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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/7/2004 7:40:26 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

Polls: Dean Losing Ground, Clark Gaining Wednesday, January 07, 2004 Former NATO Gen. Wesley Clark's (search) campaign is surging ahead in the latest New Hampshire poll and Howard Dean (search) is losing ground among Democratic supporters, according to the latest poll out Wednesday. The Granite State's primary takes place on Jan. 27. Recent poll numbers show that the former Vermont governor remains on top there, but new developments have emerged in the battle for second place. Whereas Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search) had been in the lead for second place and a favorite to win that state, Clark has surpassed him for that position, according to the American Research Group poll released Wednesday. According to the poll of 600 registered Democrats, taken Jan. 4-6, Dean garnered 36 percent of the vote, Clark won 16 percent and Kerry got 13 percent. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., got 7 percent, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., got 6 percent and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., got 3 percent. While Clark's 16 percent and Kerry's 13 percent in the ballot preference are within the margin of error giving them a statistical tie for second place, Clark was in front of Kerry by 4 percentage points on Sunday and by 6 percentage points on Monday. Clark's strength, according to the poll, remains among men age 45 and older. He also has a new television ad running in New Hampshire that gained very favorable playback from women. If the trend toward Clark continues and he is able to improve among women age 45 and older, he will be alone in second place, according to American Research Group. "The rest of the country really starts to pay attention when New Hampshire has its primary," political analyst Mary Ann Marsh told Fox News. "If Clark comes in a strong second to Dean, if Dean maintains the lead he has — which is substantial — then [Clark] can lead himself nationally, which will give people a choice" for the Democratic nominee. A Dec. 18 New Hampshire poll, conducted by ARG and released Dec. 18, showed that Dean led then with 45 percent of the Democratic vote, Kerry had 20 percent and Clark was tied with Lieberman for third. A new national CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll released Wednesday also shows Dean's lead for the Democratic nomination narrowing. Twenty-four percent of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they would choose him, while Clark came in second with 20 percent. "Wesley Clark is the only one of the top-tier candidates … who is not part of the Washington establishment," GOP strategist Rick Reed told Fox News, "so it remains to be seen how precipitous this fall of Dean's is, whether it continues or not, and who will be the chief beneficiary." The Gallup poll of 465 Democrats and those who lean Democratic had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, meaning Dean and Clark are essentially tied for the lead nationally. The poll was taken January 2-5. In that same poll three weeks ago, Dean received 27 percent, while Clark and Lieberman were tied for second place with 12 percent each. In recent weeks, Dean rivals have increased their criticism of his controversial statements, his record as governor of Vermont, and his feisty temperament. "I think what's happened here, to some extent, is that the combined, collective attacks by other Democrats on Howard Dean are beginning to take their toll," Reed said. "Democrats are now looking at each other saying, 'oops, is this really the guy we want to run against President Bush?'" The Gallup poll also shows that Bush had a substantial lead in a hypothetical matchup, outpolling Dean by a margin of 59 percent to 37 percent among likely voters. Bush also led, 55 percent to 38 percent, when likely voters were asked to choose between Bush and the generic "Democratic Party's candidate for president." While the change in the national poll suggests Clark is gaining ground, the primary battle is being fought state by state. First up is Iowa on Jan. 19, where Clark is not competing, and then New Hampshire on Jan. 27, where polls indicate Clark is battling Kerry for second place. In the national Gallup poll, Kerry was at 11 percent and Lieberman was at 10 percent. Other candidates were in single digits. In the poll, Bush led Dean by 22 points, 59 percent to 37 percent. That's about the same advantage Bush had over Dean in mid-December in the poll. In other news, former Vice President Al Gore will be campaigning in Iowa this weekend for Dean. Gore surprised most of the Democratic establishment recently when he announced his support for the doctor-turned-presidential hopeful. Dean also on Tuesday gained the endorsement of former New Jersey senator and presidential hopeful Bill Bradley (search). Fox News' Steve Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report. foxnews.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/7/2004 7:49:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793597

What is being proposed is a way to get Illegals to register with the Government on a voluntary basis. So, you have be an illegal with a job to join the program. Which means that you have to incriminate yourself and your employer to participate. Wonder how business feels about that. Wonder how many illegals will take the trade-off and register. We can only track the ones who do. The biggest illegal immigration disconnect we have is that all kids born on US soil are citizens. At one time that made sense. Right now, it doesn't. At the time that was put in place, there was no such thing as illegal immigration.

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/7/2004 8:10:49 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793597

US official stands by Iraq weapons report 07 January 2004 WASHINGTON: A key prewar US intelligence report that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was "well-grounded," based on 15 years of information, and the hunt should continue, a senior US intelligence official says. Stuart Cohen, vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which produced the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate report on Iraq's banned weapons, said he was "not at all" surprised that stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had not yet been found. "He's (Saddam Hussein) had 15 years to hone his ability to hide this stuff. The footprints of these weapons is very small," Cohen said. Since the ousting of Saddam in April and the inability to find banned weapons, US officials have repeatedly pointed out that biological and chemical weapons can be hidden in relatively small areas. "I believe that our work was well-grounded," Cohen said. "We know he (Saddam) had it, he used it, you don't unlearn that." He said it was unclear what happened to the weapons. Critics have said the National Intelligence Estimate report was produced under pressure for a Bush administration that had made it clear it wanted to go to war against Iraq. Cohen dismissed such criticism. "Assertions, particularly that we had shaded our judgments to support an administration policy, were just nonsense," Cohen told ABC's Nightline. The intelligence report said that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and would not have them until "very late" in the decade, he said. Pressed about prewar assertions by some administration officials there could be nuclear weapons in Iraq's hands within a year, Cohen told ABC that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs had been underestimated in the past. "The National Intelligence Estimate judged that he (Saddam) could have nuclear weapons in as little as 18 months if certain conditions were met, namely if he had gotten a source of fissile material," Cohen said. "We did not believe that that had happened." "We did not, in any area, hype our judgments," Cohen said. The intelligence estimates "never use the word imminent" and the judgments carried varying degrees of confidence, he said. While Iraq's missiles could not reach the United States, US intelligence agencies were concerned about the possibility unmanned aerial vehicles could be brought within reach of the United States and about the possibility Iraqi intelligence agencies could bring something in undetected and use it. "My point is simply that it is too soon to close the books on this case," Cohen said, adding the search should continue. In a potential setback, CIA adviser David Kay, who is leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is considering leaving that position, US officials have said. Congressional intelligence committees are working on reports assessing the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and are expected to level some criticism at the intelligence agencies stuff.co.nz

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/7/2004 8:51:21 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

The ones that don't register then are then easier targets. Um...How? Are they gonna paint a big red X on their head after the law passes? I don't think so. Are the people who are hiring the illegals now gonna pay the 'registered' ones more? I don't think so. They break the law when they come here and work for less than what an american will accept. The employer pays no taxes no workers comp and less than a reasonable wage--all things he'd have to pay someone who's 'registered'. What's gonna give the employer incentive to hire someone who's registered? A warm feeling inside? What's gonna happen is there won't be much change in the illegal immigrant population for migrant farm workers(the bulk of illegal immigration) except for a few more skilled laborers. We'll see a huge increase in pregnant single mommies comming over here and work at Burger King till they can spit out their kid at County General for the free medical care. Meanwhile the fat times when our labor market gets tight and we gotta pay pimple faced kids 10 bucks an hour to multi-task at the drive-thru are gonna dissappear for good. But what happens to our skilled labor markets? IMO it doesn't allow real wage pressure on companies who can always hire an illegal if they offer less than what is a reasonable wage(that no American will accept). You can try and 'rulemake' your way out of this, but think about it. Can you think of any way to make them hire an illegal for the same wage you'd pay an American 100% of the time? I think it's bad, and it is the one form of protectionism that we have that maintains our standard of living, and rights as workers--and i'm absolutely not a fan of labor unions. Generally speaking I'm all for free and fair markets, but when you can import cheap labor(and lets not BS each other about the "rules") you're just treading the same ground we're fighting over chinese currency valuations, labor unions, etc. Voodoo

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/8/2004 2:04:39 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 793597

re legalizing illegals : its not just about legalizing status, which intelf is disappointing, its also the fact that when they leave (if they leave) after their visa expires, they can access their retirement savings from the US immediately on return. The average legal migrant can not access their IRAs, FICA etc, until a certain age limit is reached. Hence I use the term "rewarding illegals". If the legal migrant does not become a US citizen, its "goodbye to FICA contributions". Not so for the illegals on this program.

To: LindyBill who wrote (23404)	1/14/2004 1:37:04 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793597

OK. He addressed one-half of the problem: What to do with the 7 or 8 million illegals already here. And he did it for political reasons: to get the vote of Hispanics who are citizens. And he lost my vote in the process. Any time I need political expediency, I'll call up Gray Davis. I thought I had voted that out of office. But there's another half to the problem he completely avoided: What do you to keep from being in this exact same position 10 or 15 years from now? He said not one word about that. You get the impression that not only does he not care, it would be just fine with him if that DID happen. Kumar really does have a point: He dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's to get to US residency. And now it's given away free to millions who snuck across the border. I don't blame him for being pissed.