Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian P. who wrote (13020)	2/29/2000 9:21:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Liberal endorsement The New Republic, a traditionally liberal publication, has endorsed Al Gore's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. That was no surprise; the magazine's owner is a close friend of Mr. Gore's. However, the magazine, for the first time, offered up an endorsement on the Republican side, backing Arizona Sen. John McCain. Perhaps that should be no surprise either, since the magazine recently proclaimed on its cover that Mr. McCain isn't really a Republican. The editorial went on to denounce the Republican Party ?but not Mr. McCain ? as "the political arm of the privileged few." "The party [Mr. McCain] confronts has all the venality of the spoilsmen whom Theodore Roosevelt confronted a century ago," the magazine said. Mr. McCain, on the other hand, is "far closer to Bill Clinton than to [George] Bush" in his governing philosophy, the magazine said approvingly. washtimes.com

To: Brian P. who wrote (13020)	2/29/2000 1:17:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 769667

Funny thing, Brian. People have been talking about the fault lines in the Reagan coalition as long as I can remember. Reagan was really quite a singular politician, the moralists trusted him enough that he didn't have to bend over backward placated them all the time. W doesn't have that luxury, and his father didn't have it either. It was a problem for GHWB, and it sure seems to be a problem for W too. McCain, on the other hand, is utterly fearless there. I think it'd be good for the Republican Party to get the moralists out of their current central position. From a monkeywrenching perspective, of course, I like the G.O.P. just fine the way it is, and I think the local W advocates are doing a good job too. Mr. McCain's supporters contend that Republicans lost elections in 1996 and 1998 and will again unless they reshape their coalition and their message to account for the nation's new prosperity and the rise of the suburbs, whose swing voters turned to Mr. Clinton in droves in 1996. "The conventional Republican view of the last few years is we had bad luck," said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who is supporting Mr. McCain. "We were outmaneuvered by Clinton. Gingrich messed up and Dole messed up. But basically the party is in good shape. The conservative movement is in good shape and all we need is a better messenger." That is an ironic statement from the ever urban Kristol, judging from his endorsement. Which correlates with another apparent old Reagan hand quoted in another NYT article yesterday: For the reality is that both men are seeking the votes of a California Republican Party that is older and whiter, and more dominated at the grass-roots level by social conservatives than it was in the 1980's, when a pragmatic fiscal conservatism reigned. At the same time, the state as a whole is younger, browner and more politically independent than it was a decade ago, and its striking economic recovery from the severe recession of the early 1990's has helped make Mr. Clinton more popular here than in almost any other state. "The general electorate has gone exactly the other way from the party leadership in terms of positions on immigration, ethnicity, abortion, guns," said Stuart Spencer, the dean of Republican strategists here who was one of Mr. Reagan's closest advisers from Sacramento to the White House. "Till they get their ship righted, and move back to a more centrist, moderate position, they're going to have trouble." (from nytimes.com These particular old line Reaganauts are way off base, of course. The Neocon crowd knows better. Good for them. Cheers, Dan.