Dow Declines on Day, Week

PETER A. MCKAY GEOFFREY ROGOW

Stocks finished mixed for the day and lower for the week on Friday after gains for technology and financial shares offset a slump in the energy sector after oil prices cratered.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by 15.87 points, or 0.2%, to 8539.73, leaving the blue-chip measure down more than 2% for the week. That marked its first weekly drop in a month and only the third weekly loss since its March lows.

Financials had paced much of the week's declines on concern surrounding the White House's plans to overhaul financial regulation. Late on Thursday and Friday, financials bounced in what traders said were short-covering rallies.

The Dow was helped by Bank of America, which gained 2.5%, and American Express, which climbed 2.3%. Oil components Exxon Mobil and Chevron sank 0.6% and 0.5%, respectively.

The S&P 500-stock index rose 2.86 points, or 0.3%, to 921.23 as its financial sector rose 1.8% and its technology sector rose 1.2%. The Nasdaq Composite Index gained 19.75 points, or 1.1%, to close at 1827.47.

Market Data Center >

• Most Actives | Gainers | Losers
• New Highs and Lows | Money Flows
• Intraday Futures | Currencies

Smart-phone makers Apple and Palm gained amid signs that more consumers are adopting higher-end phones. But BlackBerry maker Research In Motion fell 4.9% as investors worried that it is facing stiffer competition from Apple, Palm and others. The device maker's earnings jumped last quarter, it reported late on Thursday, but it issued an outlook that disappointed some traders.

Several investors said they were turning their attention to upcoming second-quarter earnings releases, expected to begin in a couple weeks. While economic trends have improved, debate remains about whether company fundamentals have improved as well.

"In order for this to become a real bull market we have to see the earnings that are delivered lead to upward revisions in analysts' estimates and we haven't seen that yet," said Jeff Knight, head of global asset allocation for Putnam Investments.

A slide in crude oil prices, which fell $1.82 to settle at $69.55 a barrel, weighed on energy stocks. Crude has risen amid improved sentiment about the global economy as well as hedging against dollar weakness, though there is debate about whether such sharp gains can be sustained.

Oil prices traded higher early in Friday's session on concerns about turmoil in Iran and in Nigeria, where rebels attacked a pipeline, and stocks were able to post small gains in the morning. But traders said they recently have been bracing for weak energy demand in the U.S. and other oil-consuming nations that remain stuck in recession.

Mr. Knight called the the recent surge for commodities prices move a tactical opportunity to "short the inflation fears many market veterans have touted."

Traders also may have tweaked their books heading into "quadruple witching," the simultaneous expiration of options on individual stocks, index options, single-stock futures and index futures. In the past, it has brought additional volatility to the market, with traders frantically selling or buying shares to deliver against previous bets using futures and options contracts.

But some observers said most of the expected pressure probably occurred in the beginning of the week, when the Dow had a three-day losing streak in which it fell more than 300 points. Thursday and Friday, the market was relatively calm. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatilty Index dropped 8% on Friday.

"What we've generally been seeing in this expiration cycle is people rolling over whatever options positions they have," settling the expiring contracts and then taking on similar bets in contracts for the following month, said Allen Greenberg, Chicago-based options chief for brokerage BNY ConvergEx. "They're not necessarily looking for a big new move in either direction."

Iran:Riot in tehran streets after election day(3) second day!

Iran:Riot in tehran streets after election day(3) second day!

URGENT: Today - All out in Support of uprising in Iran

Location: IN Front Of Islamic Republic Embassies Around the World

Unfortunately some of our videos are on the Facebook and we can't move here
more news over the Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/saeed.valadbaygi

The message of Hamid Taqvaee, leader of Worker-communist Party of Iran, addressed to the people in Iran

Freedom-loving people!

The election charade ended and the fact incessantly emphasized by our party has now appeared naked to all eyes: the regime of Islamic Republic neither bears free and fair elections nor is reformable. It must be totally overthrown. What we are currently witnessing is not any election aftershock but the death tremors of the regime. It is the death crisis of the regime in its entirety which appears as its domestic faction fightings. Do not let the murderous rulers flee out of the present harm’s way!

People!

The ranks of the regime have never been so jumbled and muddled. The Khamenei-Ahmadinejad gang has resolved on crushing and stamping out the opposite gangs. It imagines that it can rely on its forces of suppression and, indeed, the whole state machinery under its control, in order to both see through this internal surgery and, at the same time, to intimidate the society as a whole, that is, to beat back your nascent struggles aimed at the complete overthrow of this wicked government. It is, however, sheer self-delusion on its part. This no June 20th, 1981, the starting point of clamping down the revolution. This no summer of 1988 when, immediately after the conclusion of Iran-Iraq war, thousands of political prisoners were massacred in order to intimidate the people at large. This is no July 9th, 1999, when the people rose up on a massive scale demanding freedom of expression. Today the Islamic regime is too desperate, too corrupt and too rotten to be able to hold off the current wave of protests across the nation. The murderous rulers should not be given a break!


Hamid Taqvai
Secretary of the Central Committee of Worker-communist Party of Iran.

isfahan today...

Day Ahead: All Eyes on Payrolls

Investors Digest Tough Economic News Day

Tens of thousands rally at tax day 'tea parties'

Tens of thousands rally at tax day 'tea parties'

By SHANNON MCCAFFREY

- Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged "tea parties" around the country Wednesday to tap into the collective angst stirred up by a bad economy, government spending and bailouts.

The rallies were directed at President Barack Obama's new administration on a symbolic day: the deadline to file income taxes. Protesters even threw what appeared to be a box of tea bags toward the White House, causing a brief lockdown at the compound.

Shouts rang out from Kentucky, which just passed tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol, to Salt Lake City, where many in the crowd booed Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman for accepting about $1.5 billion in stimulus money. Even in Alaska, where there is no statewide income tax or sales tax, hundreds of people held signs and chanted "No more spending."

"Frankly, I'm mad as hell," said businessman Doug Burnett at a rally at the Iowa Capitol, where many of the about 1,000 people wore red shirts declaring "revolution is brewing." Burnett added: "This country has been on a spending spree for decades, a spending spree we can't afford."

In Boston, a few hundred protesters gathered on the Boston Common - a short distance from the original Tea Party - some dressed in Revolutionary garb and carrying signs that said "Barney Frank, Bernie Madoff: And the Difference Is?" and "D.C.: District of Communism."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up a tea party at Austin City Hall with his stance against the federal government, as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

But unlike many events around the country, politicians were not allowed to speak at a separate rally in San Antonio.

"They are welcome to come and listen to us, for a change," organizers said in a statement.

In Atlanta, thousands of people gathered outside the Capitol, where Fox News Channel conservative pundit Sean Hannity broadcast his show Wednesday night. One protester's sign read: "Hey Obama you can keep the change."

One of his guests was Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, who made news during the presidential campaign when he asked Barack Obama about taxes. The crowd cheered many of Hannity's stances against higher taxes and moves by the Obama administration so far.

Julie Reeves, of Covington, brought her Chihuahua, Arnie, who wore a tiny anti-IRS T-shirt. "I want the government to get its hand the hell out of my wallet," Reeves said.

The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who is now a lobbyist.

Organizers said the movement developed organically through online social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter and through exposure on Fox News.

While FreedomWorks insisted the rallies were nonpartisan, they have been seized on by many prominent Republicans who view them as a promising way for the party to reclaim its momentum.

"All you have to be is a mildly awake Republican candidate for office to get in front of that parade," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The movement attracted some Republicans considering 2012 presidential bids.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took the podium in front of New York's City Hall while the crowd of about 2,000 chanted, "We are America!"

He urged people to tell their lawmakers to vote against big spending or else "we're going to fire you."

As the former House speaker left after his 11-minute speech, passers-by yelled, "2012, Newt!" and "Run for president!" But when asked about a run, Gingrich shook his head emphatically and said, "I'm just part of a citizen movement."

Zachary Caceres, a 19-year-old New York University student, was dressed as one of the Colonial rebels known as Sons of Liberty.

"I feel very, very strongly that my own future is being ransomed," said Caceres, of Ocean City, Md.

Another possible candidate, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, sent an e-mail to his supporters, letting them know about tea parties throughout the state. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford attended two tea parties.

In Missouri, Karla Waite, 28, brought her four young children to a rally in Kansas City because she said "it was time to stand up."

"The way we've been going, with the bailouts and the entitlements, we're heading toward socialism," Waite said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to live in."

There were several small counter-protests, including one that drew about a dozen people at Fountain Square in Cincinnati. A counter-protester held a sign that read, "Where were you when Bush was spending billions a month 'liberating' Iraq?" The anti-tax demonstration there, meanwhile, drew about 4,000 people.

In Lansing, Mich., outside the state Capitol, another 4,000 people waved signs exclaiming "Stop the Fiscal Madness," "Read My Lipstick! No More Bailouts" and "The Pirates Are in D.C." Children held makeshift signs complaining about the rising debt.

More than 1,000 protesters gathered outside a downtown federal building in Salt Lake City despite the rain and snow. Kate Maloney held a cardboard sign that read "Pin the tail on the jacka$$" with a picture of Obama on a Democratic donkey.

Other protesters also took direct aim at Obama. One sign in the crowd in Madison, Wis., compared him to the Antichrist. At a rally in Montgomery, Ala., where Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" blared from loudspeakers, Jim Adams of Selma carried a sign that showed the president with Hitler-style hair and mustache and said, "Sieg Heil Herr Obama."

Still others talked of their children's futures. In Washington, D.C., Joe Hollinger said he took the day off to attend the protest with his 11-year-old daughter.

"I'm concerned about the incredible amount of debt Congress is going to put on our children," Hollinger said, pointing to his daughter's sign, which read, "Congress get your hand off my piggy bank."

Groundhog Day in Pyongyang

Our man at Turtle Bay: Bill Murray.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is said to be a film buff, so perhaps he's familiar with the classic "Groundhog Day," in which Bill Murray plays a TV reporter who is condemned to relive February 2 over and over again. Kim must figure the members of the U.N. Security Council have seen it too, since they insist on reliving the same hopeless diplomacy toward his nuclear provocations.

A week ago, North Korea launched a long-range multistage rocket, the most recent step in its missile program that could one day deliver weapons of mass destruction to just about any place on Earth. Yesterday, the 15 members of the Security Council finally agreed on their united response: a "presidential statement" condemning the launch and promising tougher U.N. sanctions.

But didn't the U.N. already sanction Pyongyang for such activities? In 2006, in the wake of another missile launch and an underground nuclear test, the U.N. passed a resolution ordering Pyongyang to suspend all ballistic missile activities and also ordering it to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner."

Resolution 1718 requires member states to refrain from trading in weapons, weapons parts and luxury goods. Had it been enforced, that resolution might have had an impact. The ban on luxury goods, aimed at subverting Kim's ability to pay off his military, could have undermined his political control. Instead, the U.N. sanctions were applied weakly, if at all, and eventually were all but abandoned when Kim promised once again to give up his nuclear weapons in return for more aid and recognition.

Yesterday's U.N. statement lacks even the legally binding nature of a resolution. It is a promise by the 15 members of the Security Council to enforce sanctions they have already pledged to enforce but so far haven't, in the name of getting the North to agree to abide by promises it has already made but hasn't kept. This time, no doubt, everyone really, really means it.

Maybe if the U.S. re-imposed the financial sanctions that President Bush abandoned and China cut off energy supplies, the six-party talks on the North's nuclear program might have a chance of success. Tokyo has shown some backbone by refusing to give any aid until the North provides information on the Japanese citizens it abducted in the 1970s and 1980s. And in South Korea, President Lee Myung-bak has ended his predecessors' open-checkbook policy and made aid conditional on tracking where it's going. On Monday, his government indicated that it may finally join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative to halt trafficking in WMD.

But none of the five parties appears to have any appetite for tougher measures. They're too afraid the North will collapse -- which is what they should want and is the only way the North will give up its nuclear weapons. The likelihood is that, after a decent interval of pretending to enforce the sanctions, the five parties will repeat the Bush-Clinton cycle of more concessions and more aid in return for more promises that Pyongyang won't keep.

With this wrist slap for Kim, the Obama Administration has now had its first experience with the limits of the U.N. as the enforcer of global order and nonproliferation. It won't be the last. See Darfur (feckless denunciation of), and Iran, which just announced it has 7,000 nuclear centrifuges and counting. Those are also U.N. movie classics.

Day Ahead: GM Again

Wall Streets Day of Reckoning: Turmoil in the Global Market

Republicans' Day of Reckoning

Highlights: Obama's Address to Congress

Excerpts from President Obama's first major address to a Joint Session of Congress on

TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz Save/Share + COMMENT washingtonpost.com readers have posted 783 comments about this item. View All Comments » POST A COMMENT You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register Why Do I Have to Log In Again? Log In Again? CLOSE We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience. Discussion Policy Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article

By William Kristol

After Tuesday night, no one should doubt Barack Obama's ambition. His silent dismissal of the efforts of his immediate predecessors -- he mentioned none of them -- is only one indication of the extent to which he intends to be a new president breaking new ground in a new era.

George W. Bush defined his presidency by his response to the terror attacks. Obama didn't discuss Sept. 11. And by relegating foreign policy to the status of a virtual afterthought, Obama indicated that he doesn't think his presidency will rise or fall by the success or failure of his diplomatic or military endeavors. Bill Clinton told Congress in 1996 that the era of big government was over. Obama withdrew that concession to conservatives and conservatism. George H.W. Bush worried in 1989 that we have more will than wallet. Obama has no such worries.

Obama's speech reminds of Ronald Reagan's in 1981 in its intention to reshape the American political landscape. But of course Obama wishes to undo the Reagan agenda. "For decades," he claimed, we haven't addressed the challenges of energy, health care and education. We have lived through "an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity." Difficult decisions were put off. But now "that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here." The phrase "day of reckoning" may seem a little ominous coming from a candidate of hope and change. But it's appropriate, because it's certainly a day of reckoning for conservatives and Republicans.

For Obama's aim is not merely to "revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity." Obama outlined much of this new foundation in the most unabashedly liberal and big-government speech a president has delivered to Congress since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Obama intends to use his big three issues -- energy, health care and education -- to transform the role of the federal government as fundamentally as did the New Deal and the Great Society.

Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?

Perhaps -- if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can't allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can't win politically right now. But they can raise doubts, they can point out other issues that we can't ignore (especially in national security and foreign policy), they can pick other fights -- and they can try in any way possible to break Obama's momentum. Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering -- and for their preferred alternatives.

Right now, Obama is in the driver's seat -- a newly elected and popular president with comfortable Democratic congressional majorities and an adulatory mainstream news media. Still, Republicans do have advantages over their forebears in 1965 and 1933. There are more Republicans in Congress today, so they should be able to resist more effectively. There is much more of a record of liberal failures to look back on now than when the New Deal and the Great Society were being rushed through. Conservatism is more sophisticated than it was back then. So there is no reason to despair.

Still, conservatives and Republicans shouldn't minimize their tasks. Long term, they need fresh thinking in a host of areas of domestic policy, thinking that builds on previous conservative achievements but that deals with the new economic and social realities. In the short term, Republicans need to show a tactical agility and political toughness far greater than their predecessors did in the 1960s and the 1930s. "Else they will fall," to quote the great conservative Edmund Burke, "an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle," reduced to the unpleasant role of bystanders or the unattractive status of complainers, as Barack Obama makes history.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, writes a monthly column for The Post

Hot or Not: Presidents' Day Edition

Hot or Not: Presidents' Day Edition

Jesse Walker

This year's Presidents' Day game: Ignoring Obama, who hasn't accumulated enough of a record to compete, rate the post-World War II presidents from least bad to worst. If you'd like, you can segregate them by party.

To start the arguments, here's my Democratic ballot:

Carter
Clinton
Kennedy
Truman
Johnson

Carter gets the top spot for his relative social tolerance—if it weren't for Peter Bourne's poor judgment, we might have emerged from the '70s with decriminalized pot—and for deregulating planes, trains, and trucks. Of course he also botched the deregulation of the S&Ls, and he bequeathed us the very un-deregulatory Department of Energy, but that's why we say "least bad" instead of "best."

My Republican preferences:

Eisenhower
Ford
Reagan
G.H.W. Bush
Nixon
G.W. Bush

Perhaps it's perverse to put Ford so high, but as we enter our second consecutive messianic presidency I'm increasingly nostalgic for the do-nothing executives. Ford is the closest we've had in my lifetime.

Make your picks—and make fun of mine—in the comments.