[grey-area]

No, the main argument is for security, then cost (software updates cost time), then perhaps performance, though as you point out there isn't much difference with a properly configured cache.

Clearly static doesn't suit all sites but if the site is infrequently changed and not too complex or dynamic it is sometimes the best choice. If you have highly dynamic content with multiple authors static is clearly a terrible choice. This is not a zero sum game, there is room for both approaches.

[dreamfactory2]

Given even the White House uses a db backed CMS, security seems a pretty weak argument to be making. Yes, static HTML is sometimes an excellent choice but it doesn't represent any kind of new solution in the space.