.
May 24th, 2010
10:00 AM ET
May 21st, 2010
06:00 PM ET

How confident do you feel about the future?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Some days it really does feel like the end of the world as we know it. There is pretty grim news everywhere you look - from the economy to international threats to natural disasters.

And people are taking notice. A new Gallup poll shows only 23 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. - that's far below the historical average of 40 percent.

When it comes to the economy, the stock market is taking a beating. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its biggest one-day drop in more than a year yesterday - nearly 400 points - and has dropped more than a thousand points in a matter of a few weeks.

One top economist, Nouriel Roubini, says the stock market will drop another 20 percent before this correction is over.

Investors are nervous about Europe's debt crisis, among other things. And it's not just Europe. Many worry America's skyrocketing deficits could soon put us on the brink of the kind of stuff Greece is going through.

Overseas, North Korea is threatening all-out war if South Korea retaliates for the North sinking one of its ships. Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons and claims it could destroy Israel within a week if Israel attacks them first.

In the Gulf, a massive oil spill is threatening wildlife and entire industries up and down the Gulf Coast. And Mother Nature seems unhappy as well… with earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and Taiwan, floods in Tennessee and a volcano in Iceland that continues to spew ash and disrupt European air travel.

A lot to think about on a Friday night.

Here’s my question to you: How confident do you feel about the future?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Uncategorized
May 21st, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Consequences facing N. Korea for sinking S. Korean ship?

ALT TEXT

The wreckage of the naval vessel Cheonan is seen, which was sunk on March 26 near the maritime border with N. Korea. A multi-national investigation team concluded that N. Korea's torpedo sank the S. Korean warship, killing 46 sailors. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is warning that North Korea must face consequences... in light of a report that it torpedoed and sank a South Korean warship in March - killing 46 sailors.

Clinton, who was in Tokyo, says it's important to send a clear message that provocative actions have consequences... and that this attack can't go unanswered by the international community. Other U.S. officials are calling the attack "unprovoked and unwarranted."

Tensions are already rising dramatically on the Korean peninsula: North Korea denies it had anything to do with sinking the ship, claiming this is "sheer fabrication." They say that if South Korea retaliates, they will respond promptly with tough measures including "all-out war." Pyongyang is also threatening to back out of a non-aggression pact between the nations.

Meanwhile South Korea claims this attack is a military provocation that violates the armistice agreement between the two countries. They point to results of an official investigation - conducted by international experts - which concluded North Korea fired a torpedo that cut the ship in half.

It's unclear what an appropriate response is. North Korea is already under sanctions because of its missile and nuclear tests.

So how to punish North Korea without starting a war?

One expert suggests there are basically three options: Seoul could act unilaterally by cutting off all trade with the north, Seoul and Washington could take bilateral action by stepping up intelligence or naval cooperation. Lastly, the international community could act as a whole - possibly through the UN Security Council. Sanctions have worked so well in the past, haven't they?

Here’s my question to you: What consequences should North Korea face for sinking a South Korean ship?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: North Korea
May 20th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

What does Rand Paul's Kentucky victory mean for Tea Party?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

After more than a year of protests, rallies, speeches and a national convention... the Tea Party movement has taken its first big step toward political relevancy.

 Rand Paul

Rand Paul

Dr. Rand Paul pulled off a stunning landslide victory this week in Kentucky's Republican senate primaries. Paul, an eye doctor with no political experience, defeated the more well-known candidate - Kentucky's Secretary of State who had the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. What an embarrassment for McConnell.

Even before his victory - Paul was one of the leading voices of the Tea Party movement - known for its anti-big government, anti-tax, anti-establishment positions. Paul comes by his credentials honestly - his dad is Texas congressman and onetime GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. And some of his ideas are pretty darn good. They include requiring Congress to balance the budget and limiting senators to 12 years in office.

The Democrats were quick to react to Paul's victory - saying he represents "the most extreme elements" of the Republican party. Paul's response? He says Democrats should "bring it on"... and is promising the Tea Party is here to quote "take our government back."

But, now that he's got everyone's attention... Paul is under intense scrutiny for some of the stuff he's said.. like having to explain his recent criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But whatever questions there are - Rand Paul may one day be known as the person who put the Tea Party on the map. And with nearly one-third of Americans considering themselves Tea Party supporters, they could become a political force to reckon with.

Here’s my question to you: What does Rand Paul's victory in Kentucky mean for the future of the Tea Party?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Republicans
May 20th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Does Mexico have a right to complain about Ariz. Immigration law?

ALT TEXT

Mexican President Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress this morning. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Mexican Pres. Felipe Calderon has a lot of nerve coming to this country and complaining about Arizona's immigration law - when all the state wants to do is protect itself against a flood of illegal immigrants from his country.

But instead - Calderon and Pres. Obama are both whining about the Arizona law. Calderon, who also took his message to a joint meeting of Congress, is calling the law discriminatory.

As for President Obama, he says he wants a federal fix to the immigration crisis in this country - which would have to come from the same federal government that has refused for decades to enforce laws already on the books. It's patently absurd. Pres. Obama complains about Arizona trying to do something about a problem he - Pres. Obama - and the federal government have created and choose to ignore.

And with all this criticism of Arizona coming from Presidents Obama and Calderon, the Justice Department, the Homeland Security department - our government officials, like Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano can't even be bothered to read the law they're criticizing.

If they did, they'd find out that parts of the law are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes on immigration. But the only thing that matters to the administration is pandering to Latinos ahead of the midterm elections.

Felipe Calderon should spend his time trying to create opportunities for his own citizens so they aren't driven by poverty and desperation to sneak into this country illegally. This country doesn't meddle in Mexico's internal affairs, Pres. calderon, and you ought to keep out of ours. Our border security is quite frankly none of your business.

Here’s my question to you: Does Mexico have a right to complain about Arizona's immigration law?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Immigration • Mexico
May 19th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Election results a referendum on Pres. Obama?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

For someone who electrified the electorate during his run for the White House, President Obama isn't getting it done when it comes to helping out his fellow Democrats.

The losses just keep piling up: First his candidates lost the governor races in New Jersey and Virginia; then came the shocking loss of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.

And now, Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter - who was backed by the president - has been turned out. His career in the U.S. Senate is over

Suddenly Democratic incumbents are like deer on the opening day of hunting season, running for cover and fearing the worst.

Come November...one or both houses of Congress could fall to the Republicans. As one top Democrat tells the New York Daily News: "If the election were held today we'd lose both houses."

And it seems like the White House is starting to get it. After his guys got their hats handed to them in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey, President Obama pretty much stayed away from Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

But it's worth pointing out that some of these candidates didn't want the President's help either; they don't want to get too close to a president with mediocre approval ratings whose policies - like health care reform - aren't popular everywhere.

Meanwhile the White House is busy spinning another awful day the best they can. They claim the race that meant the most was the Pennsylvania congressional seat - where Democrats managed to hold onto the late Congressman Murtha's seat.

The White House also cites weak candidates in the other races as well as a toxic political environment for incumbents.

Here’s my question to you: To what extent are yesterday's election results a referendum on President Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Elections • President Barack Obama
May 19th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Revelations that Connecticut senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam couldn't have come at a worse time for the Democrats.

 Democratic Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal holds a press conference to explain discrepancies in claims that he served in Vietnam.

Democratic Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal holds a press conference to explain discrepancies in claims that he served in Vietnam.

It's not like they don't have enough problems with their candidates getting knocked off right and left; and with the Republicans' renewed efforts to retake control of the Senate in November.

That's why Blumenthal, who is Connecticut's attorney general, was carefully pre-selected and packaged to replace Senator Chris Dodd. Closest thing to a sure thing they could find. Except it turns out he's a liar and overnight has become a liability and an embarrassment to the Democrats.

Republicans are all over this, calling Blumenthal's lies "a serious blow to his candidacy." They say it's appalling that he would lie about such a significant issue.

And a lot of veterans aren't happy either. True to form Blumenthal surrounded himself with veterans during his non-apology yesterday at a VFW hall in West Hartford. Turns out Blumenthal isn't a member of the Veteran of Foreign Wars - and he's not eligible to be - you know, because he didn't go to Vietnam and he's not a Veteran of Foreign Wars. In fact, Blumenthal received five military deferments before finally joining the Marine Reserves.

The Democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to support Blumenthal. They're trying to contain the damage by circulating other videos that show Blumenthal accurately describing his military service. So sometimes he was honest and other times he lied... and apparently that's okay with the Democrats.

His primary opponent, Merrick Alpert, calls Blumenthal a "coward" and a "liar." Connecticut Democrats decide this weekend on their Senate candidate. If they're smart... well, we'll see...

Here’s my question to you: Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Democrats
May 19th, 2010
01:00 PM ET
May 18th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Women better educated, earn more than their husbands?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: THINKSTOCK)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"You aren't too smart, are you? I like that in a man." That was the actress Kathleen Turner in the movie Body Heat. She was speaking to the character played by William Hurt.

It's one of the greatest movie lines ever; and 30 years later, it may resonate with a growing number of marriages.

That's because compared to men, women are advancing more when it comes to education and their careers. This translates into more women marrying men who are less educated and earning less money than they do.

A recent Pew study shows 22 percent of married women made more than their husbands in 2007. That number is up sharply from four percent in 1970.

When it comes to education, women make up about 60 percent of students with advanced degrees in fields like medicine, law, business and other graduate programs.

Also, the recession has hit men harder... with nearly five million jobs being lost by men, compared to two million for women.

So how does this change in traditional gender roles affect marriages? In some cases, experts say there's still a stigma on men who make less... and that professional women don't want to "marry down."

But others insist it works for them: one executive at a Wall Street firm says she finds her husband's career as a dog-walker refreshing. Others say couples can have a healthy marriage as long as both spouses share similar goals and values.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say when many women are better educated and make more money than their husbands?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Education
May 18th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Should Democrats support candidate who lied about Vietnam service?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democrats may soon wish they had a different horse in the race for the Connecticut senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd.

 Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal reportedly lied about serving in Vietnam.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal reportedly lied about serving in Vietnam.

The New York Times has an explosive front page story today about Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal - saying he has lied on multiple occasions about serving in Vietnam.

Blumenthal, who is the state's attorney general, never served in Vietnam. Yet on numerous occasions he has said things like: "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." He's also referred to: "When we returned." These are lies.

Blumenthal never returned from Vietnam, because he never went to Vietnam. What's more, he got at least five military deferments so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. And he eventually joined the Marine Reserves - so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam.

Blumenthal's campaign was quick to slam the New York Times story calling it an "outrageous distortion." How is it a distortion if the New York Times said he lied about serving in Vietnam if he never served in Vietnam. He just lied about it.

Blumenthal held a news conference this afternoon where he said he unintentionally misspoke on a few occasions, adding that he regrets it and accepts full responsibility. What does that mean? Unintentionally misspoke? Is he not sure whether or not he ever fought in Vietnam? What garbage. He repeatedly referred to his comments as "a few misplaced words."

It's called lying.

In what will prove to be a huge mistake, Democrats say they will continue to back him in the race to replace Chris Dodd in the U.S. Senate. If he wins, Blumenthal will fit right in in Washington with the rest of the weasels down there.

Here’s my question to you: Should Connecticut Democrats support Richard Blumenthal who lied about serving in Vietnam?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Democrats
« older posts