Newt's not the guy

that The "insider" complaint about Gingrich as the nominee for the Republican Party is his undoing.  Since his ignominious removal as Speaker of the House in 1999, Gingrich has enriched himself as a consultant for various corporations and GSEs including Freddie Mac.  His defense of his activities is that he never lobbied any government agency on behalf of his clients.  This is, at best, a highly dubious claim.  Can anyone with a straight face suggest that one with Gingrich's background and history would be hired for any other purpose than to influence some government entity on behalf of his client?  And influence peddling is the operative definition of lobbying, no matter any of the so-called nuanced explanations being floated in Gingrich's defense.   Since the Tea Party, big government, and anti Obama sentiment prevalent today are all predicated on distrust and disgust with Washington and cronyism, it's hard to see how Gingrich can avoid this backlash.  Romney will likely win the nomination as the last guy standing and because he has the least amount of big government/Washington taint.  This outcome is probably for the best for conservatives and Republicans since of the two leading  candidates Romney is the steadier, more rational and has more appeal among swing voters.  Buckley's dictum of choosing the most conservative candidate who can be elected, is just about right in this case.

Forbes on the warpath

There is do doubt that the Republican "establishment" is anti Gingrich.  To the extent Forbes Magazine represents the Republican establishment, this article is highly pro Romney and anti Gingrich, with a great deal of justification in the view of this blogger.  There is no disagreement anywhere that Gingrich is THE consummate Washington insider.  His entire career, until he was thrown out by his own party in 1999 on ethical grounds, has been spent in Washington where he attained the status of Speaker of the House, perhaps the second most powerful job in the federal government.  Gingrich is bright, and his is a lifelong conservative.  He has wobbled on some favorite conservative positions in healthcare and social issue involving abortions, however his core beliefs are substantially conservative.  Where many in the Republican camp part company with him is on matters of character (three wives, history of philandering, revolving door history, etc) while in and out of public life.  He's simply too erratic and personally suspect for true blue conservatives.  Forbes attacks him on his lack of meaningful private sector business experience, and on his exclusively insider political experience.  This critique is surely merited and will be hard for him to overcome.

Differences between left and right

Steven Hayward has begun a series that explains the seemingly irreconcilable differences between conservatives and liberals.  This post is the first of three on this truly interesting series.  Most of what he says in the second installment  here we intuitively understand.  Nevertheless it is still instructive to see these differences on paper to be able to focus and reflect on them a bit.  Because conservatives understand the value of learning from the past, and liberals are willing to expunge the past from consideration in their search for a the perfect world order, it's clear the views are indeed irreconcilable which is why there is such an intractable divide between the democrats and republicans these days. It remains a mystery how these two philosophies can exist within the same family unit, a not uncommon occurrence.

Finally, Here is the third and here fourth installment of Hayward's PL posts on the differences between the left and the right.

The PC Administration

Clifford May is an expert on the Middle East and Islam.  His views on these two subjects are measured, thoughtful and always worth hearing.  In this article he comments on the current administrations's policies vis-a-vis terrorists, and the Islamic faith.  Their attitude is about what one would expect considering the cast of characters involved at all levels ob the bureaucracy.  May comments specifically on the policy calling for expunging all reference to Islam from any documents regarding terrorist activities, specifically to avoid any connection between Islam and the activities of terrorist, all of whom practice a version of Islam.  Try as they may this administration cannot disassociate the Islamic religion from activities of terrorists especially so because there is estimate of many experts that as many as 10% of Muslims back the activities of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  !0 per cent of a worldwide 1.2 billion Muslims is 120 million followers of the faith who condone killing unbelievers, namely us in the West.  Those who practice political correctness in this matter contributed directly to the murder of 20 innocent US Army personnel in the massacre by the Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan at a military base in Georgia several years ago.  Elections have consequences
.

Epstein on Obama

Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institute fellow, has it just about right in this essay on Obama's Osawatomie, Kansas, speech last week.  The really scary aspect of Obama's presidency is his abject ignorance about job creation, the role of competition in free markets, and of course the role of government in its role as rule maker for free enterprise.  Never experiencing first hand what happens in the real economy, Obama simply relies on the academic left's failed ideas largely derived from Marx and Engels and their followers.  The fact that all of those ideas have been tried and found not to work doesn't bother socialists like Obama who are driven by a concept understood and known to true believer liberals as "social justice".  "Social Justice" has been the driving force behind the Civil Rights movement since the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed and has given us the victim and grievance industry of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et. al.  

Why Conservatives hate CBS's 60 Minutes

Okay, CBS and all the other so-called MSM (Mainstream Media) are in the tank for the democrat party.  This is not news, has been the case for ever and blossomed after Walter Cronkite decided in the late '60's that it was okay for news reporters, stations and the networks to take sides in "important" political issues of the day.  Since that time the liberal bias of the media has flowered to the point we now see on display in this 60 Minutes interview of Obama by Steve Croft over the weekend.  Conservatives have a hard time getting their message and the truth out when all these media outlets are this blatantly in the tank for the opposition. In this interview, Obama, who along with Joe Biden has been running all over the country blaming the Bush Administration for the financial meltdown of '08, is not asked by Croft to account for the fact the legislation enabling the deregulation of derivatives and the like to take place occurred during the Clinton Administration -- not the Bush Administration -- with the full support of the congressional democrats.  So much for the veracity and truth seeking by these MSM reporters.  Like all liberals (and Communists, and Muslims, by the way) outright lying and the omission of the truth in the promotion of a greater good is morally acceptable and even desirable. This point is usually overlooked when accounting for media bias, however it is the primary reason why no liberal is trustworthy.  Some refer to this particular tactic as moral relativism, which is as good an explanation as any.