to Philly?
And who owns off-shore mineral rights anyway? President Newt will just be able to do an economic allocation based on his whim? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
It's important to understand the subtext of the Fat Reptile's inferences. He the all wise one, wants to make decisions from Washington. Only because he's smarter than anybody else, it's all right.
BTW, Ron Paul would just ensure the petroleum companies were given reasonable access to drilling sites and then let the economic value play out on its own.
It's not unreasonable at all for the state to get a portion of the revenues for offshore drilling. After all, that state is the one that is bearing much of the risk of a spill.
Haha - getting a little grumpy? I don't blame you - your guy has spent 3 years proving he's completely clueless, and Newt is starting to establish some pretty formidable momentum - based, unlike your guy, upon his knowledge and understanding of a wide range of issues.
This is why conservatives - even if repulsed by his personal foibles - are rallying to his campaign. It is the supreme confidence that Obama couldn't possibly be conversant on many issues, given his lack of work ethic, and Gingrich will expose it.
What concerns me about Newt is his penchant for grand schemes. Notice that his local issue solutions always involve the federal government dispensing rights for a particular local cause. I wish he'd speak more to the principle of less government across the board, otherwise he seems to be simply pandering for votes using local issues. I get nervous when he talks so excitedly, as he did on Hannity, about his centralized federally run Health Information Technology system. This is not limiting government, but rather enlarging it in different areas. And, as Newt said, foolishly in response to Ryan's budget plan, right-wing engineering is just as bad as left-wing engineering! Please, Newt, realize that the best solutions evolve over time when they emanate from local sources. Love your brain, but please focus your vast intellect on how to skillfully talk people into less government when they've been bred to expect so much from politicians at the expense of confidence in local wisdom.
What are you writing about? He's speaking about a defense contract, a port, and off shore drilling. Those are all federal issues. That is areas of shared responsiblity between Federal, State and local government.
The Port of Charleston is not on some local lake. If the Governor and legislature and local goverments want to go forward it is good to know an administration in Washington would be supportive. Newt's saying his administration would be that type of administration.
Why would a person seeking a federal office speak about a local issue that did not have a federal dimension?
Appreciate your good points. Help me think this out. My view is that if the issue is clearly defense related, the fed calls the shots. Outside that, I don't want fed influence so great as to move beyond what you call "supportive". Fed power has extended so far into everyday state and local jurisdictions that both kinds of entities just pass the buck of responsibility and decision making up the food chain in order to receive funding (with strings attached). This is unhealthy for a govt system based in bottom up governance. I like Newt, but want him to use his communication and policy powers to return power down the chain. I'm just concerned he will fall into a trap of being heroic instead of supportive. Loved Reagan, but loved Coolidge's hands off approach even better. Somehow, we have to return responsibility back to people starting at local level for most things. Hard to believe we didn't have an FDA until FDR. Somehow all the kosher butchers, self regulatory organizations and vigilant families were able to provide food safely to tables without the fed govt. Wouldn't start with disbanding the FDA, but we need a Prez who can help conservatives begin the difficult task of dismantling much of the fed govt. I see great hope in Newt, but do his philosophical roots run deep enough to skillfully begin the weaning process. I hope so.
Ellen has it right. The Obama response would be to find excuses to not dredge the port (perhaps an environmental impact study?), shut down all off shore drilling, and sue the Boeing company to prevent them from building airplanes in a non-union plant.
wherethefigari - "centralized federally run Health Information Technology system. This is not limiting government, but rather enlarging it in different areas."
It is already up and running in the health care world - all doctors, hospitals, clinics must have the ability to send all of your health information to the Federal govt.
I, too have noticed that, even when apparently returning authority to the states, Newt proposes dispensing it from the Federal government, rather than simply letting go.
Because he's almost as smart as he thinks he is, he needs to resist the temptation (Hayek's fatal conceit) that it's OK to legislate "X" from the federal government, because he'll get it right.
If Newt can show that he's truly learned the lesson of Federalism and really intends to devolve power back to the states by letting go of things, then he will win in a landslide.
I really wonder if his personality rehabilitation has been strategic or a genuine softening and maturing. Either way, he's turned his image around like no one ever has... except maybe two people. Here's a case that there are two precedents: Hillary and Nixon. External Link
“It just so happens that the issues negatively affecting South Carolina these days have so much to do with the failure of President Obama’s policies.”
You can substitute any of the other 49 in that sentence. President Obama and his administration is any Republican candidate's best weapon, and Newt's focus on that is why he is surging.
Most of us aren't looking for the "anti-Romney", we're looking for the most fearless and articulate anti-Obama. Looks like Newt.
Gingrich really IS what Obama supporters claim of Obama: he IS the "smartest guy in the room". He is also the consummate Washington insider, and not a believer in small government. He is no "conservative" in the classical sense, and he certainly will not appeal to the Religious Right or the Tea Party true believers. At least Gingrich will not likely waste time trying to pander to either group, which have far too much weight in GOP politics.
It is funny to see "conservatives" rushing to support Gingrich, primarily because they see him as a real threat to Obama. But he may not be that big a threat to Obama. Both are statists, differing only in which groups they pander to. Obama can credibly claim to be a Populist, whereas Gingrich clearly cannot credibly make this claim (I mean, the guy was a highly-paid lobbyist). Where they will differ is on policy proposals. The general electorate will not be enraptured by policy wonkism; as usual, the voters will filter policy arguments through one litmus paper: "how will that affect me?"
If Gingrich is elected--which I doubt will occur--he may be a very divisive and unpopular President.