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: Peter Dierks who wrote (762597)	6/2/2007 5:57:36 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Thursday, May 31, 2007 FAQ - The Thompson Candidacy! Posted by Dean Barnett \| 9:48 AM 1) As an avowed Romney supporter, you must be ready to jump out the window because Fred entered the race. Admit it – you’re despondent! Not at all. The stronger the field, the stronger the ultimate nominee will be. Besides, I wasn’t kidding about the McCain campaign being over. I truly believe he’ll drop out before the leaves change, probably some time between Ames and Labor Day. And a two man race at such an early date would be unhealthy. 2) At the risk of veering off subject, don’t you give any credence to those polls that show McCain doing well? The ARG ones? The ones that have Fred at 6%? No, I don’t. And honestly, I don’t believe the McCain campaign does either. 3) Okay – back on subject. If you want Romney to win, why do you welcome Fred into the race? Are you insane? Insane like a fox! To date, it’s been too easy for Mitt. McCain knocked himself out. And, I might as well predict this for the record, but before I do let me reiterate that if Rudy gets the nomination I will support him enthusiastically. I believe that sometime between now and the end of the road, Rudy will commit a campaign blunder that will be bigger than the Dean Scream, “Stop Lying About my Record”, Ed Muskie crying on the back of a truck and George Romney’s “brainwashed” comment combined. I think Rudy will establish the gold standard for all future campaigning boners. 4) Why? He’s an undisciplined campaigner, and the candidates are in the spotlight for 15 hours a day, 6 days a week. Rudy’s style makes for a ticking time-bomb in this age of the YouTube. 5) How will Fred be as a candidate? He’s formidable. But he’ll obviously have the problem of living up to the hype. 6) Could anyone live up to the hype he’s received? No. The Republican Party views him as the potential savior for a field that it considers somewhat unsatisfactory. But Republicans are never wholly satisfied with their candidates. We’re not like Democrats who can somehow become true-blue believers for every Tom, Dick and Kerry that heads their ticket. We’re at the other end of the spectrum. 7) How so? Time for a history lesson! In 1980, Ronald Reagan was too old and not quick enough on his feet. Republicans were so uneasy with his assumed ascendancy that they even flirted with the then-unknown George H.W. Bush. Hard as it may be to believe, Bush stunned Reagan in Iowa. In 1988, Bush 41 wrestled with the English language and came across as a wimp. In 1992, Pat Buchanan almost won New Hampshire, showing just how unpopular the incumbent had become in his own party. In ’96, Dole was too old, too tongue-tied and not conservative enough. And in 2000, of course, we nominated a man with a flimsy résumé who every time he spoke wrestled with the English language like it was a rabid alligator. Mind you, this is how we viewed our own nominees. 8) So how will the bloom come off the rose that is Fred? Fred’s a Howard Baker moderate, or at least he was. He’s also supposed to be not particularly inspiring on the retail campaigning level. He’s also a little old-ish. Even though he’s only a few years older than Mitt and Rudy, that doesn’t look like the case. 9) Ha! A Romney supporter accusing Fred of being a closet moderate. That’s rich. I offer that not as a critique, but rather as an illustration of how Fred’s golden veneer will get tarnished once he jumps in the ring. And, as is the case with Romney, it’s not that big a deal. Voters care a lot more about where politicians stand than where they used to stand in 1994. 10) So who gets hurt most by Thompson’s entry? Well, McCain was toast anyway, so he doesn’t count. Rudy and Mitt will feel some pressure and lose some supporters. I would assume the real heart-broken ones are the second tier candidates who were hoping that one of the frontrunners would falter and they would have a chance to move up. McCain faltered, and now his spot will be filled by Fred. 11) How about Fred’s health? I have to disagree with my mentor. I think this is a complete non-issue. All the candidates are presumed mortal and vulnerable. There are literally billions of people who wouldn’t mind taking out the American president. In 1984, the country re-elected a very old-looking and old-sounding Ronald Reagan who had barely survived an assassination attempt and would soon face cancer, something that by the way didn’t phase the nation at all. The only way a candidate’s health becomes an issue is if his running mate is seen as not ready for primetime. 12) So how does Fred win? This is where things get dicey for Fred – the actual roadmap to victory. Retail campaigning isn’t his strength. If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he would have to score an overwhelming victory in South Carolina to get back on track. And, as an additional problem, because of his late start his campaign is likely to be money starved from the git-go. If he survives the initial primaries but in a weakened state, it’s unlikely he’ll have the money to compete seriously on Mega-Tuesday. 13) I asked how he wins. You told me how he would lose. Let me try again – how does he win? By having Fred-mania sweep the party starting before Labor Day and continuing through Iowa. It could happen. But my money’s still on Mitt. But, as with Rudy, if Fred’s the nominee I will support him enthusiastically. URL:http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/d5541b67-e6fc-4482-8137-a2fda913c9c9

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (762597)	6/4/2007 4:03:31 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

of 20309 GOP: Stepping back to move ahead? By George Will jewishworldreview.com \| One time, years ago, the veteran Baltimore newspaperman, H.L. Mencken, was checking copy coming in from the night editor and sighing at the rising number of errors he was noticing, errors of fact but also of syntax, and even some idioms that didn't sound quite right. He shook his head and said, as much to himself as to the editor at his side: "The older I get the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology." — Alistair Cooke, "Memories of the Great and the Good" Accepting the 1988 Democratic nomination, Gov. Michael Dukakis, a carrier of Massachusetts's political culture, allowed his fervent hope to be the father of his surmise when he said, "This election is not about ideology. It's about competence." His meaning was opaque — how would he decide what to competently achieve? But perhaps today's events — from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to the irrationality of immigration policy — have put Americans into Mencken's frame of mind as they shop for a president. Which could explain why two among the parties' front-runners are who they are. Hillary Clinton is hardly a fresh face. She has been in the nation's face since the I'm-not-Tammy-Wynette expostulation of 1992. She is not even the most interesting novelty. Barack Obama is, and he is more charming. She is, however, seasoned. Americans hungry for competence seem to be resisting Obama's request that, for his benefit, they should treat the presidency as a nearly entry-level political office. FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here. One or two persons were going to emerge as Clinton's principal rivals, and perhaps she is fortunate that they turned out to be Obama and the almost as inexperienced John Edwards, not, say, five-term Sen. Chris Dodd, six-term Sen. Joe Biden or governor and former diplomat Bill Richardson. Clinton's persona as the high school class grind may be this year's charisma. Rudy Giuliani is crosswise with social conservatives, especially concerning abortion. Yet one reason he is in the top tier of the Republican field is that, according to Pew Research Center polling, he is supported by nearly 30 percent of social conservatives, who are 42 percent of the Republican vote. Perhaps some opponents of abortion are coming to terms with the fact that the party has written itself into a corner regarding that issue. By 1972, 16 states with 41 percent of the nation's population had liberalized their abortion laws, and the Republican platform did not mention the subject. The next year the Supreme Court ripped the subject away from state legislatures. In 1976 the Republican platform protested the court's decision, recommended "continuance of the public dialogue on abortion" and endorsed a constitutional amendment "to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." The 1980 platform was similar, but four years later and afterward, the party, while continuing to favor a constitutional amendment, advocated "legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections" — no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process of law — "apply to unborn children." So, the party has repeatedly endorsed a constitutional amendment it thinks is a redundancy. The party asserts that one of America's most common surgical procedures is murder. So, last year perhaps a million women and their doctors committed murder. However much a person deplores abortion and embraces that legal logic, nobody believes that either the legislation or the constitutional amendment that Republican platforms have praised will be passed. Hence the sterility of today's abortion debate. And hence the inclination of some social conservatives to focus on limiting abortion by changing the culture, and their willingness to evaluate candidates by criteria unrelated to abortion. Writing in the New Republic, Thomas B. Edsall notes that in the late 1980s voters by a margin of 51 to 42 percent believed that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals." Today voters disagree, 66 to 28. In 1987 voters were evenly divided on the question of whether "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior." Today voters disagree, 72 to 23. Recent Pew polling shows that a combined 48 percent of Republican voters say that Iraq (31 percent) or terrorism (17 percent) is their principal concern. Abortion? Seven percent. Gay marriage? One percent. Edsall wonders whether Giuliani, who is appealing to "the Republican longing for managerial competence" with his "idiosyncratic brand of conservatism," might be a transformational Republican figure. But perhaps his conservatism is not idiosyncratic. Perhaps it is, in a way, traditional. Perhaps some conservatives are really serious about turning back the clock. To 1972. jewishworldreview.com