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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (752248)	10/23/2006 11:58:41 AM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ohio is one stinky place for republicans today.. _________________________________ Republicans face uphill fight in bellwether Ohio By Andrea Hopkins Mon Oct 23, 7:36 AM ET MARYSVILLE, Ohio (Reuters) - It's tough being a Republican in Ohio these days. ADVERTISEMENT The state that sealed the re-election of President Bush in 2004 used to be a shining example of how the Republican Party could dominate even though voters in the state, like voters nationwide, tended to support both Republicans and Democrats more or less equally. Two weeks before the mid-term election, the climate for Republicans in Ohio is so bad incumbents can't escape criticism even from the party faithful. National leaders are desperately hoping Ohio will not set a trend for the country in November 7's national election for control of Congress. "The party is definitely in a shameful place," James Hagedorn, the Republican chief executive of lawn and garden product supplier Scott's Miracle-Gro, told fellow executives at a breakfast honoring the pro-business policies of imperiled Republican Rep. Deb Pryce. Voter opposition to the Iraq war, a wave of political scandals in Washington and plummeting approval ratings for the Republican-led Congress have taken a toll on Republicans nationwide. A struggling economy adds to woes in Ohio. Pryce won 60 percent of the vote in her Columbus-area district two years ago but is now in the fight of her 14-year career against Democratic challenger Mary Jo Kilroy. "It may be unpalatable to push the button or pull the lever for a Republican this year, but the choice is not to flush the party of business down the toilet," Hagedorn told about 50 fellow businessmen and Pryce at the breakfast. "As bad as the Republican Party has gotten itself, what's the choice?" Bush's Republicans fear losing both houses of Congress. "Political tides are something that are outside anyone's control. My job is to make sure that that tide doesn't swallow me up," Pryce said in an interview. VULNERABILITIES STACK UP Pryce's race is one of five seats in the state that Democrats, election analysts and polls suggest are vulnerable, setting the stage for what could be an Ohio-led Democratic takeover in Congress. At least four Republican-held House of Representatives seats are in play, and Republican Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record) is so far behind Democrat Sherrod Brown in opinion polls he has been forced to deny his party has given up on him. Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six Senate seats to win a majority on November 7. A poll released last week showed 71 percent of likely Ohio voters believed their state was on the wrong track, while 65 percent said the nation as a whole was heading in the wrong direction, numbers that suggest doom for the party in power. A separate nationwide NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed approval of Congress at its lowest point in 14 years, with 52 percent of those polled saying they intend to vote Democrat and 37 percent Republican. Nathan Gonzales, political editor at the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington, said that while Ohio had long been considered America's political bellwether, corruption scandals at the state level made for an especially toxic environment. "We've always thought Ohio was bad for the Republicans this year, but you can make an argument that things have gotten even worse over the last couple of weeks," Gonzales said. Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record) has been convicted of corruption charges but so far has resisted calls from party leaders to step down. Democrats have felt the momentum shift. Until recently, epidemiologist and political novice Victoria Wulsin was fighting a low-profile battle against Republican incumbent Rep. Jean Schmidt in Cincinnati's eastern suburbs. But news that Wulsin raised more money than Schmidt in recent months, along with an independent poll giving her a 3-point lead in the race, has bumped the contest into the national spotlight along with an already endangered Republican seat on Cincinnati's west side. "Sometimes I wish that I could get more credit for doing so well, but I think the reality is that a lot of the reason I'm doing so well is that the Republicans are digging their own grave," Wulsin said in an interview. Voter Susan Bean, 66, a retired antique dealer and teacher from Georgetown, Ohio, said it was simply time for a change. "I'm an anti-Bush Democrat and I would like to see George Bush out of office. I think there's been too much conniving over the last six years," Bean said. "I think people are tired. I'm certainly tired of it."

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (752248)	10/23/2006 12:01:49 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Remember when Bush said he wouldn't pull out of Iraq even if only Laura and his dog still supported him? Well, he should have said Laura, the dog and Prolife. I can't see any set of circumstances...not military disadvantage, corruption, poor management, civil war...that will cause Pro to even doubt the policy of Mr. Bush. Hey, I like John Warner...the guy "gets it" and actually understands why the current policy isn't working.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (752248)	10/23/2006 12:03:33 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Democrats: Bush must show Iraq plan before elections By Philip Barbara Sun Oct 22, 3:02 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key Senate Democrats urged the White House on Sunday not to wait until after the U.S. congressional elections in two weeks to give the Iraqi government a timetable to assume a larger role in securing the country. ADVERTISEMENT The top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), said the Iraq strategy blueprint reportedly being drafted for President George W. Bush specifying ways to reduce sectarian violence should also include a schedule for pulling out U.S. forces. "We shouldn't wait 'til the end of the year to come up with milestones. We ought to be doing that now. We should have done it long ago," Levin of Michigan said on "Fox News Sunday." Voter discontent with the Iraq war is one of the main reasons Bush's Republicans are said to be increasingly at risk of losing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the November 7 elections. The expectation of U.S. troop withdrawal must be the linchpin of any plan, Levin added. "Because without that pressure of our troops leaving Iraq a few months down the road, the Iraqis are not going to do what only they can do, which is to work out those political differences," he said. Campaigning ahead of the elections, Democrats and many Republicans have called for Bush to overhaul his Iraq strategy because of intensifying violence from insurgents and rival sects that threatens to tip the country into open civil war. The New York Times said the White House plan was being formulated by Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the top U.S. military and civilian officials in Iraq, along with Pentagon officials. The Times said in its Sunday editions the plan will include a timetable with milestones for the Iraqi government, including the disarming of militias and an expanded security role. The paper said the plan will go to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before 2007 and be carried out over the next year or so, and that details were still being worked out. WHITE HOUSE DISPUTE Sen. John Kerry said Bush should not wait until after election day to release the plan. "I think it's immoral to have the lives of young Americans being put on the line, waiting for an election day event or strategy," the Massachusetts Democrat said on ABC's "This Week." "If you've got a better strategy, Mr. President, we deserve to have it now." Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), Republican of Pennsylvania, told CNN's "Late Edition:" "I don't believe that a shift in tactics ought to wait until after the election. There are too many casualties there. If we have a better course, we ought to adopt it sooner rather than later." But a White House spokeswoman disputed the Times' account. "The story is not accurate, but we are constantly developing new tactics to achieve our goal," White House spokeswoman Nicole Guillemard told Reuters. And the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, who has recently begun to criticize the handling of the war, said on Fox that setting a timetable for withdrawal would be the wrong tactic. "We should not indicate a fixed lock-in, because the situation is very dynamic. It's gotten worse," Warner said. "It's gotten fractured." Bush, when asked last week whether a change in Iraq strategy should come now instead of after the elections, reiterated that he was flexible to adjustments in policy. But in remarks to ABC he gave no indication that he would be open to the major overhaul of tactics his critics demand and White House officials see as unlikely anytime soon. He said on "This Week" first broadcast Wednesday and aired again Sunday: "I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. And I'm not patient with dawdling."

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (752248)	10/23/2006 10:56:50 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

George Will, a thinking conservative gets it right on the banning of gambling by big brother.. __________________________ Prohibition II: Good Grief When government restricts Americans' choices, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to profit from the paternalism. By George F. Will Newsweek Oct. 23, 2006 issue - Perhaps Prohibition II is being launched because Prohibition I worked so well at getting rid of gin. Or maybe the point is to reassure social conservatives that Republicans remain resolved to purify Americans' behavior. Incorrigible cynics will say Prohibition II is being undertaken because someone stands to make money from interfering with other people making money. For whatever reason, last Friday the president signed into law Prohibition II. You almost have to admire the government's plucky refusal to heed history's warnings about the probable futility of this adventure. This time the government is prohibiting Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks or credit-card companies to process payments to online gambling operations on a list the government will prepare. Last year about 12 million Americans wagered $6 billion online. But after Congress, 32 minutes before adjourning, passed its ban, the stock of the largest online-gambling business, Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, which gets 85 percent of its $1 billion annual revenue from Americans, declined 58 percent in one day, wiping out about $5 billion in market value. The stock of a British company, World Gaming PLC, which gets about 95 percent of its revenue from Americans, plunged 88 percent. The industry, which has some 2,300 Web sites and did half of its business last year with Americans, has lost $8 billion in market value because of the new law. And you thought the 109th Congress did not accomplish anything. Supporters of the new law say it merely strengthens enforcement; they claim that Internet gambling is illegal under the Wire Act enacted in 1961, before Al Gore, who was then 13, had invented the Internet. But not all courts agree. Supporters of the new law say online gambling sends billions of dollars overseas. But the way to keep the money here is to decriminalize the activity. The number of online American gamblers, although just one sixth the number of Americans who visit real casinos annually, doubled in the last year. This competition alarms the nation's biggest gambling interests—state governments. It is an iron law: When government uses laws, tariffs and regulations to restrict the choices of Americans, ostensibly for their own good, someone is going to make money from the paternalism. One of the big winners from the government's action against online gambling will be the state governments that are America's most relentless promoters of gambling. Forty-eight states (all but Hawaii and Utah) have some form of legalized gambling. Forty-two states have lottery monopolies. Thirty-four states rake in part of the take from casino gambling, slot machines or video poker. The new law actually legalizes online betting on horse racing, Internet state lotteries and some fantasy sports. The horse-racing industry is a powerful interest. The solidarity of the political class prevents the federal officials from interfering with state officials' lucrative gambling. And woe unto the politicians who get between a sports fan and his fun. In the private sector, where realism prevails, casino operators are not hot for criminalizing Internet gambling. This is so for two reasons: It is not in their interest for government to wax censorious. And online gambling might whet the appetites of millions for the real casino experience. Granted, some people gamble too much. And some people eat too many cheeseburgers. But who wants to live in a society that protects the weak-willed by criminalizing cheeseburgers? Besides, the problems—frequently exaggerated—of criminal involvement in gambling, and of underage and addictive gamblers, can be best dealt with by legalization and regulation utilizing new software solutions. Furthermore, taxation of online poker and other gambling could generate billions for governments. Prohibition I was a porous wall between Americans and their martinis, giving rise to bad gin supplied by bad people. Prohibition II will provoke imaginative evasions as the market supplies what gamblers will demand—payment methods beyond the reach of Congress. But governments and sundry busybodies seem affronted by the Internet, as they are by any unregulated sphere of life. The speech police are itching to bring bloggers under campaign-finance laws that control the quantity, content and timing of political discourse. And now, by banning a particular behavior—the entertainment some people choose, using their own money—government has advanced its mother-hen agenda of putting a saddle and bridle on the Internet. Gambling is, however, as American as the Gold Rush or, for that matter, Wall Street. George Washington deplored the rampant gambling at Valley Forge, but lotteries helped fund his army as well as Harvard, Princeton and Dartmouth. And Washington endorsed the lottery that helped fund construction of the city that now bears his name, and from which has come a stern—but interestingly selective—disapproval of gambling.