Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich's latest charge against Doug Hoffman is ---egads--he doesn't live within the 23rd District.

It's about 10 minutes through thinly populated mountains from Hoffman's Lake Placid home (in the 20th District) to his Saranac Lake HQ.  It's not like he lives in another part of the state; it's just Essex County got bisected in the 2002 redistricting.

Why this is a bizarre charge for Gingrich to make is he himself ran in a district he didn't live in; and based on my knowledge of Georgia geography, was about an hour from where he lived when he filed for election.   

During the 1990s round of redistricting, Georgia picked up an additional seat as a result of the 1990 United States Census. However, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly dismantled Gingrich's old district, which stretched from the southern suburbs of Atlanta to the Alabama border. Gingrich's home in Carrollton was drawn into the Columbus-based 3rd District, represented by five-term Democrat Richard Ray.

At the same time, the Assembly created a new 6th District in Fulton and Cobb counties in the wealthy northern suburbs of Atlanta — an area Gingrich had never represented. However, Gingrich sold his home in Carrollton, moved to Marietta in the new 6th and won a very close Republican primary. The primary victory was tantamount to election in the new, heavily Republican district. Also, Ray narrowly lost to Republican state senator Mac Collins.

Evidently, Newt thought his continued service in Congress was more valuable than electing a Cobb County native to the House. The voters agreed, although I recall Newt's relocation was not met with universal approval from his new constituents.

If Newt has a credible excuse for his Beltway brain freeze, he's yet to provide it.  The fact creative cartography divided parts of the Adirondacks sure isn't one of them. 

I'm sure many people here did too.  It was a fundraising letter on behalf of the NRCC.  I"m sure you also realize that there is a lot of buzz on our side of the aisle when it comes to the 2010 elections.  In short, people are pumped up and excited about voting the Dems (and RINOs) out of office.  Republicans have a real shot at capturing back the House.

Now I know that many people here disagree with the current direction of the Republican Party generally.  But, as a practical matter, 2010 is an opportunity to take Congress in a rightward direction, and we shouldn't squander it.  This doesn't mean that we should necessarily line up and march lockstep, but we should appreciate the opportunity that arises.

So even if you think the Republican Party is too socially conservative, too beholden to business interests, too inept in its leadership - criticisms I share, BTW - I still think we owe it to our principles overall to seize upon this opportunity.  I think it would be a mistake to pout and sit out one more election.  In 2006 - yeah, the Republican Congress had lost its way.  In 2008 - yeah, McCain was a terrible candidate.  But now?  So even if we don't agree with the Republican Party in every detail, this is a big opportunity to put the brakes on our current socialist joyride.

Drink every time he says "Fundamental," "Newt.org," or "Stunning."

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

Practicing Politics in the Twitter Era: If we are to speak of the age of online politics -- and I am not certain that we should -- let's say we've lived through the Blog Era (2001-04), the YouTube Era (2005-08) and now we are in the Twitter Era (2008-?). This screen shot of a blog post at Media Matters (of all places) juxtaposing tweets from Newt Gingrich and Matt Cooper -- proof alone that everyone in Washington is using Twitter -- provides a useful snapshot of the how Twitter works alongside the blogosphere (rumors of its death still exaggerated) in moving political messages online:

Zing.

So the Right had a vibrant 'sphere in the post-9/11 Warblogging Period, which drifted after the 2004 election, as frustrated soon-to-be-ex-Pajamas Media bloggers can tell you. The Left owned the YouTube era, which happened to coincide, not coincidentally, with President Bush's second term. Their political blog infrastructure was developed largely on the participation of bloggers and blog readers, not anyone using Twitter yet, most of the time because Twitter did not exist or see any significant usage until SXSW 2007. (You know who I can't find on Twitter? MoveOn.)

For at least a year now, the Right again has been leading the way on an Internet-based communication platform. So far it's to organize for Conservatism somewhat broadly as a unifying cause. Top Conservatives on Twitter is not quite a MoveOn for the Right -- a whispered-of but ultimately mythical animal not unlike the "Party-in-a-laptop" idea popular with some Neoliberals -- but it could have more value as a list than Gingrich's own Drill Here, Drill now efforts and even the (also short-time) #dontgo message it spawned last August. These new conservative projects are often built around Twitter itself. Sometimes this results in really annoying tweets, but at this point the right is doing more interesting things in this space. Twitter is smaller than Facebook, but makes up for it in volume of press hits (hopefully someone with Nexis can back this up for me) and news reports that its traffic is about to go all hockey-stick. Maybe it will go Galt as well.

Conservatives also have other, much older infrastructure whose blogging component counts a few successes but still relies on decidedly Web 1.0 websites, and so hasn't taken as big a hit in the Great Blog Crash of 2008-09. And like companies of the dot com crash (including Google itself), the concepts and websites that clawed their way out of the rubble did not and will not bring back substantial returns in the short run. Twitter, by its sheer simplicity, is kind of a Long Tail product in that we can (and often seem to actually do) use it in spare moments between the day, which means its audience could approach that of e-mail (especially since, you know, you need an e-mail account to join Twitter). Either could build that kind of reach, depending on who experiments more through the rest of the arbitrary era proper.

Using #TCOT vs. No Hashtags Whatsoever:

According to Internet marketing blog Hubspot, the right's #TCOT momentum means it vastly outnumbers the hashtags left-leaning Twitter users and bloggers... er, aren't listed as using, not here at least. Hmm. So which hashtags do the left use?

Pause for dramatic effect.

Turns out the left-verse doesn't do hashtags at all, that I could see from checking these accounts over the weekend:

• markosmoulitsas
• jedlewison
• matthewstoller
• ttagaris
• janehamsher
• Atrios
• ezraklein
• glenngreenwald
• KagroX
• openleft
• mmfa
• owillis
• mattyglesias

My question for the Left is whether the port side of the Twitterverse will adopt the same habit of hashtags that moves stories -- and if it does, whether it will even be led by the Kos-Greenwald-Marshall-Hamsher-Klein-Stoller-Yglesias Netroots movement. (Note: In the comments at Blog P.I. a fellow Twittizen points out there is a website collecting progressive hashtags: Tweetleft. And as she observes, organized hashtag use lies beyond "'the usual' accounts.")

And my question for the Right is whether they know any of the Top 5 Conservatives on Twitter, because I haven't got a clue.

Benchmark note: As of Sunday afteroon, Markos Moulitsas (2,411) has 7,288 fewer followers than John Culberson (9,699).

Adapted from a post at Blog P.I.

Newt Gingrich asked me to Chair a national effort to protect workers rights and support “Freedom Not Fear” in the workplace.

In a closed-door meeting Tuesday, President Obama told over 100 top union officials that “we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act.” It’s now clear that President Obama, Big Labor, and their left-wing allies in Congress, will attempt an unprecedented power grab that is a mortal threat to our economy and our democratic values.

This is being done in a stealth manner because its backers know that this bill will not pass if the American people understand its destructive nature.

To expose and stop this effort, I’ve joined American Solutions as National Chairman of our “Freedom Not Fear” campaign, and you can join us by signing our petition here.

The Employee Free Choice Act, or “Card Check,” would eliminate the right to vote by private ballot when deciding whether to join a union, and it would undermine the right to freely negotiate contracts.

We can’t tolerate this. We must stand for freedom, not fear in the workplace. We cannot afford to be intimidated. Please stand with us now. This is about protecting our fundamental right to vote privately without coercion. It’s about protecting the right of employers and employees to negotiate freely. It’s about allowing businessmen and women, not bureaucrats and union bosses, to run our businesses. And in the end, it’s about saving and protecting American jobs.

Please sign the petition now.

Barack Obama's budget proposal pays for a healthcare plan -- we don't know yet what the plan is -- with a carbon tax. Really.

Obama's budget proposes a health care reform fund that would cost $635b over 10 years. Obama also proposes a cap-and-trade system that would generate $640b in revenue over 10 years.

So Obama wants to fund universal healthcare with a tax on carbon, wtih some administrative stuff on the other side to make the tax more complicated and harder for business to negotiate.

It is worth putting this in comparative perspective. Al Gore and the Liberal Party of Canada both had proposals for a carbon tax.

Gore proposed replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax. The Tax Foundation noted Gore's striking language at the time:

Former Vice President Al Gore has a novel approach for dealing with global warming: tax carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees’ pay.

“Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution,” Gore said Monday in a speech at New York University School of Law.

The carbon tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.

Obviously, this never came to a vote, but the idea has garnered some significant intellectual support. George W. Bush's Chairman of Economic Advisors, Greg Mankiw, supports a stimulus that would replace the payroll tax with a gasoline tax.

In a meaningful sense, using the revenue to create universal healthcare is signficantly to the left of using it to lower the tax burden of all Americans.

Contrast it with the proposal of the Liberal Party of Canada, which proposed the "Green Shift", moving into the last election:

At the heart of the energy plan is an energy tax on carbon fuels, which will be based on consumption.

New taxes are expected to generate about $15.4 billion annually in revenue in four years. But the Liberals say their plan will be revenue neutral because it will cut income taxes and increase family support payments.

Dion said his plan is "as powerful as it is simple."

"The Liberal Green Shift will cut taxes on those things we all want more of -- such as income, investment and innovation -- and shift those taxes to what we all want less of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste."

However, the Conservative Party of Canada successfully branded this idea, the "permanent tax on everything", and this issue was part of the reasons that the LPC lost the most recent election there and Stephane Dion, its primary advocate, was forced to step down as party chair.

So let's make this really clear. Obama's plan is significantly to the left of something that failed miserably in Canada. How's it going to play in the states?

As always, Newt Gingrich is leading the way on messaging:

"Let me get this straight," said Gingrich. "We're not going to raise tax on anybody making under $250,000 a year unless you use electricity. And we are not going to raise taxes on anybody under $250,000 a year unless you buy gasoline. And we are not going to raise taxes on anybody who makes under $250,000 a year unless you buy heating oil. And we're not going to raise taxes on anybody who earns less $250,000 a year unless you use natural gas."

"And I try to think to myself," he added, "even in the left wing of the Democratic Party, where there are some people who are fairly unusual, how many of them don't use heating oil, natural gas, gasoline or electricity?"

If Obama is lying like this, and the left couldn't win a fight significantly to the right of this one in Canada with a significantly healthier economy, I think that we can win this fight here.

According to the AJC Newt would be willing to accept the chairmanship but supporters will need to let the RNC know that they want him. He is not a member and will need to campaign for the post if he wants it.

(Unscientific poll here.)

While I'm still skeptical of any large strategic effect the #dontGo movement had, the energy issue overall, as well as McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin, has spurred new policy messages on a wide range of economic, middle class issues. Two days ago, Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA 7th District) spoke to the Conservative Bloggers' Briefing at the Heritage Foundation, introducing a "Middle Class Bill of Rights." The components are:

• Energy: As everybody knows by now, the rational approach is to have an "all of the above" strategy which includes production of non-renewable and renewable resources (including nuclear), as well as initiatives that increase conservation and efficiency. Cantor mentioned that the selection of Palin gives the GOP in the expertise edge of energy solutions.
• Health Care: Cantor explained that individuals worry more today than a generation ago about losing their jobs because of the subsequent loss in health care coverage. Consumer-based health care programs and the expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are the way to proceed.
• Making Paychecks Go Further: Another way of saying "tax cuts." But Cantor also mentioned that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing making overtime wages tax-exempt to fuel more productivity at the micro-level.
• Job Creation: Cantor correctly points out that the best stimulus for any economy is job creation. This means Congress has to start being concerned about competitiveness and corporate taxes. Back in January, Cantor introduced the "Middle Class Job Protection Act," which would, among other things, cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. While it is speculative to link corporate taxes to job loss/creation, the ultimate burden of corporate taxes does fall on individuals through lower wages, higher costs at goods and services, etc. (The Tax Foundation has started a campaign called CompeteUSA, showing that corporate taxes in America are increasingly out-of-line with the rest of the world.)

While I like the combination of issues and the focus on the middle class, I'm not so sure I like the branding. Middle Class Bill of Rights? I've never been a fan of economic "rights." But maybe it is this type of messaging that the Right needs for this and future elections cycles in order to successfully court the middle class. And now that McCain and Republicans are making headway on economic and energy issues, as Sean points out, Cantor is definitely headed in the right direction.

John McCain should shock the world and pick Newt Gingrich for his Vice Presidential running mate.  There is no one better suited to go to intellectual war with the Democrats.  Newt Gingrich would show Joe Biden to be the intellectual lightweight that he is.  Newt brings baggage sure, but Newt on the ticket is what I'm looking for.