Newt Gingrich appears to be fixated on his eroding poll standing. Newt's no-message message

DES MOINES — For three precious campaign days in Iowa this week, Newt Gingrich has driven a consistent message: he’s unhappy with the negative attacks that are raining down on him here.

The problem: That’s seemingly his only message.


Less than two weeks before the caucuses, Gingrich — who bills himself as the candidate of solutions — has drowned out any talk of policy, ideas or vision by litigating the multi-million dollar pounding he’s taking on TV, radio and in the mailbox.

Even as he appeared at the Capitol here Wednesday ostensibly to roll out an endorsement from Iowa’s House speaker, the focus was on carping about the deluge that is eroding his poll standing.

Gingrich’s comments – coming both unprompted at the start of the event and in response to press questions – marked yet another day that he used his time on the trail to denounce commercials that are being largely funded by a pro-Mitt Romney SuperPAC.

The former speaker has floated a coming “Jobs and Prosperity” tour, but his last Iowa trip before Christmas was notable mostly for how much he talked process and drew more attention to an onslaught which he’s done little to actually rebut.

Plainly frustrated by the assault, Gingrich turned Wednesday to a newspaper’s fact-check blog to push back against “Restore our Future’s” attacks.

“Well, I would suggest you look at the Washington Post, which says that the latest Romney ad got ‘Four Pinocchio’s,’” Gingrich told reporters, alluding to the truth rating the paper gave to a new negative ad by the Romney SuperPAC about his voting record in the House, ethics charges and the payments he collected from Freddie Mac after leaving office.

In a separate interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham, Gingrich even suggested that he’d be able to reverse his poll decline mainly by making voters aware of such truth-squadding.

Describing his response to Iowans who ask about the negative attacks, he explained to Ingraham: “You say to people ‘all right, if this ad was honest I wouldn’t vote for me either, and here’s what the Washington Post said, it’s totally dishonest.’”

But both public and private polling indicates that Iowans so far are more apt to believe the commercials than Gingrich’s response or any fact-check rulings.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said that the former speaker needed to answer the attacks - but not let them consume his campaign.

“I’ve been through a lot of campaigns myself, and I know that if you ignore an attack, sometimes people will end up believing it. So sometimes you have to respond,” Branstad said. “But I think it’s also important not to have that distract from the message that you want to bring across and the vision and the plan you have to lead America.”

Gingrich allies indicated that a pivot to more policy-oriented message was coming, but so far it hasn’t.

“It’s very important that we have a focus in the last two weeks of the Iowa campaign…on who has the best solutions, not who can hire the meanest consultants to run the most negative ads,” Gingrich said at the start of his event with Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen.

On Ingraham’s show, Gingrich claimed Romney is “drowning people in dirt that is an embarrassment to the American system.”

And after jetting to New Hampshire Wednesday afternoon to accept the endorsement of the state House speaker there, Gingrich again lamented the attacks he’s facing ahead of the caucuses.

“The Iowa race has gotten to be a real mess,” Gingrich said at a town hall meeting in Manchester. “I think my friends have bought about seven or eight million dollars of negative advertising so far.”

His fixation on the onslaught and high-minded refusal to hit back has mystified longtime Republicans.

“The most surprising thing of this entire race is the straight face with which the most bare-knuckled brawler of the last 20 years expresses faux indignance at being attacked,” said GOP ad man Brad Todd. “He’s a combative pol. Republican voters actually respected that side of him and I don’t think his whining now is either in character or helpful to him.”

Gingrich’s approach has helped the GOP primary devolve Wednesday into a long-distance spat over campaign tactics between the two frontrunners. While Gingrich seemed consumed with litigating, but not responding to, the Iowa attacks, Romney sent mixed messages about the role of an outside group that is leading the assault on the former speaker.

For his part, Romney can’t seem to figure out if the rise of SuperPACs is an indicator of a failed campaign finance system or if the attacks launched by the group helping him are fair game.

On Tuesday, Romney criticized the super PACs as a “disaster” – even though he’s raised money for the one backing his bid.

“Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season,” Romney said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.”

Yet when he was asked Wednesday to respond to Gingrich’s demand that he disavow the ad campaign, Romney offered no critique of the system and instead effectively told his rival to suck it up.

“I’m sure I could say ‘Hey, please don’t do anything negative,’” Romney said in a Fox interview he taped from New Hampshire. “But this is politics, and if you can’t stand the heat in this little kitchen, just wait until the Obama hell’s kitchen turns up the heat. This is a time when we have to be able to stand up and defend ourselves. I’ve done the hard work of raising money for ads and the speaker came after me pretty aggressively in his attacks.”

By the end of the day, Gingrich seized on Romney’s trash-talking and was attempting to call his bluff with another process tactic: a debate challenge.

“If he wants to test the heat, I’ll meet him anywhere in Iowa next week, one-on-one, 90 minutes. No moderator, just a timekeeper,” Gingrich told reporters in New Hampshire.

The former speaker added: “Would he like to come and play in the kitchen? I don’t think so. I can take the heat plenty well.”

Alexander Burns and Juana Summers contributed to this report.