|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Insider Report: Stock Market Predicts Tuesday's Winner? Special From NewsMax's Most Informed Sources Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Stock Market Indicator Predicts Election? Some pundits say the most accurate predictor of presidential elections for the past 100 years has been the Dow Jones Industrials' performance during the month of October. Stock Trader's Almanac found that over the past 100 years, when the Dow rose 3.3 percent or more during October, before November's Election Day, the incumbent party has never lost. The study also found that if the Dow declined 0.5 percent or more in October, the incumbent party has never won re-election. As it turns out, October trading has ended with the Dow down 0.5 percent. Enough to sink President Bush's re-election chances? We're not so sure. For starters, Bush has a way of confounding history. Remember how unusual it is for a presidential son to run for president himself and win? It's happened only once before in American history. Then there is the 9/11 factor. So much of our economic woes and lack of market confidence can be traced to Sept. 11. Polls show that Americans don't blame Bush for that, and see him as the better candidate in dealing with national security issues. The verdict: Bush may trump all precedents come Tuesday!  2. Billionaires Brag of Buying Election Will a mere four Democrat fat cats succeed in their blatant scheme to buy the presidential election for John Kerry? Could be. Angry white males George Soros, Norman Lear, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance and Stephen Bing of Hollywood "have spent more than $50 million to register new voters and defeat President Bush. They are the X factor in this year's election: A Few Rich Men, making common cause with young people, in hopes of changing the dynamics of the American electorate," the Wall Street Journal reports. "They just might succeed." Ever wonder why the self-styled messiah Soros and his globalist ilk were so eager to promote John McCain's disastrous scheme for campaign finance "reform"? They knew they could muzzle other voices while spreading their own propaganda more successfully than ever before. While the "anti-capitalism capitalists" and the increasingly violent thugs of Big Labor have mobilized against the president, the Journal notes, "It is one of the great ironies of Election 2004. Mr. Bush's opponents attack him daily for being the tool of big business. But big business is hardly heard." The primary reason: Even as Bush-hating 527 groups spend tens of millions of dollars for Kerry, businesses may no longer make soft-money contributions. Compounding this: Execs' fear of trial lawyers prevents them from funding their own 527s, whose very existence they deem dubious. Lear indicated to the Journal that if Bush manages to get re-elected despite all the money the filthy-rich left lavished on Kerry, a lot of American radicals would move to New Zealand. Norman, is that a promise? Let's hope the Republicans learn a priceless lesson from their horrendously expensive and misguided expansion of Medicare: You can't outspend or outpander a socialist. "Republican visions of electoral gains from last year's Medicare prescription drug law have vanished, replaced by Democrats' biting criticism of GOP members of Congress who voted for the bill," the Associated Press reports. "What is happening in campaigns is a far cry from the predictions of Republican pollsters that Bush and the GOP majority in Congress would win acclaim and votes for delivering on an issue that has been the domain of Democrats since Medicare's creation nearly 40 years ago." Democrat congressional candidates from the Carolinas to California are scoring points with voters by attacking their GOP rivals who supported the massive expansion. Even though Democrats never succeeded in their effort to add a drug benefit, they complain that the GOP's confusing multibillion-dollar plan isn't enough while saying Bush has given billions to drug companies. Despite the fact the pro-Democratic AARP endorsed the drug bill, Bush still gets burned by seniors for his program. Add to these attacks the criticism President Bush got for spending tens of billions of dollars more on America's government schools than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of. Instead of playing bread and circuses, Republicans should remember Ronald Reagan's lesson. Reagan won a landslide election for a second term in 1984. He was also the first president in modern times to cut the growth of discretionary federal spending outside the military budget. You CAN cut spending and win votes!
For more than a year Democrats and their media allies have denounced and smeared Ralph Nader for daring to exercise his right to run for public office. Yet hardly any have noted, and none have whined, that Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik could do to President Bush what Nader did to Al Gore and could do to John Kerry. New York Times political columnist John Tierney observes that in 2000, Bush would have won Florida easily, and might have won New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin, had Libertarian nominee Harry Browne not been in the race. This year Badnarik could cost Bush such closely contested states as Nevada, Wisconsin and New Mexico, according to Tierney and other analysts. Far more Americans have heard of Nader than Badnarik, but in a recent national poll by Zogby/Reuters each had 1 percentage point, which is "not much, but possibly critical" to the outcome Tuesday, Tierney says. "Nader will be absent from the ballot in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Missouri and other key states, prompting many analysts to predict that Badnarik will have a bigger impact on Bush than Nader will have on Democrat John Kerry," the Libertarian Party says. Many Republicans like Libertarians. But they also know that this year, a vote for the Libertarian is a vote for John Kerry.
A loyal reader writes: You might be interested to know that I recently renewed my 1-year subscription to NewsMax on October 12. I took advantage of the free gift offer, the "I LIKE BUSH!" T-shirt. I received it within 7 days, and proudly wore it to work (the U.S. Postal Service-Kansas City, MO). A co-worker complained to the department manager about my T-shirt, and the manager gave me an instruction (in the Fed government, this is comparable to an order in the military) to go to the men's room, and turn the T-shirt inside-out. I did not tell the manager, but I felt this would have been a disgrace to our President and the U.S. Flag displayed in the background. Fortunately, I had a plain spare T-shirt in my locker, so I went to the men's room and changed. Even though I followed instruction, I am being disciplined with a 7-day suspension (the step before termination) for wearing the "I Like Bush!" T-shirt. I am NOT kidding. I am contacting the American Center for Law and Justice on the matter and may file suit. BTW, today, I wore an NFL jersey for the Kansas City Chiefs player #31, Priest Holmes. To me, my wearing this jersey "says" I Like Priest Holmes. Oddly enough, no one complained, and the manager said nothing about it. So I guess it's OK to say "I Like Priest Holmes" but I can't say "I like the current President of the United States, George W. Bush!" Is it just me, or are people just plain NUTS?!?!?!? Thought you'd like to know that the "I Like Bush!" T-shirt DOES make an impact! Thank you.
More Links:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2012 NewsMax.Com |