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: Ruffian who wrote (24339)	12/4/2007 12:43:19 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

" Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions." What was their first clue?

To: Ruffian who wrote (24339)	12/10/2007 2:31:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The Book of Romney The debate over his convictions--religious, and political. Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST In anticipation of Mitt Romney's big speech yesterday on the "religion question," some seemed to expect him to address the meaning and purpose of human existence. He didn't, and the speech was all the more politically admirable and instructive as a result. Instead of directly pushing back against skepticism of his Mormon beliefs, the Republican Presidential hopeful spoke to the more limited--though still loaded--topic of faith and politics in America. There were considerable risks in doing so. He had to allay qualms about his spiritual convictions without also turning off the primary voters who consider religion an important element in selecting their candidate. Another danger was that "the Mormon issue" could dominate the 28 days until the Iowa caucuses. Despite the endless media analogies, the speech won't be remembered as the kind of canonical American document that Jack Kennedy's 1960 defense of his Catholicism is made out to be--and that's not a bad thing. The Kennedy precedent isn't useful because JFK essentially argued that religion shouldn't matter in politics. He endorsed "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," and in many ways that speech anticipated all that would follow. The core of the Democratic Party shifted over time toward secular absolutism--where any public engagement with religion is tantamount to its public establishment, and maybe even the repeal of the Enlightenment. The Supreme Court also took an active role in making the policy preferences of the secular left the law of the land, beginning in 1963 with its prohibition of prayer in public school. Mr. Romney, then, was addressing traditionally minded voters who have valid reasons for feeling excluded from the cultural, if not democratic, mainstream. He did well to recognize the contributions that faith and religious institutions make to the American civic landscape. And as he noted, the American system is tolerant enough to accommodate the varieties of religious experience. Mr. Romney's implicit purpose, though, was to speak to the ecumenical alliance called "the religious right," which is united on some political issues but often divided on matters of faith. He noted that "a common creed of moral convictions" brings him to the same policy conclusions as evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics. The political church, in other words, is broad enough to include Mormons, even if their doctrines aren't simpatico. Mr. Romney mentioned the word "Mormon" only once, and he was right to steer clear of formal theology or specific practices. Some denominations are leery of--or openly hostile to--the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, considering it un-Christian, or even a cult. Surveys indicate that many voters oppose Mr. Romney for this reason, and his speech probably won't do much to convince them otherwise. How unfortunate it would be if he were rejected on the basis of such irreducible doctrinal differences. The Mormons seem the very embodiment of "family values," and you couldn't invent a religious culture that lived more consistently with Biblical messages. Broadly speaking, most Mormons have, and come from, big families; they're regular churchgoers and give to charity; they don't drink, smoke, gamble or engage in premarital sex. On the scale of American problems, the Mormons don't even register. It's particularly ironic that some religious voters are trafficking in anti-Mormon bias, because the secular left has spent years trying to portray these same religious voters as a threat to the American system. Evangelicals have spent decades being ridiculed by the coastal elites--for the born-again lifestyle, creationism, opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, the "Left Behind" novels. Recall the ridiculous "theocracy" panic after the 2004 election. Now some of those same believers are trying to do the same to the Mormons. We doubt Mr. Romney persuaded those voters, but he probably had more success with, say, Republican Catholics who recall their pre-JFK ostracism from Presidential politics. A larger irony is that the biggest doubts we hear about the Romney candidacy have nothing to do with his religious convictions, which seem consistent and sincere. They concern his apparent lack of political convictions. He governed Massachusetts as a moderate Republican, and even today he speaks about reforming Washington less with policy ideas than with the power of his positive technocratic thinking. Once a cultural moderate, Mr. Romney has converted to conservative social positions on abortion, and so on. Rudy Giuliani recently needled him about his "sanctuary mansion" for illegal immigrants, so this week he fired his gardeners. He boasted about his HillaryCare Lite reform in Massachusetts, then had his free-market advisers rewrite it for the primary campaign. Despite yesterday's laudable speech, we suspect Mr. Romney will rise or fall as a candidate based on how well he can sell his worldly record. opinionjournal.com

To: Ruffian who wrote (24339)	12/21/2007 1:19:58 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

McCain's Surge Why he's making a primary comeback. Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST Endorsing John McCain for President yesterday, Joseph Lieberman stressed that his Senate colleague would always elevate his country above his party. Coming from a man who was excommunicated by Democrats for his views on Iraq, this was a fitting sentiment--and it may also explain why Mr. McCain seems to be staging something of a primary resurgence. As recently as January, Mr. McCain was the putative Republican favorite, but his support collapsed amid his campaign mismanagement and the GOP's immigration meltdown. Now primary voters seem prepared to give him a second look in an unstable race. Mike Huckabee has galloped to a lead in Iowa, bruising Mitt Romney, though without much scrutiny of the former Arkansas Governor's record. Fred Thompson has yet to offer a compelling rationale for his candidacy. Rudy Giuliani for a time defied political gravity based on his New York reform leadership, but he has been hurt by questions about his judgment and ethics. Re-enter Mr. McCain, who is nothing if not a known GOP commodity. One of his problems has been that to some Republicans he is too well known. This is the John McCain who was adored by the media for opposing tax cuts, favoring limits on free speech as part of "campaign finance reform," and embracing a cap and trade regime for global warming. This is the John McCain who was also endorsed this weekend by the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe, two liberal papers that are sure to endorse a Democrat next year. Our own differences with Mr. McCain have mainly been over economics, and especially taxes. Despite record surpluses in 2000, the Senator refused to propose tax cuts as part of his Presidential bid--one reason he lost to George W. Bush. He also opposed the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, often using the language of the left. Mr. McCain paid a visit to our offices last Friday, and he now says he supports extending the Bush tax rates, even admitting they helped the economy emerge from recession. "Without a doubt. Without the slightest doubt," he told us. "Absolutely." In a spirited exchange, Mr. McCain justified his previous opposition by arguing that there was no discipline on spending. "To the everlasting shame and embarrassment of the Republican Party and this Administration," he noted, "we went on a spending spree and we didn't pay for it." That's true enough, and in an ideal world tax cuts would be offset dollar-for-dollar by spending cuts. But in practice Congress will never do so, which means Republicans are left to be tax collectors for the welfare state. The experience of the Reagan and Bush years is that tax cutting has its own economic benefits, and that revenues will rebound far more quickly than the critics claim. We asked Mr. McCain what he'd do when faced with a Democratic Congress that insists he raise taxes in 2009, and he replied that he'd say "No" and cite JFK's successful tax-cutting in the 1960s. This is intellectual progress, and we trust such McCain advisers as Phil Gramm and Tim Muris will conduct further tutorials. More than economics, Mr. McCain has two main strengths in this GOP race: His record on national security, and the belief that he can reach enough non-Republicans to assemble a viable center-right coalition and defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in what could be a difficult GOP year. Mr. Lieberman's endorsement is notable because it reinforces both of those claims. Mr. Lieberman had to win GOP and independent voters to keep his Connecticut Senate seat after he lost the Democratic primary, and Mr. McCain won in New Hampshire in 2000 with the help of independents who could vote in the GOP primary. He'll need their support again this year. The two men have also been stalwarts on Iraq, even when it became unpopular, and despite paying a political price for it. Mr. McCain also argued persuasively for the changes in strategy now known as the surge. In his Friday visit with us, the Senator spoke with authority on all manner of foreign policy. He is a hawk in the Reagan mold on Iran, the larger Middle East and overall defense spending. Our guess is that this national security record is the main reason for his own political surge. With the success of General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, even some conservatives have taken to arguing that foreign and military policy will become less important in 2008. We doubt it. This is still a post-9/11 country, and voters know they will be electing a Commander in Chief in a world that is as dangerous as it was during the height of the Cold War. In an election against any Democrat next year, Mr. McCain would have little trouble winning the security debate. opinionjournal.com

To: Ruffian who wrote (24339)	1/7/2008 1:25:22 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The New New Mitt New Hampshire voters know Romney's record better than most. That could spell trouble. BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Monday, January 7, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST MANCHESTER, N.H.--"Washington is simply broken," exclaimed a dogged Mitt Romney at a town-hall meeting here the day after his Iowa caucus defeat. "Sending the same people back to Washington and just having them fill different chairs is not going to change Washington. If you want to change Washington, it'll take somebody going there who knows how to change things." America, meet the new Mitt Romney. Having been walloped in Iowa by upstart Mike Huckabee, the man who loves data took a look at the dismal Iowa numbers and concluded America is looking for a "change" candidate. Mr. Romney is now presenting himself as that man, the person who can transform Washington, or at least do it better than his main rival here in the Granite State--four-term Arizona Sen. John McCain. The question is whether voters will buy it. Chats on the campaign trail suggest quite a few New Hampshire Republicans and independents are having trouble making that leap. Mr. Romney had an opportunity at the beginning of this race to present himself as the ideas candidate. In contrast to his superstar rivals (Mr. McCain, Rudy Giuliani), Mr. Romney was a blank slate for most Americans, and might have used his personal fortune to build an image of a creative outsider, a fresh problem-solver determined to invigorate Republican principles. Instead, Mr. Romney has presented himself as the person least objectionable to all the different branches of the Republican coalition. His many attack ads have reinforced this blandness, tearing down his competitors, but doing little to distinguish Mr. Romney or his policies. All of this misread the public desire for something different, and has now left him vulnerable here to Mr. McCain's image as the maverick who can "change" Washington by bridging its partisan divide. And so now comes the Romney Reinvention, which has brought with it a new peril, given his reputation as a flip-flopper. It's especially problematic in a state like New Hampshire, where voters witnessed Mr. Romney's tenure as governor of nearby Massachusetts, and are better able than most to mark differences between then and now. They include people like Bonnie (who preferred not to use her last name), an accountant who turned out in frigid temperatures to support Rudy Giuliani at an event in Salem, N.H., and who demonstrated a critical knowledge of Mr. Romney's record: "[He] allowed gay marriages in Mass[achusetts]." While Mr. Romney might profess change, "Rudy makes you feel as if he's actually going to get something done," she says. Mr. Romney's rivals are also making hay with his new "change" image, noting it tracks other "evolving" views. At a St. Anselm College debate this weekend, Mr. Romney warned Mr. Huckabee not to characterize his position on the war, which inspired the former Baptist minister to zing back: "Which one?" Mr. Romney is far from out in New Hampshire. The Granite State boasts far fewer of the evangelical voters who propelled Mr. Huckabee to his win. Among non-evangelicals in Iowa, Mr. Romney beat Mr. Huckabee 2 to 1, and this weekend he won a majority of delegates in the smaller Wyoming caucus. He's been campaigning hard in New Hampshire for months, laying the groundwork to do combat with Mr. McCain, who needs a win here. And while Mr. Romney may be struggling to vie with Mr. McCain for the many independent voters for whom a "change" candidate is important, he's honed in on Mr. McCain's own big weakness: rallying the Republican base. The McCain bump over the past month is tied to better news out of Iraq, which has allowed the Arizonan to boast that his support for a troop buildup was wise and is now yielding results. Mr. McCain is making this his main selling point, and his campaign events are almost exclusively focused on his national defense credentials, which he claims also prove his ability to alter the status quo. This election "is" about "change," exhorts Mr. McCain at a campaign stop at a pharmacy in Hollis, N.H. "And I'm most proud of the change I've brought about in Iraq--that has saved American lives." This followed his "pledge" that as "president, you will see me reach across the aisle, to people like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman, and we'll get things done." What you don't hear much is Mr. McCain voluntarily bringing up other core Republican issues such as taxes or school choice or health-care reform, and this is Mr. Romney's opening. While the Iraq news has clearly been a net benefit for Mr. McCain, one striking bit of information out of Iowa were entry polls showing that only 17% of those voting now considered Iraq their biggest issue. As the public feels more confident with the war, it has allowed at least some Republicans to look past Mr. McCain's commander-in-chief credentials and remember again why they've been nervous about him in the past. "I voted for him in the [2000] primary, but I didn't realize he was so liberal," says Bill Hebden, a retiree and Korean War veteran who came out to see Mr. McCain in Hollis, and wasn't impressed. "He's out in left field on taxes, McCain-Feingold, immigration, waterboarding." Mr. Hebden says Mr. McCain will not be getting his vote at this point, even though "his national security stuff I support 100%." Mr. McCain's ability to reach the Bill Hebdens will be crucial not just to his bid for New Hampshire, but for a continued run. The Arizonan pulled off his 19 percentage-point victory over George W. Bush in New Hampshire in 2000 by winning nearly two-thirds of the state's independent voters. But those independents--who can vote in either primary--are this year showing more interest in an energized Democratic race, buoyed by Barack Obama. Mr. McCain may have to rely more on traditional Republicans, and Mr. Romney will fight him for every one. He's already busy reminding voters about Mr. McCain's previous vote against the Bush tax cuts and his support for comprehensive immigration reform. Further mixing it up, Messrs. McCain and Romney will also be vying for those core Republicans with Mr. Giuliani, who is betting the shop on the big primary races of Feb. 5, but is still making a go in New Hampshire. While he's fallen precipitously in state polls, Mr. Giuliani's Salem appearance brought a standing ovation from perhaps 80 supporters, as he delivered a passionate stump speech about his belief in "a country that relies more on its people than its government." And there's always Mr. Huckabee, who is riding high out of Iowa and making a play for economic conservatives with his promise of tax reform. New Hampshire won't decide the Republican nomination, but it will further winnow the field. The McCain campaign is correct in claiming it doesn't need a big win in New Hampshire, just any win, and the latest polls suggest he's on top. A second loss would deal Mr. Romney's campaign a nasty blow--one from which there might be no recovery. That isn't the kind of change Mr. Romney has in mind. Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays. opinionjournal.com

To: Ruffian who wrote (24339)	2/2/2008 7:32:01 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Romney's Convictions February 1, 2008; Page A14 Mitt Romney has emerged as the last Republican with a chance to stop John McCain, and there's no doubt he's a candidate from central casting: successful in business and politics, a family man, and quicker and more articulate than most. The main doubt about him has been whether he believes in anything enough to stick to it if he did become President. To hear the candidate himself tell it, Mr. Romney believes above all in "data." As he told us on a visit, his management style includes "wallowing" in data about a problem, analyzing that data like the business consultant he once was, and then using it to devise a solution. A major theme of his candidacy is that he'll bring that business model to a "broken" Washington, apply it to Congress and the bureaucracy, and thus triumph over gridlock and the status quo. To which we'd say: Good luck with that. Washington's problem isn't a lack of data, or a failure to calibrate the incentives as in the business world. Congress and the multiple layers of government respond exactly as you'd expect given the incentives for self-preservation and turf protection that always exist in political institutions. The only way to overcome them is with leadership on behalf of good ideas backed by public support. The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter. All the more so because we haven't been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are. Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration. The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy. Governor Romney experimented with his consultant-centric approach in the Massachusetts laboratory, and the result was the "universal" health-care program the state adopted in 2006. As he tells it, the experts crunched the data. As he doesn't tell it, his initiative became a petri dish for the latest liberal health-care theories. Insurance in Massachusetts is among the most expensive in the nation because of multiple mandates, such as premium price controls and rules dictating that coverage be offered to all comers regardless of health. Mr. Romney's cardinal flaw was that he did not attempt to deregulate and allow the insurance market to function as it should. Instead, Mr. Romney saw the status quo and raised. At first he suggested mandatory health escrow accounts for people who decline to insure themselves. Once the consultants and the liberal state legislature were through with it, Mr. Romney's initiative became the "individual mandate," a first-in-the-nation requirement that residents acquire insurance or pay penalties. The mandate in combination with other regulations effectively socialized the Massachusetts insurance market, and then Democrats on Beacon Hill added more subsidies and business penalties. Mr. Romney claimed victory anyway, heralding the new plan as "free market" as he plotted his GOP Presidential run. Inconveniently, however, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards made Massachusetts the model for their 2008 health-care proposals. So Mr. Romney made another adjustment, asking his free-market advisers Glenn Hubbard and John Cogan to write a reform along more market-oriented lines for the GOP primaries. His current plan has much to recommend it, though oddly he still keeps pointing to his Bay State experience as a triumph and model. None of this would bode well for a President Romney facing a Democratic Congress that would be even more relentless than the one in Boston. Nor, for that matter, would it bode well for a fall campaign when Mr. Romney would attack HillaryCare as socialized medicine, only to have Senator Clinton and the media retort that her plan is simply modified RomneyCare. * * * John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years -- from taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues -- national security, spending -- Mr. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls. If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all. online.wsj.com