.
January 29th, 2010
09:33 PM ET
January 29th, 2010
07:00 PM ET

Are you willing to vote against the incumbent?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It turns out the Democrats were too clever by half.

In four vacant Senate seats - they managed to go zero for four in putting people in place who have virtually no chance of being re-elected.

It's not bad enough that the midterm elections are shaping up as a bloodbath for the Democrats - but now they'll be forced to defend what should have been safe Senate seats in some of the bluest states of the country.

Joe Biden's old seat in Delaware - Hillary Clinton's old seat in New York... they managed to put a moron into President Obama's old senate seat in Illinois... thank you, Rod Blagojevich... and one of the senate seats in Colorado could also fall to the Republicans.

Plus - they just lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts... and the governorship in New Jersey... and the governorship in Virginia... they're on a real roll.

Of course - voting against incumbents has a certain appeal. The government is broken, the only way to fix it is term limits. And there's no way the weasels in Congress will ever agree to do away with their own jobs. So that leaves it up to us.

Scott Brown certainly got everyone's attention. The Senate seat he won had been held by the late Edward Kennedy for 46 years... so you see, it can be done.

It is possible for us the voters to create some real change we can believe in. All we have to do is get over this stupid idea that because somebody has been there, they should always be there.

Here’s my question to you: Are you willing to vote against the incumbent in this year's midterm election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Elections
January 29th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Pres. Obama renews call for bipartisanship. Is he dreaming?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Talking about bipartisanship makes a nice soundbite; but at the end of the day, it's just that: Talk.

President Obama went into the enemy camp today - going head-to-head for more than an hour at a meeting of House Republicans.

For the most part, it was polite and cordial - how much good it did is an open question.

The President chastised Republicans for opposing him on taxes, health care and the economic stimulus plan. Of the attacks on health care, the president said, "You'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot," and "I am not an ideologue."

The Republicans accused Mr. Obama of ignoring their ideas and driving up the debt.

This all follows the State of the Union speech, where President Obama renewed calls for bipartisanship.

The number two House leader, Congressman Eric Cantor, says the president's address to Congress was full of "rhetoric and lecturing." Cantor says he appreciated the offer of bipartisanship, but that Republicans have heard this before.

But after today's meeting, Cantor said this is the kind of discussion they need to have more of.

Cantor has accused the administration of showing "arrogance in ignoring public opinion," and that Congressional Democrats have been no better when it comes to bipartisanship. He insists the Republicans are open to talking and working with the other party.

We'll see.

Sadly, the current political strategy in Washington for both parties seems to be: "I win if I can make the other guy lose."

Here’s my question to you: President Obama has renewed his call for bipartisanship. Is he dreaming?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

January 29th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Where should trials of 9/11 terror suspects be held?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A change of heart at the White House - which is now considering moving the 9/11 terror trials away from New York City.

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is among those suspects set to face a trial in a civilian criminal court.

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is among those suspects set to face a trial in a civilian criminal court.

This about-face comes after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with other state and city politicians, yelled long and loud about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his fellow dirtbags at a courthouse near Ground Zero. Which was an idea that made absolutely no sense from the beginning.

New York is worried about the costs - about $200 million a year - for a trial that could last years... plus the general disruption to life in lower Manhattan. It's estimated they would need more than 2,000 security checkpoints set up - along with additional protection in other parts of the city. How stupid is our federal government?

The feds said they would reimburse New York for its costs, but what about business owners who could be driven out of business by this circus?

There are better ideas... almost anywhere is a better idea than New York City. These include the Military Academy at West Point or a military base in upstate New York.

This fierce opposition to the plan to hold those trials here in Manhattan caught the justice department off guard (There's a surprise). Washington? Tone deaf?

Nah....

Now, one law enforcement official tells the New York Daily News, "it's like a half-baked soufflé - the plan is collapsing."

Good.

Here’s my question to you: Where should the trials of the 9/11 terror suspects be held?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: September 11
January 29th, 2010
01:30 PM ET
January 29th, 2010
01:00 PM ET