During an appearance in South Carolina on January 18, Gingrich said:

The President interprets the Constitution as President…. If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the President can, in fact, ignore the courts.

One may well ask how likely Gingrich would be to actually carry out such a radical idea. The only problem is that Gingrich also said:

I fully expect, as President, that there will be several occasions when we [Gingrich and the Supreme Court] will collide.

Gingrich actually promised to provoke his first Constitutional showdown on his first day in office. He said that he would order the “national security apparatus” to ignore the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision, which ruled that Guantánamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in US court.

Gingrich’s plans for Constitutional brinkmanship seem to match too well with his views that were revealed during the House ethics investigation that I discussed in a previous blog entry. The ethics committee’s report cited a Gringich quote that provides worrisome insights into his thinking:

Mr. Gingrich told the New York Times that he acted very aggressively in regard to 501(c)(3) law: ‘Whoa,’ [Mr. Gingrich] said, when asked after class one recent Saturday if the course nears the edge of what the law allows. ‘Goes right up to the edge. What’s the beef? Doesn’t go over the edge, doesn’t break any law, isn’t wrong. It’s aggressive, it’s entrepreneurial, it’s risk taking.’

I find it frightening that a Republican presidential candidate would consider himself, as President, to be far enough above the law that he has promised to defy a Supreme Court ruling. Even more frightening is the idea that 40% of the Republican electorate in South Carolina voted for Gingrich three days after he promised to stage a Constitutional showdown on his first day in office. One can only hope that they weren’t aware of his views on Presidential supremacy.

Gingrich’s current views and past behavior make me think that Republicans would be far wiser to choose Romney, the candidate who seems much more likely to work for change within the scope of our Constitutional system.

The report produced by the House ethics committee was harsh in its assessment of Gingrich:

In looking at this conduct in light of all the facts and circumstances, the Subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an area where he had ample warning that his intended course of action was fraught with legal peril. The Subcommittee decided that regardless of the resolution of the … tax question, Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House, and was deserving of sanction.

The Subcommittee’s deliberation concerning the letters provided to the Committee centered on the question of whether Mr. Gingrich intentionally submitted inaccurate information…. 

The culmination of the evidence on this topic again left the Subcommittee with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally made misrepresentations to the Committee, or he was again reckless in the way he provided information to the Committee concerning a very important matter….

As is noted above, the Subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the areas covered by the Statement of Alleged Violation. Either Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the letters he submitted to the Committee was intentional or it was reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. While the Subcommittee was not able to reach a comfortable conclusion on these issues, the fact that the choice was presented is a factor in determining the appropriate sanction. In addition, the violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct. Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities. (“In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich: Report of the Select Committee on Ethics,” pp. 92-94)

It’s interesting to compare how bipartisan the Gingrich reprimand votes were compared to another Congressional proceeding that occurred the following year. 75% of the Republicans on the ethics committee voted to recommend that the House reprimand Gingrich. Of the Republicans in the full House who voted on the penalty against Gingrich, 88% voted to reprimand him and to charge him $300,000 to defray the costs of the ethics investigation. The following year, Gingrich helped lead the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, and those proceedings ended in a polarized partisan vote, with 100% of Senate Democrats eventually voting against the articles of impeachment. On the other hand, it is notable that most of Gingrich’s own party on both the ethics committee and in the full House felt it was appropriate to reprimand him.

According to a Washington Post article published the day after Gingrich was reprimanded,

House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday’s bipartisan resolution of the case. ‘We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong,’ said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.

Another Congressman (Mark Sanford, R-SC) said that he would not have voted for Gingrich to be Speaker of the House had he known about the issues raised by the ethics committee’s report:

The gray got grayer when you read the report…. When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.

To Gingrich’s credit, he did admit to wrongdoing and accepted the penalty imposed on him:

I was overconfident, and in some way, naive. With deep sadness, I agree. I did not seek legal counsel when I should have in order to ensure clear compliance with all applicable laws, and that was wrong. Because I did not, I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government…. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee.

I accept responsibility for this, and I deeply regret it.

I did not seek personal gain, but my actions did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.

Gingrich has claimed that “one of the biggest advantages I have as a good conservative, with a clear record of conservatism; I think that I could in fact draw a sharp contrast with Obama.”  Looking at the policy positions of Gingrich and Romney, it’s not clear to me how Gingrich could draw a better contrast with Obama than Romney could. However, when it comes to Gingrich’s behavior, it’s quite likely that Democrats would succeed in  drawing a sharper contrast between Gingrich and Obama than they would be able to draw between Romney and Obama. That may, in fact, be one of Gingrich’s largest liabilities; namely, that he opens the door to the wrong kind of sharp contrast. Gingrich’s history may just provide too much easy cannon fodder for Obama’s campaign staff.

1. Favorability Scores

Romney scores pretty well among Republican voters on the favorability scale, with favorable = 37% and unfavorable = 19%. Gingrich doesn’t score quite as well among Republicans as Romney, with favorable = 31% and unfavorable = 34%.

However, the real difference comes when you look at the favorability ratings among all registered voters. Romney scores 21% favorable and 35% unfavorable, while Gingrich scores 17% favorable and 49% unfavorable (i.e., Gingrich has a much higher unfavorability percentage and a somewhat lower favorability percentage).

The important point to note here is that, although Romney has a higher unfavorability score among the general electorate than he does among Republicans (not too surprising), Gingrich’s unfavorability scores far surpass Romney’s. In fact, Gingrich was the only Republican candidate with a higher unfavorability score than President Obama himself (who had 45% rate him as unfavorable).

2. Likelihood of Republicans to sit on the sidelines

14% of Republican primary voters said they would not support Gingrich if he becomes their party’s nominee, while only 10% of Republican primary voters said the same of Romney. The numbers are closer here, but Gingrich may do slightly worse than Romney within the Republican party in a general election.

3. Possible Obama-Republican match-ups

Among those surveyed, Romney was the only one of the Republican candidates who would break even with Obama in a head-to-head match (45% Obama vs. 45% Romney).

A Gingrich-Obama match would put Republicans at an 11% deficit (50% Obama vs. 39% Gingrich).

Among all of the Republican candidates, Romney fared best against Obama in the head-to-head contest.

4. Best chance of beating Obama

56% of Republican primary voters said Romney would have the best chance of beating Obama, while only 17% said Gingrich would have the best chance of beating Obama. These numbers tell the same story as Gingrich’s high unfavorability ratings among the general electorate (Republicans believe that Romney is stronger than Gingrich, while non-Republicans view Gingrich with much higher unfavorability than Romney).

5. Business vs. government experience

44% of Republican primary voters said they would prefer a candidate with mostly business experience, while only 12% said they would prefer a candidate with mostly government experience. If independent and swing voters have any of these same sentiments, Republicans may do well to put their money where their mouth is.

Since 56% of everyone surveyed said the economy is the most important issue in the campaign and 54% said they disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, the Republican candidate who scores better on the favorability scale could make a very competitive bid for the White House.

Conclusions:

Gingrich clearly succeeded at appealing to a plurality of the Republican party base in South Carolina, but Republicans should be very wary of a candidate who appears slightly more likely than Romney to leave Republicans at home if he becomes the party’s nominee and who appears far less likely than Romney to draw independent and cross-over voters into his camp.

With an unpopular president in the White House, one has to question whether Republicans would be wise to choose as their standard-bearer a man who has an even higher unfavorability rating than the current president.

I think it is likely that if Republicans choose Gingrich as our standard bearer in the general election, we will then be placed in the disagreeable position of watching our candidate be demolished by Obama. My prediction is that a Gingrich candidacy would see very few cross-over and independent voters casting ballots for him but large numbers of long-time Republicans choosing to sit on the sidelines.

So, here’s my beginning of a top 10 list of why I think Republicans should think twice before they cast a ballot for Gingrich.

#10: Gingrich’s attacks on Romney give the impression that he is more of a true opportunist than a true conservative.

Gingrich has described Romney’s involvement in capitalism as “rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company.”

The only problem with that claim is that even Romney’s Republican opponents and liberals are among those who disagree with Gingrich’s characterization. It seems that Rick Perry and Obama campaign staffers were among the few people eager to jump on Gingrich’s anti-capitalism bandwagon.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum both defended Romney.

One commenter who describes himself as being “on the far left politically” described Romney’s involvement in the turnaround at Bain & Company in highly favorable terms:

In fact, of all the apocryphal stories about [Romney], this is the only one that I am personally aware of that tells me that he might actually be a credible president. I think the Dems would be wise to stay clear of this particular episode.

Even NPR – not exactly a bastion of conservatism – ran a story largely favorable of Romney, in which Steven Kaplan – a university professor and expert on private equity – is quoted as describing Gingrich’s charges as “ridiculous”:

Looting a company and destroying a company does not create value…. At the end of the day, in order to make money, you have to sell the company to somebody, and if the company … has been looted and is unproductive, nobody is going to buy it.

NPR wasn’t alone in providing a review of the Bain attacks that was sympathetic to Romney. The Washington Post gave the highest possible score for dishonesty to the “King of Bain” video created by a pro-Gingrich super PAC … four pinocchios.

Only one of the four case studies [in the video] directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.

On the other hand, Obama’s deputy campaign manager was quick to jump on the anti-Bain bandwagon and said:

“President Obama – who, like Mitt Romney, earned a degree from Harvard and all the opportunities that affords – began his career helping jobless workers in the shadow of a closed-down steel mill. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, made millions closing down steel mills.”

Another Obama campaign staffer relished Republicans dog-piling on Romney and making Democratic attacks on Bain appear more credible and less partisan:

‘I would have preferred to wait, yes, to keep the bottle of whup-ass fresher,’ one Obama campaign strategist told TPM. ‘At the same time — and this is important to note — having the Republicans eat their own actually makes the Bain story more potent than we ever could because it instantly validates it as a line of attack and falls on independent ears as a matter of legitimate debate, not as a partisan line of attack.‘

1. Perry’s claims of creating a million jobs don’t stand up to scrutiny.

2. Perry’s government subsidy of banks doesn’t inspire confidence in his financial acumen.

3. Perry’s knowledge of foreign policy does not seem very impressive based on his performance at the Orlando debate.

4. Perry’s transportation policy has provided Texas the most expensive solution possible for building new roads.

5. In 2002, Perry promised to reform school financing, but by 2011 school financing is in such a mess that school districts in Texas are faced with signficant layoffs.

6. Perry exercised poor judgment when he levelled harsh charges against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

7. Perry will likely have a tough time selling himself to the large bloc of senior voters, because of his views on Social Security.

8. Perry supervised a big-government action that stripped all 468 children from their parents in the Texas community of an unpopular religion (FLDS).

9. Perry claims to be a supporter of small government, even though – as Governor of Texas – he was willing to sign a big-government executive order that was widely unpopular.

10. Perry is running to be President of the Union, but he appears to think the Union is an optional club.

Click image to enlarge – Click on #8 (above) for details

Because the number of jobs in Texas rose from 9,537,900 in December 2000 to 10,619,800 in July 2011, Perry claims to be responsible for creating 1.08 million jobs since he became governor.

Even if we grant that he is personally responsible for creating these jobs, a deeper examination of these numbers shows that they provide nothing to crow about:

• From December 2000 to July 2011, there was an increase of 11.3% in the number of jobs in Texas;
• During the decade Perry has been governor, the Texas population grew 20.6%, nearly twice the rate that jobs were created;
• The net result is that the unemployment rate increased from its all-time low of 4.2% in January 2001 (the month after Perry became governor) to its current level of 8.5% (which is the highest it has been since the record of 9.3% was set in November 1986).

Conclusion:

With Perry, there’s a lot to be nervous about. Even if his “provocative language” appeals to conservatives in the Republican Party, they may just find out that he doesn’t have the ability to generate traction in a general election campaign, in which he would need to impress more than just the great state of Texas.

An AP article reported that – under Perry’s leadership – Texas subsidized two of the banks that were major contributors to the subprime lending crisis (Countrywide and Washington Mutual) to the tune of $35 million. The article also reported that, after receiving grants from the Texas Enterprise Fund, the two banks increased their risky lending practices, and that the two banks contributed to Perry’s campaign fund. In 2007:

As credit-rating agencies continued downgrading hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed assets on Wall Street, Perry’s spokeswoman described Texas as ‘one of the hottest housing markets in the nation’ and dismissed concerns about the looming economic implosion as ‘slightly alarmist.’

NPR reported that:

Perry has been repeatedly accused of cronyism during his time as Texas governor in which both Perry and companies doing business in or with his state appear to benefit financially from the arrangement.

The allegation that cronyism was behind his 2007 executive order to have 12-year old Texas girls receive the HPV vaccine (his former chief of staff lobbied for the drug maker Merck) is at the heart of that controversy. And there are a number of other allegations that the Texas Enterprise Fund, meant to help bring jobs to Texas, was used to reward companies linked to Perry supporters.

Given the current state of the national economy, it seems that Republicans would be better served to pick a candidate with a more impressive financial resume.

3. Perry’s knowledge of foreign policy does not seem very impressive based on his performance at the Orlando debate.

When asked what he would do if the Taliban gained control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Perry said (in a response so bad that you almost have to listen to it to believe it):

Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with … and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So, to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16s, we chose not to do that. We did the same thing with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.

It was good to find there was a point to his rambling answer: if our allies know that we are their friends, there will apparently be no problem if the Taliban gets access to nukes.

Compared to the logic of Perry’s garbled response, it’s a rather minor point that India chose not to buy F-16s from the US, rather than the US choosing not to sell F-16s to India.

According to a US Department of Transportation report, Texas leads the nation in toll road projects since 1991:

Texas has the most toll activity of any state. This is not surprising in light of the Texas DOT policy of giving priority consideration to tolls for new capacity and aggressive promotion and institutionalization of public-private partnerships.

According to an open letter posted by the Texas Tea Party PAC, traditional public toll roads in Texas charge 10-20 cents per mile, but the new style of toll roads promoted by Texas DOT “bear almost no resemblance to traditional, taxpayer-controlled turnpikes.” Characteristics of these new toll roads include: relying on “innovative financing schemes,” placing control of many Texas roads in the hands of Cintra (a multinational corporation headquartered in Spain), charging up to 75 cents per mile, and limiting competition with the new toll roads.

The Economic Policy Journal reports troubling issues with Cintra: the North Tarrant Express contract has a clause that if the project is unprofitable, the state of Texas will buy back the project. In addition, a man who served as a Perry legislative liaison when the Cintra contract was awarded worked for Cintra both before and after the period he worked for Perry.

Perry claims to favor low taxes, but – in the case of Texas transportation – he avoided a fiscally conservative pay-as-you-go approach and instead imposed a far higher price tag downstream.

Many voters may prefer the Ponzi scheme of Social Security to the Perry scheme of creative government financing.

In the wake of a $4 billion reduction in school funding that was backed by Perry, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association has estimated that job losses at public schools could reach 49,000 by the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year. Perry disclaimed responsibility for any possible job losses, saying:

The lieutenant governor, the speaker, their colleagues aren’t going to hire or fire one teacher, as best I can tell. That is a local decision that will be made at the local districts.

And with the teacher layoffs contributing to the state’s unemployment figures, Texas now has the highest unemployment rate since 1987. It’s a small consolation that jobs have been created during Perry’s tenure, while the actual rate of unemployment has soared to 8.5%.

Perry’s record in tackling school finances does not bode well for his ability to deal with more complex financial problems such as Social Security and the national debt.