What Does Nancy Know About Newt?

It was during an interview with CNN’s John King in which former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped the tease that has electrified political junkies. When King -- who verbally tousled with former House Speaker/current GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich during a recent debate -- asked Pelosi her thoughts about the possibility of Gingrich becoming commander in chief, Pelosi responded, “That will never happen . . . He’s not going to be president of the United States.”

King pressed her. How could she be so sure that he'll never become president? “There’s something I know,” she said. "The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

This, as you might expect, has led to wild speculation about whether Pelosi has some juicy, scandalous information that she plans to unload if Gingrich gets the nomination. On Twitter, people have turned it into a #WhatNancyKnows parlor game.

We already do know quite a bit about Gingrich, or we’ve heard stories . . . the infidelities, the alleged request for the open marriage, the hypocrisy over lecturing about family values, the ethics scandal, the Tiffany's line of credit, yet this tantalizing nugget from Pelosi is driving everybody crazy. It has even compelled Mitt Romney’s campaign to create a new ad to scare Republican voters into not voting for Gingrich lest Pelosi sabotage the GOP by detonating Gingrich's campaign in the general election with some new dirt.

Even though Pelosi has tried to tamp down all the excitement her statement caused -- saying that she was simply referring to what’s already in the public record, specifically the House Ethics report on Gingrich from the 1990s -- I’m not buying it. That’s not what it seemed like she was saying to John King, at all.

Making things more interesting is the fact that in December Pelosi reportedly told a reporter for the Talking Points Memo: “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

How bad could what she knows really be? Seriously, look at what’s happened over the past few years, zany tales that seem as though they were ripped off from a bad, improbable TV drama. Politicians, high profile ones at that, have made some really stupid decisions:

A no nonsense, tough New York governor  was shamed out of office when it was discovered he’d been messing around with a call girl. A South Carolina governor disappeared for days, said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, then admitted he was in Argentina with his soul mate, a woman who was not his wife. A New York Congressman, who had a pregnant wife at home, sent nude photos of himself to strangers over Twitter. A California governor admitted that he cheated on his wife with the family’s housekeeper, fathered a child by her (a baby who was born a week apart from a child he had with his wife) and kept the mistress working at the home. A 2008 Democratic candidate for president fathered a child with a consultant to his campaign, tried to cover it up by having another campaign supporter say that he was the father, all the while, continuing to campaign for president while his wife was battling cancer for a second time. One of the 2012 GOP candidates for president dropped out of the race after multiple women claimed he’d sexually harassed them and another woman said she had an affair with the married businessman.

So, back to this campaign . . . what could Nancy Pelosi have been implying? Here are some outlandish guesses about what Pelosi knows the guy who walks around saying he thinks “grandiose” thoughts and, just this week, announced that he wants to colonize the moon (seriously). My guesses are as good as any of the other looney real life stories that have unfolded recently:  

• Mitt Romney isn’t the only Republican candidate who had a mishap with a vehicle and a family pet.
• Newt just recently had his 9-9-9 tatoo removed.
• Gingrich has a secret wall in his home office covered with photos of Snookie.
• Anthony Weiner is the one who taught Newt how to “tweet.”
• Newt’s preferred ringtone? Rod Stewart's “Da Ya Think I’m Sexy?”
• Gingrich accidentally left behind an album full of Polaroids in the back of one of the desk drawers of the Speaker’s office. Suffice is to say, Newt knows what Victoria’s Secret is.
• The real story about how John Kerry got those black eyes and a broken nose . . . it involved Newt and two words: Fight. Club.

What do you think Pelosi has on Gingrich, if anything? Or is this all a bluff? What do you make of Pelosi trying to play down what she was obviously trying to gin up when she spoke with John King?

Notes from the Political Middle: Newt's in the Lead? What the Heck is Going On?

I’m the first to admit that I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich for a whole host of reasons, which will likely come as no surprise from someone who refers to herself as a “Massachusetts moderate” when Gingrich appears so fond of maligning moderate folks, especially those who hail from the Bay State.

And while I can understand that Republican primary voters are looking for a candidate who exudes strength, conviction and doesn’t seemed easily cowed by others – traits that Gingrich exuded in spades during last week’s CNN debate and in the Fox News debate before that – I can’t believe that voters sincerely believe that the former House speaker could actually lure any undecided/independent voters to his campaign. Even if he successfully won every single conservative vote in the general election, that wouldn’t be sufficient to reserve his spot behind the Oval Office desk. He’s going to need some independents and dissatisfied Democrats to come on board. And he's not the type of candidate who appeals to those folks.

That being said, the double-digit Gingrich win in South Carolina on Saturday was stunning. In the best case scenario, I could interpret the pro-Gingrich sentiment as a rebuke to the national media which Republicans and conservatives believe are out to build up a weak GOP candidate (Mitt Romney, like a moderate John McCain and Bob Dole before him) and then plan to demolish him in the fall in favor of Obama. Given the raucous verve with which the audiences in the Fox News and CNN debates applauded when Gingrich aggressively went after the news media – calling CNN’s John King “despicable” for asking him about allegations that he asked his second wife for an open marriage – that could be plausible.

If, however, that’s not the case, and the vote has nothing to do with Republican voters’ views on the mainstream media's leaning toward Democrats, that means that Gingrich is actually the preferred candidate. That's stunning given how wildly unpopular he is with Republican voters across the nation, according to a Talking Points Memo chart. As the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan pointed out earlier this month, even those who've worked with Gingrich think he's a loose cannon.

A brand new national poll has found that Gingrich has 41 percent support of likely GOP voters, compared to Mitt Romney’s 32 percent in Florida, which has its primary on January 31, according to Rasmussen Reports. “Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney had a 22-point lead in Florida.”

As it stands right now, here’s how the delegate count for the Republican nomination breaks down (each primary/caucus has different rules and some are winner-take-all, others proportional):

-- Gingrich: 23
-- Romney: 18
-- Rick Santorum: 11
-- Ron Paul: 6

The winner needs to reach 1,143 delegates to lock up the GOP nomination.

Will tonight’s NBC debate, moderated by my favorite network anchor, Brian Williams, make any change in the trend of Gingrich over Romney? It’s unclear right now if Florida’s primary – open to registered Republicans only – will be winner-take-all or whether the delegates will be apportioned according to Congressional districts, according to ABC News.
As for the incumbent president who’s on the eve of his State of the Union address, things are looking pretty dismal (unless, of course, the Republicans select Gingrich as their nominee).

“President Obama opens his re-election bid facing significant obstacles among independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with the critical piece of the electorate that cemented his victory four years ago open to denying him a second term,” the Times reported.
“. . . [A] majority of independent voters have soured on his presidency, disapprove of how he has dealt with the economy and do not have a clear idea of what he hopes to accomplish if re-elected,” the paper said, adding that only 31 percent of independent voters have a “favorable opinion” of Obama.

See, it’s the moderates -- of whom those on the either end of the political spectrum aren't particularly fond -- who are the key, hence my incredulity at the state of the current GOP race.

On New Hampshire Primary Day, Do Negative Campaign Ads Persuade You?

Although I can appreciate the cleverness of a well executed, tough political ad as well as the next cynical voter, I really don’t like it when the atmosphere get toxic, when campaigns try to trick voters by obfuscating the facts and intentionally mislead people, or just outright name call. I hate that. It’s beneath them and the office which they seek to hold, especially if they’re vying for the post of commander-in-chief.

However political pundits, along with a large body of research, tell us that it’s those negative ads that help win elections. The charges in those ads remain with you, like an insidious ear worm. The positive ads, the ones that are all motherhood and apple pie with a crisp flag snapping in the wind in the background while the candidate looks regal in front of it, conventional wisdom says that they make little difference when we are deciding for whom to vote.

Even though folks will say that they don't like negative ads, a University of Georgia advertising professor wrote on CNN's web site that they're used for one big reason: "The answer is simple: They work. And they work very well." She added that, "There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register [with viewers.]"

So, on the day before the New Hampshire primary, I surfed the internet and culled two different kinds of ads from the remaining GOP presidential candidates' web sites to compare and contrast the positive ads with the negative ones.

The Good



In this pro-Mitt Romney ad, with inspirational music and images, Ann Romney takes to forefront to try to soften the straight-laced businessman. (Romney did himself no favors today in the softening department by using the phrase "I like being able to fire people," which will, I predict, appear in a political ad very soon.)



Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman’s campaign neatly packaged up Huntsman’s rebuttal during the final debate this weekend to Romney’s assertion that by serving as the U.S. ambassador to China under President Obama, Huntsman wasn’t putting his party first.



Here, Huntsman says that his election would be the answer to the nation’s “trust deficit.”



Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains his belief that government doesn’t create real jobs.



Texas Congressman Ron Paul takes a rather loud approach with this “Big Dog” ad which seems more like it’s promoting a pro wrestling match rather than a presidential candidate.



Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s family-centric “Pop-Up” ad describes him in a very general way without attacking anyone else.



This “Morning in America” type of ad from Texas Governor Rick Perry shows a much better side of him than he has exhibited in the debates.

Notes from the Political Middle: Demonizing ‘Moderates’

Image credit: CNN

Winning the presidential nomination of one’s chosen political party is certainly no easy feat. It takes a whole host of things – money, smarts, charisma, organization and sheer dumb luck – to emerge from the primary process as a Republican or Democratic nominee for president.
One of the toughest feats that successful nominees have to master is being an exceedingly limber political gymnast. They have to win over their party’s stalwarts – which comprise roughly a third of the electorate – that they’re the best person to represent them as the party’s standard bearer. Then, in short order, the nominees must transform and twist themselves into a candidate who will appeal to the voters in the political middle – also about a third of the electorate – because you can’t win the U.S. presidency by only garnering the support of those who share your party affiliation.

This is why it’s puzzling to me to see Newt Gingrich calling GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney a “Massachusetts moderate” as though a “moderate” is akin to a socialist hell-bent on transforming America into something more resembling France. After taking out a full-page ad in a New Hampshire newspaper attacking Romney as a “timid Massachusetts moderate,” Gingrich has made the rounds on TV and during voter meet-and-greets warning Republicans that Romney’s really a moderate type of guy, because, you know, them moderates, they’ve been known to take the reins of the nation and sink it like the Titanic. All the political and financial challenges facing America have occurred because of the scourge of“moderates,” right?

Gingrich, who seemed stunned that he came in fourth behind Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa, has said that if “Massachusetts moderate” Romney were selected as the GOP nominee, he thinks Romney would “be pretty good at managing the decay” and wouldn’t change the political climate.

This isn’t to say that I’m endorsing Romney, mind you, it’s just that this new trend of attacking people by hurling the word “moderate” at them as though it’s Kryptonite is abundantly silly. Writing for The Christian Science Monitor, Amanda Paulson pointed out that Romney is also guilty of using “moderate” as a “dirty word” suggesting that Gingrich is moderate because he’d cooperated with Nancy Pelosi on environmental issues and has made *shudder* compromises.

U.S. Senator Scott Brown, another Republican from Massachusetts where Republicans are about as abundant as four-leaf clovers, gets flak for his moderate tendencies and because he is willing to work with the people who he thinks have the best ideas, regardless of their party affiliation. He’s not following the party leadership and walking in lock-step with his GOP brethren, which is a wise thing given that the Bay State is very blue. If Brown voted straight party line, he’d be shown the door.

Even Rick Santorum, who was only eight votes behind Romney in Iowa and is well known for his social conservatism, was assailed by the son of fellow Republican presidential candidate, the pro-pot Ron Paul, as being a “moderate.” Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky, told an Iowan talk show host that Santorum is “a big government moderate and I think conservatives need to be wary before thinking Santorum can be their champion.” Seriously?

The editor-in-chief of the web site The Moderate Voice has had enough of this idiotic, short-sighted nonsense. “Warning to the GOP: The way rhetoric is being used in the Republican primary campaign, there may come a point where moderates may simply decide they cannot vote for a Republican candidate,” Joe Gandelman wrote on The Moderate Voice. “No, this isn’t just a personal reaction. You can bank on this being a problem if trending continues.”

Alluding to the fact that whoever eventually gets the GOP presidential nomination will have to appeal to independent and moderate voters in the general election in order to win, Gandelman questioned this new anti-moderate trend: “Why would moderates vote for a political party that has increasingly used the word ‘moderate’ as a filthy political word? We’ve now seen a parade of candidates use it. And the phrase ‘going moderate’ has now become a major attack phrase by conservative talkers, some columnists and politicians.”

Why indeed.

Image credit: CNN.

Huntsman Daughters At It Again, Bringing Huntsman ‘Back’ with Timberlake Tune

Who knew that GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman’s three daughters – Liddy, Abby and Mary Anne -- had decent voices? In their continuing campaign to promote their dear old dad as a solid potential commander-in-chief, the trio of Huntsman daughters have released an unofficial campaign song on YouTube set to the tune of Justin Timberlake’s SexyBack.

Seriously.

Among their lyrics:

“We’re bringing Huntsman back. The rest of them is one big circus act.”

“Herman Cain, we like your pizza but you can’t explain how 9-9-9 will get us back in shape so pass the pizza and we won’t complain.”

“Jon Huntsman, the real job creator.”

“The governor who stands for sanity.”

Late today, The Washington Post reported that an “advisor” to the former Utah governor's campaign isn’t impressed with the daughters’ video or Twitter feed (@Jon2012girls) and now considers them as having “gone rogue.” The Post quoted an unnamed aide as saying: “The girls were asked by a number of campaign officials to not release the video. The campaign was not informed of the release of the video. The video does not have a disclaimer and is not a campaign product.”

They need to seriously chill out. They’re his daughters doing what people their age do: Put stuff on YouTube. They’re enthusiastic about their father and, barring them doing, wearing or saying something highly inappropriate -- which they haven't done -- I don’t think that this video, and the one they did spoofing Herman Cain’s weird smoking ad, is doing Huntsman any harm. At this point, they’re getting more attention than their dad. And he could sure use the press.