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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14957)	11/28/2006 9:24:16 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Beyond Same-Sex Marriage Can Mitt Romney spur a broader debate? BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is taking the battle over same-sex marriage to a new level by taking it back to the very court that made this mess: the state's Supreme Judicial Court. On Friday Mr. Romney--perhaps laying the groundwork for a presidential run--filed a lawsuit against his state Legislature for failing to vote on whether to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. He says the Legislature was required to do just that after a record number of residents (170,000) signed petitions demanding a popular vote. Mr. Romney's case isn't expected go very far. Aside from the obvious separation-of-powers problem, Mr. Romney is asking the same court that imposed same-sex marriage three years ago to parse his constitutional logic. Like a second marriage, expecting the court to allow a rebuke of its earlier decision is a triumph of hope over experience. But Mr. Romney's case does have one salutary effect. He filed suit against the Legislature not for failing to endorse a ban on same-sex marriage, but for using a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue and thereby keeping it off the ballot. Mr. Romney's lawsuit is, therefore, an attempt to use the state's high court for what it has heretofore resisted being: A bulwark for democracy. Because Massachusetts' Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot, the governor would likely win the fight if only the Democratic leaders of the Legislature would allow a vote. But the real target here isn't the judiciary or even the Legislature. Mr. Romney filed his case in an attempted to push the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion. And he's thinking well beyond the confines of Massachusetts--where voters are eager for an opportunity to weigh in on the issue--and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials. It is here that Mr. Romney performs a public service. Dozens of states have already enacted their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. But as these amendments have passed with overwhelming margins in even liberal states (and helped turn out Republican voters in 2004), the debate over the merits of traditional marriage has largely died down. Passing the marriage amendments have been exercises in the expression of the popular will, without also serving as an opportunity to reach a consensus on why marriage as an institution is worth protecting. Although advocates of same-sex marriage will deny there is any connection to extending the institution to gay couples, a recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics reveals why this debate is worth having now. The study found that although teen pregnancy rates are dropping, the number of out-of-wedlock births in America has been steadily rising since the 1990s. It seems women in their 20s and 30s are having children without getting married first. Last year the proportion of births that are illegitimate reached an all time high of 37%, or 1.5 million children. The debate on how to address this growing social problem will likely only take place in a presidential race and only if at least one candidate vying for the Oval Office is willing to do more than push the issue off to the side by calling for a federal constitutional amendment. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays. opinionjournal.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14957)	12/20/2006 3:18:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Will Conservatives Vote For Rudy? Posted by TOM BEVAN \| E-Mail This \| Permalink \| Email Author Michael Powell and Chris Cillizza's article on Rudy Giuliani in the Washington Post today doesn't cover much new ground. Mostly it just recycles the obvious question surrounding Rudy's potential '08 candidacy: will his liberal-leaning positions on social issues be a deal breaker with conservative primary voters and caucusgoers? The conventional wisdom has been and remains "yes," but there continues to be anecdotal evidence beyond polls suggesting the conventional wisdom may turn out to be wrong. Last August I wrote two columns, one critical of McCain(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0806bevan0806.html) and one critical of Giuliani(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/deconstructing_giuliani.html). The former column argued that while McCain is pitch-perfect with the base on certain key issues like spending and national security, he's utterly tone deaf on others like immigration and the First Amendment. The latter column argued that even if you set aside the obvious baggage Giuliani carries on social issues and with respect to his personal life, the Mayor takes all the same positions as McCain on those key issues which McCain is constantly vilified by the conservative base. For example, Rudy is very much in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, and he publicly supported McCain-Feingold in 2000 when he was flirting with a Senate run against Hillary. Rudy hasn't paid much of a price for those views so far - certainly not in the same way McCain has. The question is whether he will begin paying a price for them once the campaign gets seriously under way and voters start comparing the two candidates and asking: why would I vote for Rudy when he holds all the same views I don't like about McCain and he's also much more liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage? The answer to that question may turn out to be as simple as this: Rudy is just more likeable. Last August I asked conservatives to explain why they would be willing to vote for Giuliani over McCain, and among the flood of email responses I received Rudy's likeability and sense of party loyalty stood out as a key factor: Despite the argument that it's McCain's turn because he's "paid his dues," many just don't see him as a loyal party man - for obvious reasons. But the problem is deeper than McCain's willingness to go against Republicans on key issues, there is a real sense of dislike toward McCain among some for his self-aggrandizing chumminess with the media. In other words, it's not just that McCain disagrees with Republicans on some issues but the way in which he does the disagreeing that irks them. Rudy doesn't seem to engender any of those same feelings - just the opposite, in fact. Likeability with base voters is important, and intangible. McCain doesn't have it. Rudy does. Romney does too. This will help them to some degree in getting past a few respective hurdles to winning the nomination, but not all. One thing Rudy and McCain both have right now that Romney doesn't is a sense of electability. It's early and that could certainly change over time, but Republicans will want to keep the White House and to the extent the race gets further along and Romney continues to trail in general election matchups against prospective Democratic opponents, it will begin to become an issue for him and a bigger advantage for Giuliani and McCain. time-blog.com