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 : The Next President 2008 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (1757)	11/23/2007 12:27:54 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3215

Folksy Huckabee wins over Iowa Republicans By David Usborne in New York Published: 23 November 2007 The race for the Republican presidential nomination has taken an unexpected turn with polls showing the dark-horse candidate Mike Huckabee – a pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq war, social conservative from Arkansas – galloping suddenly to a close second place in Iowa which holds its caucuses in just 42 days. Growing grass-roots support from conservative Christian Republicans in the state seems to be feeding the surge for the former Arkansas governor, who has also drawn increasing attention over recent weeks for his down-home form of charm and humour as he travels every corner of the Iowa map. An ABC-Washington Post poll shows Mr Huckabee drawing 24 per cent of the votes if the Iowa caucuses were held today. That puts him in a dead heat with Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who, at 28 per cent, led Iowa for months but has seen a flattening of his support. A win for Mr Huckabee could scramble assumptions about the Republican field. It would be a big blow for Mr Romney who is counting on a win to propel him into the primary contests. New Hampshire confirmed on Wednesday that its primary will be on 8 January – just five days after the caucus voting in Iowa. Like Bill Clinton before him, Mr Huckabee, 52 was born in Hope, Arkansas. A guitar player and rock '*' roll fan, he rose quickly through the political ranks in his state and became governor in 1996, serving until January this year. He is an ordained Baptist minister who believes in creationism, supports a ban on abortion and opposes any kind of marriage or civil unions for gays and lesbians. It is these positions, as well as his folksy campaigning style, that seem to be captivating evangelicals, who make up 40 per cent of likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa. "He is articulate and articulates the Christian message very well," said Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance. Still, pulling off a victory in the state will not be easy for Mr Huckabee, who has a far less extensive get-out-the-vote organisation than Mr Romney. Beyond Iowa, when television advertising becomes king, things look more daunting still because of his comparative lack of campaign dollars. His rise up the field now suggests dissatisfaction among voters with the other candidates. Conservatives remain suspicious of the relatively liberal social positions of the former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, who still leads the polls nationally, and of the Mormon background of Mr Romney. Suspense also seems to be building for Democrats, whose Iowa caucuses are on the same day. Another recent ABC-Washington Post poll gave Barack Obama a slim lead over Hillary Clinton while John Edwards was stuck in third place. Even on the national level, the once impressive lead of Mrs Clinton is showing signs of erosion. In the case of Mr Huckabee, his main asset until now may have been his underdog status. "On the Republican side, it is obvious that if you were going to pick a surprise, you would pick Huckabee," said Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia. "But how much of a surprise is he, since he has been covered extensively now and everyone knows he is moving up in the polls?" Certainly, his rivals are aware of it. And they are setting their sights on him, with questions being thrown at him about his record of raising taxes in Arkansas, giving scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants and drawing rebukes for alleged ethical lapses while in the governor's office. news.independent.co.uk

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (1757)	11/23/2007 2:58:47 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 3215

200 Reasons Why the Election Matters The future of the federal judiciary is at stake on November 4, 2008. by Terry Eastland 12/03/2007, Volume 013, Issue 12 Increase Font Size \| Printer-Friendly \| Email a Friend \| Respond to this article The other day, at the annual meeting of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., Rudy Giuliani observed that there are "200 reasons why the next election is really important." Which 200, you ask? "The 200 federal judges that the next President of the United States will likely appoint over four years in the White House. That's roughly the average that a president gets to appoint." Actually, the average is something under 190. (Ronald Reagan appointed 379 judges in his two terms, and George Bush 192 in his one term. Bill Clinton appointed 372 judges in eight years, and George W. Bush has named 292 in his almost seven years.) But Giuliani is right about the stakes. If the two parties saw eye-to-eye on what makes a good judge, then judicial selection wouldn't be an issue. But the two parties disagree sharply over how judges should interpret the law, including our supreme law, the Constitution. The Democrats are the party of the "living Constitution," by which is meant a Constitution that judges adapt to meet the needs of a changing society. The Republicans, if we can continue to speak generally here, are the party of the "dead Constitution," as Justice Antonin Scalia once jokingly called it. His witticism indicated the view that judges are obligated to enforce the Constitution as it was understood originally, at the time of its making. The difference between the two approaches to constitutional adjudication may be usefully demonstrated with reference to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the Court constitutionalized the right to abortion. The Democrats running for president don't object to the Court's methodology in Roe. The Republicans regard the decision--rightly in our view--as the sort no judge should have rendered, because the right to abortion is located in neither the text nor the history of the Constitution. No one can doubt that whoever is elected president will make judicial philosophy a central criterion in the process by which judges are nominated. And to the extent one approach to judging or the other, thanks to the new judges appointed, comes to dominate particular benches, its impact will be felt--just as, for 34 years now, Roe's impact has been felt, in the enfeebling of the ordinary political process by which we the people otherwise would have decided for ourselves questions of abortion policy. Right now the Supreme Court is closely divided, with four judicial liberals (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer) and four judicial conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) and Anthony Kennedy, whose vote in the most controversial cases often determines which side prevails. No one can say for sure, of course, whether any vacancies will occur during the next president's term, but the most likely justice to depart the Court is John Paul Stevens. At 87, he is by far the oldest justice and with 32 years on the Court has now exceeded the average number of years served by justices appointed since 1970, which is 26. He's said to be in fine health, but if he were to leave the Court, a Republican president could create a conservative majority by picking someone on the order of the candidates' professed models--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito--while a Democratic president could preserve the status quo, jurisprudentially speaking, by naming a judicial liberal. CONTINUED 1 2 Next > weeklystandard.com