CNN

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Democrats could be in for some serious bloodshed come the midterm elections - if yesterday's races in New Jersey and Virginia are any indication. Voters in both those states elected Republicans governor. The message was pretty clear: "It's the economy, stupid."

Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia greeted the crowd at his victory party last night in Richmond. McDonnell beat out Democratic challenger Creigh Deeds.

Exit polls showed more than 80 percent of voters in both states said they were worried about the direction of the economy in the next year; more than half said they were very worried.

Another trouble spot for Democrats - those independents who were a key to President Obama's White House victory last year broke big for the GOP yesterday. And, exit polls suggest Democrats had a hard time turning out their base - including the first-time minority voters and young people who voted for Obama last year.

Nevertheless, most voters in both Virginia and New Jersey said President Obama was not a factor in their vote. But if the administration can't do more to lessen the impact of this recession in the next year - yesterday's elections could be a sign of serious trouble in the midterms, when most governors, all of the House and a third of the Senate will be on the ballots.

Of course the White House is dismissing the New Jersey and Virginia losses as "two very local elections" that say nothing about the president's standing with the American people right now. They have to say that. President Obama campaigned for both these candidates.

Here’s my question to you: What can the Democrats do to keep from getting their noses bloodied in next year's midterm elections?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

President Obama is pictured golfing on Martha's Vineyard back in August. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama promised to be different - but he's not.

The Washington Times reports that the president has been giving top Democratic contributors special access to the White House. Internal Democratic National Committee documents show this includes everything from private briefings with top administration officials - to invitations to big speeches and town hall meetings - to golfing with the president in Martha's Vineyard - to birthday visits to the Oval Office... plus bowling and movies at the White House.

Remember the hell President Clinton caught when we found out he was letting contributors sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?

Handing out goodies to big money contributors just ahead of the midterm elections flies in the face of all of that high-minded rhetoric about reform, lobbyists, transparency etc. that we heard during the campaign. You can buy access to this president for $30,400 as an individual or for bundling $300,000.

The White House insists President Obama has set the "toughest ethics standards in history" and they say many of these guests weren't only fundraisers, but personal friends of the president. Whatever they are - it smacks of selling access to the highest office in the land in exchange for political donations, and it stinks.

Democratic Party officials say there's "absolutely no correlation" between fundraising and attending White House events, and insist Mr. Obama's efforts to reward major donors are on a far smaller scale than other recent presidents.

Here’s my question to you: Should big Democratic contributors be given special access to the White House?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Yesterday it was Republican Senator John Ensign... today, we have a worm from the other side of the aisle: Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel. Republicans tried unsuccessfully once again to remove Rangel from the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. They introduced a motion that would have forced him to step down during the ongoing ethics investigation into his finances and other activities.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

But House Democrats wouldn't hear of it. They effectively killed the resolution - by voting to shut down the debate and send it to the House Ethics Committee - where the matter has already sat for a year. The phrase, "House Ethics Committee" is an oxymoron.

Rangel has been under investigation for lots of reasons: hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets that he allegedly didn't claim on financial disclosure forms. He has admitted not paying taxes on $75,000 in income from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. And - he's accused of breaking New York City laws by keeping several rent-controlled apartments - including one he used for a campaign office. There's more… I just don't have time to list it all.

But despite it all... this weasel remains the head of the powerful House committee that writes our tax law. And judging by the actions of his fellow Democrats yesterday, it's all just fine with them. What it is is disgusting.

Charlie Rangel says he's the victim of a smear campaign by some in the media. He whines that other chairmen usually get to keep their leadership posts when under ethics investigations.

Here’s my question to you: Why do House Democrats continue to support Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (PHOTO CREDIT: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democrats may be in for some trouble come next year's midterm elections.

A new Gallup poll shows 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their congressional district if the election were held today; but 44 percent say they'd support the Republican - a virtual tie.

The Democrats held a much larger lead over Republicans for most of 2006 through 2008.

What's interesting here is that the stronger showing by the Republicans comes from the support of independents - who now favor Republicans over Democrats by 45 to 36 percent. In July, it was even.

Another potential sign of trouble for Democrats is Congress' job approval rating - now a dismal 21 percent. Democrats are in charge in both houses.

Historically in midterm elections - the party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. The average loss is 16 House seats, but some election experts think the Democrats could lose a lot more in 2010.

One analyst says the Democrats have 25 to 30 seats that are "truly vulnerable," plus another 40 where there's a chance of a "competitive race." He says Republicans only have 10 to 15 vulnerable seats.

Even though President Obama's approval ratings have moved back up a little... and Democrats are hoping for results on health care and the economy, those independents - along with seniors - are moving toward the Republican column. And seniors are the group more likely to turn out and vote in midterm elections.

Here’s my question to you: How bad will the 2010 midterm elections be for the Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the debate over health care rages on... the American people are increasingly souring on President Obama and the Democrats. A new poll shows the president's approval rating at 51-percent - the lowest of his presidency and down from 61-percent two-months ago.

The Pew poll shows the Democratic Party now has a favorable rating of 49-percent... also down from 59-percent in April and 62-percent in January.

When it comes to the Republican Party - public opinion has remained steady all year at about 40-percent.

Meanwhile it looks like the American people aren't buying into calls for bipartisanship. The poll shows 63-percent of those surveyed say the president and Republicans are not working together on important issues... that's up from 50-percent who felt that way in June.

Although more people blame the Republicans than President Obama for this lack of co-operation, the poll shows a growing number are now faulting the president. 17-percent of Americans say Mr. Obama is to blame... that's up from seven-percent who felt that way in February.

Meanwhile a separate Gallup poll shows the Democratic-led Congress' approval at 31-percent... the lowest reading since February.

With health care eclipsing all else in Washington this summer - it seems as though the president and the Democrats are losing favor with the American people. It will be interesting to see what happens to these numbers if the Democrats decide to "go it alone" like we've been hearing.

Here’s my question to you: Why are the Democrats' and President Obama's approval ratings falling?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama and the Democrats may end up going it alone when it comes to health care reform. Democrats say they now see little chance of getting Republican support - and point to lawmakers like Senator Charles Grassley, who they say aren't serious about striking a deal.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is negotiating bipartisan health care legislation.

The administration says it had hoped to get bipartisan backing - but it's looking less likely. Instead, they would have to get moderate and conservative Democrats on board.

Party leaders in the Senate may wind up using a tactic where they only need 51-votes to pass a health care bill... instead of 60. One Republican warns if the Democrats go this route - it would be "like a declaration of war."

Going it alone has pros and cons for the Democrats... It could mean crafting the bill they really want. For example, the public option, which the White House appeared to be abandoning this week, would likely be back on the table.

However, pushing legislation through without Republican support could also be risky, as the GOP might call it a power play and say they were merely opposing a bill that the public disliked. One recent poll shows nearly 60-percent of registered voters oppose passing a health care bill without bipartisan support.

But the White House doesn't seem too worried... one official tells CNN "If we have to push it through this way, no one is going to remember how messy it was... a win is a win."

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to health care reform, should the Democrats just go it alone?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

At some point it will become President Obama and the Democrats' recession, not George W. Bush's. If the economy doesn't start to show signs of picking up, Democrats could feel the voters' anger in next year's mid-term elections.

President Obama is traveling a path not unlike the one President Ronald Reagan once traveled and, as my colleague Christine Romans points out, the Democrats could learn something from President Reagan's experience. Both Presidents were wildly popular early on, but unemployment was rising.

In the 1982 elections Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats and experts say the scale was tipped when unemployment hit 10-percent. President Obama currently faces a 9.5-percent unemployment rate and now says 10-percent is likely before the year is over. Renowned investor Warren Buffet said this morning on Good Morning America that unemployment could hit 11-percent.

It seems everyone knows someone who has lost their job. While the Obama Administration is busy pointing the finger at Bush, those unemployed Americans who can't find a job will likely be tempted to take it out on whoever is in power when they vote next fall. What remains to be seen is if voters are ready to start returning Republicans to power so soon after the Bush Administration.

Here’s my question to you: Will the voters blame the Democrats for our economic problems in next year's election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There is a fundamental gender gap when it comes to American politics. A new Gallup poll of almost 150,000 people shows women are significantly more likely than men to identify themselves as Democrats.

A woman wears Donkey glasses and an Obama temporary tattoo at the DNC in Denver in August 2008.

Consider this: 41 percent of women say they're Democrats; that's nine-points higher than the 32-percent of men who say that. 26-percent of women identify themselves as Independents - compared to 34-percent of men. As for those who identify themselves as Republicans, there's not much of a difference there - 25-percent of women compared to 28-percent of men.

What's especially interesting here is that the gender gap is evident across all age groups - from 18 to 85-year-olds. Also, it shows up within all major racial, ethnic and marital-status groups.

For example - African-Americans and Asians are more Democratic than whites; but within each of these groups, women are more Democratic than men.

The poll also shows Democrats have their greatest advantage among baby boomers and the very young; and relatively speaking, are the weakest among people in their late 30s and those in their mid-to-late 60s.

Gallup says these findings suggest that by the time young men and women are 18 years old - the different cultural and social factors that determine party identification are already well established.

Here’s my question to you: Why are women more likely to be Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Amnesty International activists protest near the U.S. Capitol. They are calling for an independent investigation into alleged human rights abuses by the Bush administration. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Democrats are plowing ahead with hearings into the so-called Bush torture memos - even if the White House isn't on board.

A Senate Judiciary subcommittee will hold a public hearing tomorrow to be followed by House hearings. The committee chair says it will focus on legal issues such as the conduct of Justice Department lawyers who wrote or approved memos justifying harsh techniques like waterboarding. This is separate from the investigation being done by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The White House isn't commenting on tomorrow's hearing, but has previously indicated that the president prefers the investigation already underway in the Senate Intelligence Committee. That inquiry is going on behind closed doors and with classified information; so it's unclear how much of it will ever be made public.

Meanwhile House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to change her story about what she knew and when she knew it. Politico reports a Pelosi aide was briefed along with Congresswoman Jane Harman in February 2003 on the specific techniques that had been used on al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah - including waterboarding.

At that time, Harman wrote to the CIA expressing her "profound" concerns with the tactic. Pelosi apparently told her aide to tell Harman she agreed with the letter, but she didn't sign it.

Last week, Pelosi said she was briefed only once in 2002; and was only told the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future.

Here’s my question to you: Should Democrats hold hearings into the Bush interrogation memos even if the White House disagrees?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It seems like some Republicans still haven't realized that they lost big-time last November because the American people are sick and tired of their style of politics. And here's Exhibit A: a conservative faction of the Republican National Committee wants the party to brand Democrats as Socialists.

Some RNC members argue Pres. Obama wants to restructure U.S. society upon socialist ideals.

Politico reports RNC member James Bopp, Jr. of Indiana is accusing President Obama of wanting to restructure American society along socialist ideals, saying: "Just as President Reagan's identification of the Soviet Union as the evil 'empire' galvanized opposition to Communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to Socialism."

16 RNC members agreed to the resolution and are petitioning Chairman Michael Steele to set a special meeting to consider it. An RNC spokesman wouldn't say what Steele thinks about all this, but a memo from earlier this month suggests that while he agrees with hardliners who say the president is leading the country toward socialism, he's probably not going to make it official party policy.

And it's not just Democrats who they're after - Bopp also wanted to criticize the three Republicans who supported the stimulus package: Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But that effort was apparently watered down - the resolution instead praises those in the party who have opposed bailouts and Democratic spending plans.

Several Republicans threw around the "socialist" label during last year's campaign; and more recently Congressman Spencer Bachus of Alabama claimed there were 17 socialists in Congress. None of this seems like the best way for the party to attract voters.

Here’s my question to you: Is it a mistake for some Republicans to try and brand Democrats as 'Socialists'?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »