Could $100 million buy Newt Gingrich another chance?

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is doubling down on Newt's floundering campaign, and might even pony up $100 million. Is that a losing bet? Though most political observers are counting Newt Gingrich out of the 2012 presidential race, billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is keeping the faith, and then some. Earlier this year, Adelson gave $5 million to a Gingrich-aligned super PAC, then another $5 million, almost single-handedly reviving Gingrich's campaign after back-to-back embarrassments in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, not only is  Adelson, 78, reportedly pumping another $10 million into Gingrich's camp to get him through March 6's Super Tuesday elections, he tells Forbes that he still "might give... $100 million to Gingrich." While that seems like an awful lot, it's still just a fraction of Adelman's $25 billion fortune, notes Forbes' Steven Bertoni. Would even this unprecedented individual political donation be enough to revive Gingrich's presidential campaign?

This cash could resurrect Newt: Gingrich has already seen "more comebacks this Republican presidential primary season than anyone can remember," says Karyn McDermott at Examiner. And none other than Rush Limbaugh is predicting another rebound for Newt. "Conventional political punditry and wisdom have Newt looking good in the South," and if Adelson keeps writing multi-million-dollar checks, there's no reason Gingrich can't go all the way to the Republican convention.
"Newt: Lazarus with a triple bypass?"

But Adelson's millions come with strings: The $100 million pledge is "an attention-grabbing statement, but a largely meaningless one," at least for Newt, says Marc Tracy at The Tablet. Adelson is "loyal to his friend Gingrich, but is ultimately concerned with unseating the president." It's likely Adelson won't put his donations toward Newt's negative attack ads against fellow Republicans, severely limiting Gingrich's options to get back in the race. The most likely scenario? Adelson reserves his largess for the eventual GOP nominee.
"Adelson may keep giving to Gingrich"

And Newt is still a losing bet: "Gingrich's chances of being anything more than a spoiler are long gone," says Jonathan Bernstein at The Washington Post. But thanks to these new "vanity super PACs," Adelson can keep Newt's "dying campaign afloat just because he wants to." That's dangerous for the GOP. The modern nominating system "depends on losers dropping out fairly early in the process," which happens naturally when donors only give to winning candidates. An Adelson-financed zombie Newt can only eat his own party.
"Are billionaires disrupting the presidential campaign?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Oscars 2012: Is there any way The Artist could lose?

The black-and-white silent film has been steamrolling through awards season, racking up nearly every trophy enroute to the Academy's Best Picture honor After an awards season in which The Artist swept nearly every ceremony, many prognosticators believe the beloved silent black-and-white film is almost boringly destined to win Best Picture at the Oscars on Sunday. Oddsmakers are going so far as to bet that The Artist is a virtual lock, with no other competitor getting better than 25:1 odds. Is a Best Picture win for The Artist a foregone conclusion?

The Artist has no real competition: The Artist is the surefire winner, simply because no other film has emerged as a formidable enough opponent, says Steve Pond at Reuters. The Descendants is enjoying a groundswell of support, but it's "too little, too late." Hugo boasts Oscar favorite Martin Scorsese at the helm, but is otherwise too divisive, and only mildly popular. And while the Academy's acting branch is championing The Help, no one else is in the film's corner. Since The Artist's breakout at Cannes, Oscar voters have found other "movies to like, but nothing to love enough to woo them away from the delightful novelty."
"The Artist will win, but should it?"

And it's the perfect film for the moment: The Oscars have always been an "indication of how Hollywood feels about itself in the given moment," says Karina Longworth at LA Weekly. Not only is The Artist this year's best movie, its depiction of Hollywood's paranoid struggle to adapt to the talkies era reflects Hollywood's current fears "as celluloid technology is being replaced by digital, and theater attendance is threatened by the habits of a new generation born into an on-demand world." With its happy ending, The Artist provides "a fairy tale that Hollywood desperately needs to hear."
"Why The Artist will win Best Picture at the Oscars"

SEE MORE: Petty controversy: The Oscars diss singing Muppets

Don't count out Hugo: The Artist still has one major competitor, says Volkmar Richter at the Vancouver Observer. Hugo has more nominations than The Artist, "and therefore possibly more friends." While both films are love letters to old cinema, Oscar voters "might decide The Artist is an inspired idea but a rather easily-done movie, whereas Hugo is a work of art." The Artist is charming, but slight; historically, the Academy hasn't rewarded films based purely on entertainment value. Scorsese's "masterful venture into 3D" still has a shot.
"Academy Award predictions: The Artist versus Hugo for Best Picture"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Pakistan PM charged with contempt in case that could drag on

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's Supreme Court charged the embattled prime minister with contempt of court on Monday for his refusal to re-open old corruption cases against the head of his political party, President Asif Ali Zardari.

If convicted, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani could be forced to step down and face up to six months in jail. The case, which has raised tension between Pakistan's civilian leaders and the Supreme Court, could drag on and paralyze decision-making.

Local television channels flashed the news less than half an hour after Gilani arrived at the courthouse. He pleaded not guilty.

The civilian-judicial confrontation stems from thousands of old corruption cases thrown out in 2007 by an amnesty law passed under former military president Pervez Musharraf.

Zardari is its most prominent beneficiary and the main target of the court, which voided the law in 2009 and ordered the re-opening of cases accusing the president of money laundering using Swiss bank accounts.

Gilani and his advisers have refused to ask the Swiss to reopen the cases. The prime minister had appealed against the court's decision to charge him with contempt, but on Friday that appeal was dismissed, paving the way for today's indictment.

"The prime minister's actions reek of protecting the president over our system of democracy," the Express Tribune said in an editorial.

"Even if the president's immunity is upheld, it will no longer be applicable once he is out of office and in that eventuality there may be no legal or constitutional hitch in preventing the Supreme Court from going ahead on this issue."

It was a view widely held by many other newspapers and analysts, who largely hail the Supreme Court's actions as a badly needed advance for the rule of law and accountability in Pakistan, where corruption tops the list of most opinion polls as the country's biggest problem.

(Reporting by Serena Chaudhry, Qasim Nauman and Rebecca Conway; Writing by Chris Allbritton; Editing by Nick Macfie)

View the original article here

5 ways CPAC could affect the 2012 race

Right-wing politicos converge on Washington for the election-year Conservative Political Action Conference. What should campaign-watchers expect?

There's a reason this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., has been called "Mardi Gras for the Right," says Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast. It's a political party with a little bit of everything: Presidential candidates and big-name conservative speakers, a 2012 straw poll, networking opportunities galore, "C-list celebrities," a conservative dating seminar, and even a Reaganpalooza gala. But of course, the real focus will be the presidential race. Here, five ways the conservative confab could help determine which candidate the splintered Republican Party will send into the ring with President Obama this fall:

1. CPAC gives Romney a chance to cozy up to conservatives
At CPAC four years ago, Romney dropped out of the presidential race and urged conservatives to unite behind John McCain. This year, Romney is McCain — the GOP frontrunner little loved by the conservative base — and after three stinging losses to social conservative Rick Santorum on Tuesday, Romney promised Fox News' Sean Hannity that he will highlight for his "friends at CPAC" his "strong conservative" bona fides on issues like contraception and gay marriage. Of course, say Maggie Haberman and Reid J. Epstein at Politico, Romney's "speech to the red-meat-eating crowd will be among the most anticipated of the three-day event." But Romney must "be careful," says David Frum at The Daily Beast. The more he panders to the CPAC crowd, the more he's "remade into somebody he's not."

SEE MORE: Is Nevada's Tea Party too dysfunctional to trip up Mitt Romney?

2. Santorum could become the ordained anti-Romney
Hot off his Tuesday victories, Santorum has all the CPAC buzz so far, says Hillary Chabot in the Boston Herald. His signature sweater vests are "all the rage," and many conservatives are coming out as Santorum backers, saying they always liked him but only recently became believers that he can actually win. Santorum's wins on Tuesday sure look like "the start of a conservative rallying toward a single candidate," says John Dickerson at Slate. Now he needs to wow the CPAC crowd enough to sideline Newt Gingrich.

3. But Newt has a chance to stop Santorum's momentum
CPAC is also the most likely place for "a Gingrich turnaround," says Rachel Weiner at The Washington Post. After his string of losses, the fiery orator needs to use his CPAC speech to "hit the reset button" and prevent Santorum "from dominating the 'conservative alternative' space." Even if Newt can't use CPAC to "reignite the spark that once propelled his campaign," says Slate's Dickerson, he'll keep slogging on. And you never know what might happen: "Gingrich is at his best when people are predicting his doom."

SEE MORE: Is this the 'ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest' campaign ever?

4. The straw poll winner will be showered with attention
Ron Paul, who dominated the CPAC straw poll in each of the past two years, is skipping this year's conference to campaign in Maine. And Romney, the winner from 2007 through 2009, is now publicly deriding the straw poll as a meaningless exercise. But political tea-leaf readers certainly won't see it that way, says Tomasky at The Daily Beast. With a looming two-week "hiatus in the GOP primary race," the straw poll will be read as a key thermometer of the conservative mood. Plus, says Maggie Haberman at Politico, the poll is totally "up for grabs." If Santorum can pull off a win, it would "add to the perception that he is galvanizing the base of the party that has not embraced Romney."

5. A Palin endorsement could shake up the race
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is making her CPAC debut this year, giving the final speech of the conference Saturday afternoon. She has spoken approvingly of Gingrich in recent weeks, but has yet to endorse any candidate. Palin's "stock in the GOP has obviously declined," says The Washington Post's Weiner. But "she still has a following and could give the struggling [Gingrich] a boost." Yes, but "whether Palin explicitly endorses Gingrich or not," says The Daily Beast's Tomasky, "her speech is sure to be pored over by the national media, practicing a kind of Kremlinology, Wasilla-style, to get hints of her views on the race."

SEE MORE: Next up, Nevada: Can anyone overtake Romney?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

APNewsBreak: Report: Energy loans could cost $3B

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government could lose nearly $3 billion on Energy Department loans for green energy programs — far less than the $10 billion Congress set aside for the high-risk program, according to an independent review.

The White House ordered the review after criticism of a $528 million loan to Solyndra Inc., solar company that went bankrupt.

The review, led by former Treasury Department official Herb Allison, looked at 30 loans or loan guarantees totaling $23.8 billion that were offered to green energy companies and auto makers such as Ford and Nissan.

The review did not involve Solyndra or Beacon Power Corp., a Tyngsboro, Mass., energy storage company that also went bankrupt after receiving a federal loan. The government has lost $567 million from those two loans so far, although officials said this week they could recover as much as $28 million from the sale of Beacon to a private equity firm.

The 75-page report, released Friday, says that about one-third of the money allocated — $8.3 billion — had been spent as of Nov. 28.

The government could reduce its losses from the loan program if it withholds money from companies that fail to meet certain benchmarks, the report said. The comment echoes criticism by some Republicans in Congress who say the Obama administration should have cut off money to Solyndra far sooner than it did.

The report recommends several steps the Energy Department can take to improve the loan program, including creation of a chief risk officer to monitor all of the agency's loans. The risk management unit should be separate from the loan program office and should report directly to senior DOE managers, the report says.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the report makes clear that the Energy Department is operating under congressional requirements to provide loans to projects that would have trouble obtaining private financing — which is why Congress appropriated $10 billion to cover expected losses.

"We have always known there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won't succeed," Chu said in a statement, "but the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time and with about $8 billion in interest."

Counting loans and guarantees to U.S. car makers and the nuclear industry, the loan program is supporting as many as 60,000 jobs and generating up to $40 billion in private investment, Chu said.

A GOP critic of the loan program was not impressed.

"This is less a report than an umbrella to deflect the criticism that's pouring down on the administration," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., adding that he was disappointed the report did not evaluate the Solyndra or Beacon loans.

"How can an evaluation be 'independent' if the administration controls its content? A study that excludes inconvenient evidence isn't independent," Sensenbrenner said.

While the report generally backs department estimates of potential losses from the loan program, it says the loan values are far below what the companies would have to pay a private bank, without a government guarantee. Under a so-called fair-market value, the loans have been discounted by anywhere from $5 billion to $6.8 billion, the report says.

A White House spokesman said the purpose of the program was to spark investment in alternative and renewable energy programs that otherwise would not qualify for a private loan.

The finding about subsidies "simply means that a private bank wouldn't be willing to buy the (Energy) Department's loans at face value unless they could charge a higher interest rate," said spokesman Eric Schultz. He called that unsurprising, "since the entire point of the program ... was to make loans available for emerging clean energy companies so they have the best chance of succeeding in early stages, when innovative technologies traditionally have a difficult time accessing private capital."

Schultz called the report thorough, substantive and objective and said it confirms that the overall loan portfolio is expected to perform well.

The White House ordered the review in October as congressional Republicans investigated the Solyndra bankruptcy amid embarrassing revelations that federal officials were warned the company had problems but nonetheless continued to support it. Chu attended a 2009 groundbreaking at the company's California headquarters, and President Barack Obama visited the company in 2010.

Solyndra, of Fremont, Calif., was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model.

Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that the administration hurried to finish its review of the loan in time for its September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama and a rallying cry for GOP critics of his clean-energy program.

___

Follow Matthew Daly's energy coverage at Twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC

View the original article here

5 ways CPAC could affect the 2012 race

Right-wing politicos converge on Washington for the election-year Conservative Political Action Conference. What should campaign-watchers expect?

There's a reason this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., has been called "Mardi Gras for the Right," says Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast. It's a political party with a little bit of everything: Presidential candidates and big-name conservative speakers, a 2012 straw poll, networking opportunities galore, "C-list celebrities," a conservative dating seminar, and even a Reaganpalooza gala. But of course, the real focus will be the presidential race. Here, five ways the conservative confab could help determine which candidate the splintered Republican Party will send into the ring with President Obama this fall:

1. CPAC gives Romney a chance to cozy up to conservatives
At CPAC four years ago, Romney dropped out of the presidential race and urged conservatives to unite behind John McCain. This year, Romney is McCain — the GOP frontrunner little loved by the conservative base — and after three stinging losses to social conservative Rick Santorum on Tuesday, Romney promised Fox News' Sean Hannity that he will highlight for his "friends at CPAC" his "strong conservative" bona fides on issues like contraception and gay marriage. Of course, say Maggie Haberman and Reid J. Epstein at Politico, Romney's "speech to the red-meat-eating crowd will be among the most anticipated of the three-day event." But Romney must "be careful," says David Frum at The Daily Beast. The more he panders to the CPAC crowd, the more he's "remade into somebody he's not."

SEE MORE: Is Nevada's Tea Party too dysfunctional to trip up Mitt Romney?

2. Santorum could become the ordained anti-Romney
Hot off his Tuesday victories, Santorum has all the CPAC buzz so far, says Hillary Chabot in the Boston Herald. His signature sweater vests are "all the rage," and many conservatives are coming out as Santorum backers, saying they always liked him but only recently became believers that he can actually win. Santorum's wins on Tuesday sure look like "the start of a conservative rallying toward a single candidate," says John Dickerson at Slate. Now he needs to wow the CPAC crowd enough to sideline Newt Gingrich.

3. But Newt has a chance to stop Santorum's momentum
CPAC is also the most likely place for "a Gingrich turnaround," says Rachel Weiner at The Washington Post. After his string of losses, the fiery orator needs to use his CPAC speech to "hit the reset button" and prevent Santorum "from dominating the 'conservative alternative' space." Even if Newt can't use CPAC to "reignite the spark that once propelled his campaign," says Slate's Dickerson, he'll keep slogging on. And you never know what might happen: "Gingrich is at his best when people are predicting his doom."

SEE MORE: Is this the 'ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest' campaign ever?

4. The straw poll winner will be showered with attention
Ron Paul, who dominated the CPAC straw poll in each of the past two years, is skipping this year's conference to campaign in Maine. And Romney, the winner from 2007 through 2009, is now publicly deriding the straw poll as a meaningless exercise. But political tea-leaf readers certainly won't see it that way, says Tomasky at The Daily Beast. With a looming two-week "hiatus in the GOP primary race," the straw poll will be read as a key thermometer of the conservative mood. Plus, says Maggie Haberman at Politico, the poll is totally "up for grabs." If Santorum can pull off a win, it would "add to the perception that he is galvanizing the base of the party that has not embraced Romney."

5. A Palin endorsement could shake up the race
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is making her CPAC debut this year, giving the final speech of the conference Saturday afternoon. She has spoken approvingly of Gingrich in recent weeks, but has yet to endorse any candidate. Palin's "stock in the GOP has obviously declined," says The Washington Post's Weiner. But "she still has a following and could give the struggling [Gingrich] a boost." Yes, but "whether Palin explicitly endorses Gingrich or not," says The Daily Beast's Tomasky, "her speech is sure to be pored over by the national media, practicing a kind of Kremlinology, Wasilla-style, to get hints of her views on the race."

SEE MORE: Next up, Nevada: Can anyone overtake Romney?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Could Vladimir Putin really face a 'Russian Spring'?

Though the resilient Russian leader is still a near-lock to win back the presidency next month, anti-Putin protests are growing

In the largest protests Russia has seen since the fall of the Soviet Union, tens of thousands of people flooded Moscow's streets in recent days demanding fair elections and the end of Vladimir Putin's "corrupt" government. Putin was president from 2000 to 2008. Barred from a third consecutive term, he has spent the last four years serving as prime minister while his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, held the presidency. Putin is widely expected to reclaim the presidency in March elections, a scenario which one opposition leader warns could trigger "Russian Spring" protests. Is that realistic and what might it lead to?

The tide is turning against Putin: "Opposition demonstrations have utterly changed the political atmosphere in Russia," says Gideon Rachman at Business Day. Riled up by Putin's United Russia party's rigged parliamentary election victory in December, marchers are carrying signs reading "Mubarak, Gadhafi, Putin." And it's true — "the end of the Putin era is in sight." Just listening to "the insults hurled at Putin" by Russian protesters and "the intoxicating sense that taboos are being broken is reminiscent of the outbreak of glasnost under Mikhail Gorbachev."
"Ice starts to crack under Putin in 'Moscow thaw'"

Be careful what you wish for: I love seeing Russians protest Putin's "heavy-handedness and corruption," says Raymond Sontag at The American Interest. But if this is the start of a Russian Arab Spring, the protesters could be headed for the same turmoil and violence from which Putin claims to have saved them in the 1990s. In a country like Russia that lacks strong freedom-promoting institutions, it does not necessarily forllow that reformers toppling dictators will lead to true democratization. Remember, "such revolution can easily lead... right back to the authoritarianism it sought to displace."
"Divided Russia"

Russians are mad, but not that mad: Obviously, Russians "who take to the streets are upset," Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia's Global Politics journal, tells Agence France Presse. But this is no Arab Spring. What Russians "want is more prosperity, more prospects for the future, not a revolution." The tensions tearing apart Arab countries just aren't present in Russia, and as long as the government reacts with restraint, Putin won't be toppled anytime soon.
"Russia still far from its 'Arab Spring': Analysts"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Could volcanoes erupt in California?

The Ubehebe Crater in Death Valley is in danger of erupting any day now, say researchers. Time to panic?

Bad news, Californians. A long-dormant volcano in Death Valley National Park might be due for an eruption far sooner than originally anticipated, according to researchers from Columbia University. Is the Golden State really in danger of blowing its lid? Here's what you should know:

Which volcano is it?
It's the Ubehebe Crater which sits in the northern region of Death Valley. The mile-and-half-wide by 600-foot-deep crater was thought to have come "explosively into being" some 10,000 years ago when rising magma came into contact with sea water, says Richard A. Lovett at National Geographic. "The bomblike steam eruption produced a mushroom cloud that, as it collapsed, sent rocky debris flowing out sideways at 200 miles an hour." But new research suggests the volcano is much younger than that.

SEE ALSO: 6,500-year-old popcorn and 5 other foods with ancient origins

How old is it then?
The last explosion happened just 800 years ago, says Jesus Diaz at Gizmodo — a far cry from original estimates. A team of scientists, including study co-authors Peri Sasnett and Brent Goehring, used "the same method used to date Moon rocks" to get a reading on the crater's real age after seeing it first-hand and questioning the time since its last eruption. "It looks very young," said Goehring.

Why does the volcano's age matter?
"According to the new data, the eruption was recent enough to suggest that the area might become volcanically active again," says Lovett, meaning "the conditions are still ripe for an eruption." For the crater to blow, it would require a pressurized combination of magma and water, much like the conditions that originally set it off. This combination "produces steam," says Diaz, "which in turn results in a pressure build up until it reaches a point that will cause a violent explosion."

SEE ALSO: The dangers of quick thinking

But where would the water come from? Isn't Death Valley dry?
For the most part it is. But "you need about a hundred Olympic-size swimming pools to generate enough steam to [produce] Ubehebe crater," Goehring says, and there's probably probably more than that underneath the crater today, as evidenced by nearby springs. That means, says Eric Klemetti at Wired, that the conditions required for an eruption "are likely still present in eastern California." 

How bad would an eruption be?
"Luckily" the Ubehebe Crater wouldn't explode without warning, says Lovett. Most likely, there would be warnings in the form of hydrothermal or seismic activity, and park rangers aren't too concerned at the moment. But if the volcano were to explode, the eruption would be "spectacular" — though not big enough to cause any damage to nearby cities.  

Sources: Gizmodo, National Geographic, Wired

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here