Newt’s Nuclear De-Escalation

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/5438140228/sizes/z/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When Newt Gingrich launched into his speech Friday night at Salem High School, it seemed as if his pledge to remain above the fray of negative ads and campaigning was about to fly out the window. He’d barely taken the stage when he threw a jab at his campaign trail nemesis, Mitt Romney, who earlier in the week Gingrich had called a “liar” for denying knowledge of a barrage of super-PAC attack ads that the former House speaker blames for undercutting his support in Iowa. 

“How many of you have noticed that the state line seems to have a really significant, almost mythic, impact on behavior?” he asked, referring to Massachusetts, where Romney had served as governor, to hoots from the audience. “On one side more taxes and bigger government, on the other side lower taxes and less bureaucracy… There really are very different psychological mindsets.” He arrived at the point: “The only reason I raise that is that I think there’s a remarkable difference between a Reagan conservative and a Massachusetts moderate.”

Was Newt—as some in the media had predicted—about to explode in a supernova of anti-Romney vitriol? It seemed this could be the moment.

No. Having taken a quick swipe at Romney, he pivoted, directing his fire at President Barack Obama and acting much more like a front-runner than a 4th-place finisher in Iowa. Trotting out a controversial line he has deployed before, Gingrich dubbed Obama “the best food stamp president in American history.” And he framed the November election as a battle for the soul of America, which he claimed would not recover for “two generations” should Obama be reelected again. “Is this the kind of country where the people are sovereign and the government is subordinate?” he asked. “Or is this a country where the government is sovereign and the people are subordinate?”

Gingrich highlighted his congressional career (leaving out the part where he was slapped with a historic ethics committee sanction and pushed out of the speakership by his own comrades), ticking off his role in pushing through welfare reform, cutting taxes, and rolling back regulations. “I’m the only candidate in this race who has changed major processes in Washington, DC.”

Here, Gingrich paused to take another quick jab at Romney, but the attack was tepid, as compared with the bombast he’s legendary for: “Governor Romney accommodated Boston much more than he changed it.”

Gingrich went so far as to portray himself as a Washington outsider. “If you’re in the Washington establishment, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, the fix is in,” he said. “You go to the same cocktail parties, you go to the same restaurants, you go to the same country clubs… You’re  part of a permanent establishment… I have no interest in being part of it.” This was a stretch coming from a former House speaker who resides in the ritzy Virginia suburb of McLean, home to many of Washington’s media and political elite. Gingrich, after all, has built a multi-million-dollar empire for himself based largely on his Washington experience and contacts.

Gingrich told his audience that his competitors planned to “spend millions trashing me” via super-PACs, a nod to the Romney-allied group, Restore Our Future, which rolled out a series of attack ads against Gingrich in Iowa and plans to do the same in New Hampshire. “I’m not going to engage in my negative nasty ad to match their negative nasty ad, but I will engage in great clarity,” he said. “I am dramatically more conservative than Mitt Romney.”

How long with will this new, more restrained Newt hold out against the impulses of the bomb-throwing political gladiator within? Unclear. For now he’s taking the medium-high road. But given his past, any day Gingrich’s strategy could shift in a nanosecond from waging a battle of ideas to just waging battle.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate