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.