Newt Gingrich has a plan.

With Bush presiding over the sagging Republican helm, the original architect of the 1994 "Contract with America" told party faithful this afternoon at the Conservative Political Action Conference that without change, the GOP ticket may be a fast ride to nowhere.

And so before a thunderous crowd (peppered with "I Like Mike" and "Stop McCain's Amnesty" signs) evidently divided from the presumptive Republican nominee, Gingrich called for a conservative declaration of independence from the Republican Party.

Conservatives need to move away from a "leader fascination with the presidency" and consultant-driven GOP machine, said Gingrich, and fire up the conservative grassroots to make the "right change, not the wrong change." Waving a copy of a new "Platform of the American People," Gingrich argued for a "tri-partisan" platform of issues to pull together Democrats, independents and Republicans--e.g., making English an official government language, investing more in math and science education, and giving voters a single income tax rate option.

"I think it's a totally honorable thing to say 'I support the [Republican] candidate, but I oppose the policy,'" said Gingrich.

But even as he unveiled his "People's Platform," Gingrich delivered a warning to the crowd. On Super Tuesday, 14.6 million Democrats turned out to pick their party's nominee. By contrast, only 8.3 Republicans bothered caucusing or going to the polls. Current numbers have Obama beating a McCain match-up by a 7-point margin.

It seemed "inconceivable," said Gingrich, but last weekend when he traveled to Boise, he saw it with his own eyes: a crowd 16,000 strong in the middle of red-meat Idaho, rallying for Obama.

"There is something big happening in the country today," Gingrich told the packed audience, which received the erstwhile Speaker--who stepped down in 1998 for the "good of the party"--with an air of febrile nostalgia. "[Something] we don't understand and aren't responding to."

"I believe we have to change," he said, "or accept defeat."

Comments (19)

1. Wouldn't underestimate Gingrich (though he has a tendency to have a tin ear for pro-active politics, despite an otherwise good grasp of defense politics).

   But he may be thinking about 2010...not 2008. Gradually getting the feeling that despite McCain's good "match-up" polls, they're expecting defeat.

   Posted by Mask at 02/09/2008 @ 6:54pm

2. actually Newt is a boon for the dems.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 7:00pm

3. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/09/2008 @ 7:00pm

   Yeah....14-15 years ago? People said the same thing.

   Posted by Mask at 02/09/2008 @ 7:25pm

4. Posted by JOMAMMA 02/09/2008 @ 7:24pm

   Hillary wins the Presidency (still a 60-65% chance I see, including beating Obama for the nom)....Repubs may be set up nicely for '10.

   She'll track "centrist" (to avoid a 1993-1994 "gays in the military/Hillarycare/Lani Guinier" backlash)...but the backlash will be FROM THE LEFT who'll get pissed that she's being a "DINO". Means she'll have to reach out to Congressional Repubs to pass legislation (even with a STRONG Dem majority in both Houses)....and her ratings among the liberals will drop even worse.

   2010....Left is disheartened and the Right has finally shaken the bugs out (a la Gingrich's proposals)....and they MIGHT pull off a "1994", but at the least should seriously dent the Dem majority. (Mark Foley, Abramoff, Schiavo will be "ancient history" by then, so they can run against Her Nibs' flubs)

   Posted by Mask at 02/09/2008 @ 7:29pm

5. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=JOMAMMA

   he also resigned in disgrace, as have so many conservatives. good riddance to bad rubbish.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 7:34pm

6. On Super Tuesday, 14.6 million Democrats turned out to pick their party's nominee. By contrast, only 8.3 Republicans bothered caucusing or going to the polls.

   I don't see these numbers voting in the general election. They'll probably be reversed. If Obama wins the nomination, I think a lot of Hillary supporters will pull a FRANK and vote republican. If Hillary gets the nod, I see a lot of democrats voting independent.

   I simply cannot vote for someone who endorses war. So if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll be looking at independent or green candidates.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 02/09/2008 @ 7:53pm

7. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/09/2008 @ 7:53pm

   I think unless the large majority of Obama supporters go "METTEYYA" (i.e. becoming insulting, even misogynistic, about Hillary)....

   the number of "FRANK" votes (Hillaryites who vote GOP or stay home) will really be quite low.

   FRANK's an anomaly. The few supporters he gets here (and supporters for HRC) have the smell of 2, maybe even ONE HRC campagin blogger (with a LOT of "hotmail" or "Gmail" accounts).

   Most Hillary people aren't so cultish as FRANK is (again, half his adoration of her, I think stems from hatred of Limbaugh for attacking her).

   They know Ginsberg and Stevens and maybe one other are getting "up there" and they don't want McCain picking a 6-3 or 7-2 Supreme Court.

   Posted by Mask at 02/09/2008 @ 8:19pm

8. Why couldn't Hillary and Obama differ on something else...like immigration or healthcare? Why does it have to be the spilling of blood?

   I could easily vote for Hillary if she were to win the nomination if it weren't for the fact that she's a war hound. I don't think she would purposefully go out and start wars, like McCain. But I don't think she would exhaust all other alternatives before taking life.

   Her votes show she would and so do her financial backers.

   Such a pity.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 02/09/2008 @ 9:09pm

9. I simply cannot vote for someone who endorses war. So if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll be looking at independent or green candidates.

   Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/09/2008 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person

   so you would be fine handing it to the old old soldier, who doesn't just endorse the war but seems to revel in it. smaaart.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 10:04pm

10. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/09/2008 @ 9:09pm

    She's said she wants to get us out of Iraq. Obama too.

    McCain has said he'll "stay there for 100 years if that's what it takes".

    There IS a difference.

    Posted by Mask at 02/09/2008 @ 10:21pm

11. Posted by MASK 02/09/2008 @ 10:21pm

    So, any candidate that says "I want peace on earth", "I want to end Sudden Infant Death", "I want to unite our country"....is enough for you to offset your "Don't trust her" and his lack of having actually demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle?

    You have a tendency to cling to some off-the-cuff remarks that contain some kernels of truth mixed with sarcasm or just jokes and hang on to them for dear life......I feel sorry for your wife (who I am sure is lovely).....whatever she had ever said that had some contradictions or idiocies, have been archived and when advantageous to you, dragged out in the next little spousal battle!

    Posted by Happy at 02/09/2008 @ 10:54pm

12. so you would be fine handing it to the old old soldier, who doesn't just endorse the war but seems to revel in it. smaaart.

    This is silly. Not voting for Clinton does not hand the victory to McCain. In most of the states the green party could take 5% of the vote and do nothing to change the outcome. In the others one vote has never made the difference anyway. If Fritz were actively campaigning for Nader in Florida or Ohio or somewhere like that it might count as helping elect McCain. But anything short of that is completely inconsequential.

    Now a person voting for McCain, like Frank has said he will if Obama is the candidate, while no more consequential, is a far different thing. It shows a real confusion about what is important and what the correct answers to policy questions are. Thinking Clinton is too conservative to merit support does not show such confusion.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/09/2008 @ 11:10pm

13. She's said she wants to get us out of Iraq. Obama too.

    But when did they start saying it? There is huge gulf between Obama and Clinton on this. Enough to make one justifiably suspicious of anything Clinton says about the matter. And enough, as far as I am concerned, to make McCain and Clinton roughly equal on the war issue. They both spoke out against the Rumsfeld strategy, but for the war, for years.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/09/2008 @ 11:12pm

14. rebulicans, here is your perfect sol ution! [images.salon.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 02:04am

15. Check out Frank Rich today, on the bullying Billary machine's ability to take down the Dems at a Billary Masada.

    The kernel:

    "A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils."

    Posted by sloper at 02/10/2008 @ 02:56am

16. Posted by HAPPY 02/09/2008 @ 10:54pm

    HAPP, McCain says he'll stay in Iraq until "we finish the job"....and you believe him and will vote for him.

    Hillary says something different...and I believe her and will vote for her. Amd it's not "trust"...she'll no choice!

    Posted by Mask at 02/10/2008 @ 07:53am

17. Is it too much to ask to have a candidate that I can vote for instead of one that receives my vote as a result of my voting against the other candidate? The lesser of two evils is still evil. Is this the best we have?

    No wonder so few vote, especially the young.

    Posted by Downtown at 02/10/2008 @ 12:07pm

18. No wonder so few vote, especially the young.---Posted by DOWNTOWN 02/10/2008 @ 12:07pm

    You need to catch up...young voters turning out for Obama. Not sure they're a "power-house" as PETER ROTHBERG thinks, but they are there for him.

    Posted by Mask at 02/10/2008 @ 4:24pm

19. Posted by MASK 02/10/2008 @ 4:24pm

    Historically the youngest age voting block has the lowest level of participation. In 2004 they were 20%+ below the national average. The fact that they are showing some enthusiasm for a single candidate does tell me they have strayed from their historic path.

    Posted by Downtown at 02/10/2008 @ 4:51pm