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.

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.

Huntsman?

George Will is a Reagan conservative who to some, me among them, comes across as stilted and often pedantic.  However that may be, in this opinion article he articulates the very real problem many conservatives (me among them) have with the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination.  Romney is a Dewey-like candidate (actually he seems more like Hoover) who is not very likeable, and whose platform seems to be to merely micro-manage every aspect of existing government programs and bureaucracies -- a kind of big time efficiency expert. Gingrich is a loose canon,  a "bull in a china shop who carries his china shop around with him" with a propensity to find macro solutions for some problems that may not even exist, when in real time a little less government would do the trick.  What caused many conservatives to have severe reservations about Romney was his interview with Bret Baer of Fox News last week.  When questioned about his changes of policy prescriptions over the years Romney lashed out at Baer using the regal "we" when referring to Baer in his answers revealing a condescending attitude that is most disturbing.  In effect Romney was telling Baer that answering difficult questions about his changing positions on matters in the past is not important, that what is important is his prescriptions for problems facing the nation going forward.  He seems not to understand that conservatives want to know why he changed his positions in order to determine whether he's a garden variety malleable politician or a Reagan-like leader with real, understandable convictions and principles, like theirs.  Recalling the history of the '20's and the beginning of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover was a putative conservative who in the end turned out to be the architect of the New Deal.  Since conservatives believe the growth of government during and since the New Deal is at the heart of our current problems, another Hoover is not their answer. If  Romney can't reasonably articulate the changes in his positions over the years, the fear in this quarter is he may be just another Hoover.

Why Gingrich?

It's pretty obvious that Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, have grave reservations about Mitt Romney, otherwise he would be well ahead of the pack at this time.  After all, Romney has been campaigning for this nomination for almost four years at this point, considering his run against McCain and his nonstop campaigning since?  Truth is many Republicans simply are not impressed with his record or his presentations of his qualifications. What's more they have doubts that he would hew to the conservative principles and is, in reality, a Big Government Republican in the mold of Rockefeller, McCain, Dole, Ford and all the other centrists of the past.  The grass roots Tea Party rebellion against the Obama Administration's huge overreach in healthcare and most other matters demonstrated how seriously these mainstream, largely Republican voters are about Big Government and its intrusion into individuals' lives.   Because of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, these voters have great reservations about Romney's commitment to their Small Government philosophy.  In addition they seem also to be unsure of his oratorical skills  going up against those of Obama.  Gingrich, on the other hand, has a well documented conservative record in House -- 90% ACU voting record -- and is thought to be capable of burying Obama in the presidential debates.  His most serious negatives are a tendency to be somewhat unfocused and perhaps have too many solutions to all our many problems.  But, as things stand as of this moment,  Gingrich's strengths seem to be carrying the day an he is now the front runner.

Is Romney the man?

Mitt Romney has never really captured the imagination of Conservatives in the manner Reagan did.  That's just a fact. The guy seems to be either highly programmed or bloodless, neither characteristic is very appealing.  Also, there's the matter of his flip-flops, particularly with regard to the Romneycare health program now running out of control in Massachussetts.  In this post Steve Hayward points out another of Romney's questionable positions in his Governor days.  It's important to remember that Hayward is a true blue conservative who wants nothing more than to get rid of Obama.  And yet he has the same reservations many other conservatives do about the depth and sincerity of Romney's beliefs about the economy, climate matters and the role of the government.  After all it does us no good to be rid of Obama and his crowd and replace him with just a lighter, paler but similar version of collectivist leadership.  Conservatives truly believe the government is too large and intrusive and must be reduced in size and influence.  The question is does Romney believe this or doe3s he just want to be POTUS?  This question and these doubts are the reason conservatives keep looking for a viable alternative to Romney all the while candidates keep dropping out of the race.

Bowdoin College study

An upcoming study by the NAS (National Association of Scholars) should be interesting for anyone interested in what is going on in institutions of higher learning these days.  A common complaint of David Horowitz's Frontpage Magazine is the idea that while most liberal arts colleges are committed to a diverse student body that "resembles America"  the only real diversity is in the color of their students and and perhaps the gender of the faculty.  Horowitz argues that the social studies departments are almost completely staffed with liberals and only occasionally does he find a conservative on the faculty of the hundreds of campuses he visits each year in the course of talking about the unfairness of speech codes and the toxic politically correct environment they produce.  This study, as described here, will explore the curricula at Bowdoin in-depth, and attempt to find evidence of bias that may reflect a particular political bent or tilt.  Since the NAS mission is to protect the integrity of the academic environment in which its members function, it is unimaginable that this study will be anything other than thorough and objective   The results will be in the Spring of 2012.

ADDED:  On the subject of higher education this post from Innovations - The Chronicle of Higher Education blog, presents a recent "incident" that occurred at the U. of Wisconsin, having to do with the interruption of a meeting held in a local hotel by a respected organization that studies the effect and results of affirmative action policies (diversity initiatives) by institutions of higher learning.  It seems this organization through the FOIA had acquired the records on admissions at the U of W and was meetig to discuss these results when a student "mob", at the direction of the vice provo of the school's "Diversity" department, interrupted the meeting by taking over the site and threatening the participants.  Obviously the university and the "students" feared the outcome of the meeting, which indeed was discussing the facts of the admissions policies of the school in a most unfavorable light as is seen in this link to a post describing the events.

This blatantly illegal action on the part of the students who were goaded on by a school administrator is an outrage but in keeping with what is going on at schools all over the country.  The facts of the admissions policies including the graduation rates of the affirmative action admits are laid out in the post and make for discouraging reading if you are at all concerned about the quality of education offered by our universities and the impact of the diversity outreach programs which flow from the affirmative action law.  Thank you Sandra Day O'Connor for your contribution to the blatant discrimination agains white and Asian students now rampant at universities around the country.