The Gingrich Tease

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:28 AM

Is Newt running?

Or is he just flirting?

It's no secret that many Republicans are dissatisfied with their party's presidential choices. That is fueling all the Fred Thompson chatter and otherwise contributing to a sense that the field is inadequate, that Rudy, Romney and McCain are failing to satisfy some deep longing for a Reagan-style conservative who hasn't been married three times, changed his position on abortion or been saddled with an unpopular war.

So the former speaker of the House has got to be thinking, why not me?

Why else would he have gone on James Dobson's radio show and confessed to having an affair with a House staffer while pushing for Bill Clinton's impeachment, if not for the chance to run against the former president's wife?

If Gingrich does run, his colorful style will draw plenty of media attention, and his never-ending stream of ideas will shake up the campaign dialogue.

Still, put me down as skeptical. Gingrich carries plenty of baggage, including his ethics scrapes while in Congress. Remember that he was essentially forced to quit as speaker. If he were truly running, why wouldn't he have gotten in by now? Maybe he's just trying to sell books.

He's certainly leaving the door open, as was evident from this ABC interview yesterday:

"Newt Gingrich for president? It could happen.

"In an interview with Diane Sawyer on 'Good Morning America,' the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a 'great possibility' that he would run for president.

"He will make that decision sometime in the fall. Sawyer noted that previously Gingrich had only said he was 'thinking about' a run for president.

" 'You said you'll make a decision at the end of the September, [is it] more likely, less likely this morning?' Sawyer asked Gingrich. 'I think right now, it is a great possibility,' Gingrich said . . .

"Gingrich was visiting 'GMA' to talk about his new book, 'Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th,' which he co-wrote with William Forstchen . . .

"Gingrich said Republican candidates needed to champion large-scale reforms. 'I think unless a Republican who is nominated is committed to fundamental change in Washington they will certainly lose the election,' he said."

A week earlier, on "Face the Nation," Gingrich said he would spend the summer developing proposals, and "if people adopt them and people campaign on them, I probably won't run. If, however, the ideas require an advocate and citizenship requires me to run, then in October, you know, starting on September 30th, we'll look very seriously at whether or not that's necessary."

Sounds like a shakedown. Buy my ideas . . . or else.

The Washington Times, meanwhile, gives credence to another candidate getting in:

"New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times . . .

"The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune."

Does it seem like everyone at Justice is resigning except Alberto Gonzales?

"Paul McNulty, the Justice Department's No. 2 lawyer, whose congressional testimony in February fueled the uproar over the firing of at least eight U.S. attorneys, announced his resignation Monday, becoming the fourth senior department official to quit during the festering controversy," says the Chicago Tribune.

"McNulty's departure as the department's day-to-day manager was widely expected but nonetheless represents a blow to the leadership of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who has been battling for weeks to keep his job in the face of demands for his resignation by lawmakers from both parties . . .

"McNulty was closely tied to the firing scandal in part because he oversees the office that manages U.S. attorneys and in part because his congressional testimony managed to inflame lawmakers, several of the fired prosecutors and Gonzales."

McNulty said they had performance problems, which turned out to be not exactly true.

Says Josh Marshall: "If I were Gonzales and the White House, I'd see McNulty's departure as a very unwelcome development. Behind the scenes, supporters of McNulty and Gonzales have been increasingly at odds as the scandal has progressed -- with McNulty's supporters saying he wasn't kept in the loop and that that the Gonzales clique is made of crooks and the Gonzales supporters (read: Sampson, Goodling, Elston, et al.) saying McNulty let the cat out of the bag in his testimony earlier in the year."

With some Republicans are challenging Bush on the war, Bill Kristol shows his disgust:

"The media are primed to reward Republicans for defecting from the White House on the war. So the Washington Post reported on its front page Thursday that the House Republicans had spoken truth to power. They told it to the president like it is. The on-the-record star of the meeting was Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. 'People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble,' Davis told the Post. 'Well, this was our chance, and we took it.'

"But what chance did they take? How did they help the president deal with a crucial foreign policy challenge? Davis 'presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the [Republican] party's position is, participants said.' Polling figures!

"These same Republican congressmen presumed--at the very same meeting--to criticize Iraqi politicians. Yet the Iraqi political class is showing a lot more courage than the American political class. They risk assassination. Our politicians risk electoral defeat. Yet it is our politicians who panic--and do so shamelessly and abjectly. And stupidly. Do the Republicans who want Bush to cut and run really think they would benefit if Iraq were to blow up, with U.S. troops helplessly standing by watching the slaughter, the full spectacle of American defeat unfolding before the American people? Here is a fine posture for a Republican to assume in 2008: I voted for the war, and then I voted for the surrender. Who in their right mind would vote for such a person?

"As for the Democrats, they are in a way less abject. Most of them simply believe the war is lost, or that it should be lost, and want to throw in the towel."

Power Line's John Hinderaker scoffs at the Democrats' talk about making sure returning vets are well cared for:

"When conservatives talk about supporting the troops, they mean doing everything possible to help them win the war they're fighting. Liberals never seem to talk about victory, but rather see 'support' as turning soldiers and veterans into another victim group, dependent on government health and welfare services.

"Will it work? So far, at least, I think a large majority of our service personnel think of themselves as warriors rather than participants in a social welfare program. But there is a certain logic to the Democrats' approach: if one's only concern is the safety of the troops, the simple solution is never to fight. And if, like most liberals, you have no intention of ever fighting, then you might as well take credit for keeping the troops safe."

I don't think a soldier who was wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan would see himself as a victim for expecting that the military health care system would give him better treatment than some got at Walter Reed.

That NYT piece on Bill's role in Hill's campaign has National Review's Jim Geraghty questioning whether the ex-president will be a big fat distraction:

"I wonder how many baby-boomer campaign correspondents with fond memories of the 1992 campaign are eagerly awaiting this assignment:

" Clinton advisers can already imagine a point in 2008 when Mr. Clinton has his own campaign plane, press corps and schedule of events in crucial states while Mrs. Clinton is barnstorming in others.

"He will be good on the trail, no doubt about that. But does anybody else see some formula for trouble? To take a hypothetical example, something happens in the Middle East, Bill is out on the trail, is asked by a reporter what to do, and he says, 'Now is the time to reach out to the Palestinian leadership . . . Back when I was president, I had Yassir Arafat over the White House more than any other world leader, and I know what it takes to bring the Palestinians to peace . . . ' Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Hillary gets asked the same question and says, 'Now is the time to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends and allies in Israel . . . ' Instant controversy."

By the way, here's Bill narrating a biographical video of his wife.

"The question, of course: Is the video effective?" asks Time's Jay Carney. "Or does it backfire? Will Bill's fluid and persuasive delivery remind people that Hillary's not nearly so good a politician as her husband? Or will having the ultimate political salesman making the pitch on her behalf be a net benefit? Having watched it a few times, it feels to me like a net plus for Hillary. But I could be wrong."

Rudy has lost one version of a Big Apple primary, reports the Daily News:

"Michael Bloomberg is not only a better mayor of New York than Rudy Giuliani - he'd make a better President, too.

"That's the result of a Daily News poll that asked the voters who know best - New Yorkers - which man belongs in the White House.

"City voters overwhelmingly chose Mayor Mike over America's Mayor as their pick for president, 46% to 29%."

David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network picks up a disturbing report of anti-Romney attacks:

"Who's up to this dirty trick? I don't care if you're for [or] against Mitt Romney, what's happening in South Carolina is not cool. The Spartanburg Herald Journal is reporting the following:

" Less than a week before the Republican presidential primary debate in Columbia, a wave of anti-Mormon literature has hit select South Car[o]lina mailboxes. The literature does not mention former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by name, but is an indirect attack on him . . .

"Even though there should be no religious test for office, if you're going to vote against someone because of their religion, that's your business. But leave the nasty pamphlets home."

At Americablog, John Aravosis talks about his relationship to the campaigns:

"Edwards launched a new Web site, SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com. Edwards is proposing that this Memorial Day, we take back patriotism. I like it. And his video appeal is well done too. I'm on a conference call with a number of Edwards supporters at the moment, and we'll be doing a smaller conference call with a few bloggers and Edwards in a few minutes.

"As an aside, Edwards is the only major presidential candidate - meaning, versus Hillary and Obama - who has consistently reached out to our blog. I've defended all three candidates, from time to time, on TV and online. For example, on CNN's Paula Zahn show earlier this week, I defended Hillary against the attacks of a Republican operative who loathed her and a Democrat who felt Hillary wasn't doing enough. Didn't hear a peep from her campaign afterwards. Nor did I hear a peep the previous time I defended Mrs. Clinton on CNN against some rather vicious and demeaning attacks by two GOP operatives. The Edwards campaign, however, routinely thanks us when we help them . . .

"It's not about ego and the need to be thanked. It's about not being treated like somehow they're doing us a favor by letting us defend them.

Every cycle, it seems, we hear about how this time, more young people are going to vote. The Boston Globe says it may finally be happening:

"After a steady decline in youth voting since the close of the Vietnam War, young voter participation increased from 36 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2004, representing a huge jump. Analysts also project that the final statistics from 2006 will show it to be a record year for youth voting in a midterm congressional election.

"The Internet has accelerated the trend, giving young people a cheap and efficient tool to organize rallies, recruit volunteers, and exchange information about candidates. With passions high over the war, national security, and global warming, young people today are shaping up as a political power bloc that could exceed the influence of antiwar protesters in the late 1960s and early 1970s, pollsters and analysts predict."

Michelle Malkin claims victory in a battle against Universal Music Group and YouTube.

The Wall Street Journal has the latest on the takeover attempt it faces: "Rupert Murdoch sent a 1,200-word letter to Bancroft family members over the weekend in an effort to convince them to accept his $5 billion offer for Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

"In the letter, which was sent Saturday and distributed to family members on Monday morning, Mr. Murdoch offered to add a Bancroft family member to News Corp.'s 15-member board if the deal goes through. He also vowed to establish an independent editorial board to ensure the editorial integrity of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones's other editorial operations."

He wrote: "I don't apologize for the fact that I've always had strong opinions and strong ideas about newspapers but I have always respected the independence and integrity of the news organizations with which I am associated."

I don't think that could be said of the New York Post.

How much do looks matter in a presidential race? More than we might think, according to American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta:

"HOT OR NOT? A reliable G.O.P. source sends in this e-mail from 'a colleague . . . in Iowa' who 'just went to see Mitt Romney speak. This is from her, and a piece of campaign literature she picked up at the event:

"His promotional flyer says, 'In this media-driven age, Romney begins with a decisive advantage. First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women -- who will play a critical role in this coming election -- have a word for him: hot.'"

But the story turned out to be hot air:

"UPDATE: O.K., this turns out to be less interesting than it first appeared. The material on the flyer handed out by the Romney campaign was not written by the Romney campaign. It's from this story[on the conservative site NewsMax]. Still, it's the vision of Romney that they're flacking."

How Paris Hilton stays in the news, despite her lack of career or any talent beyond partying and drawing media attention, is one of life's enduring mysteries. LAT columnist Tim Rutten tries to unravel it:

"Not very long ago, it was possible to contemplate spending a relatively long and reasonably productive career in American journalism without ever having to type the words 'Paris Hilton.'

"That was then. This, sadly, is now.

"Watching the cyclonic attention that swirled around Hilton's court appearance this week, it was hard not to notice how closely our celebrity-besotted press now resembles Churchill's famous description of the prewar Germans as a people 'either at your throat or at your feet.' Having benefited from the tabloid media's attentions while it was in that latter posture, perhaps this rather odd young woman will now have to suffer through its assault. That, in fact, is the traditional arc of celebrity for celebrity's sake. First the tabloid media's various incarnations make you famous for nothing more than being famous. Then it turns in a fury of righteous indignation and devours you for, well, being famous."

Editors are now mesmerized by online traffic, and "things like this week's feeding frenzy, which doubtless produced the predictable number of hits. If you inserted Paris Hilton's name into your grocery list and posted it on the web, you'd get tens of thousands of hits. They don't mean anything, but that hasn't stopped desperate news editors from grabbing onto what they mistake for useful information the way a drowning man or woman clutches at anything that might keep them afloat."

Oh, and Rutten casts his withering gaze close to home:

"The Los Angeles Times, for example, currently is advertising for a reporter to fill a new 'celebrity justice' beat."