Mitt Romney is hoping Jimmy Carter can help him win the White House.

The likely Republican nominee has been comparing President Barack Obama to the former Democratic president on the campaign trail.

For example, when Romney was asked if he would have approved the bin Laden raid, he answered "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."

And when talking about the economy, Romney described the Obama White House as "the most anti-small business administration... probably since Carter."

For many, the name alone evokes an incompetent, liberal commander-in-chief and a time of recession, inflation, unemployment, high taxes and gas prices, more government and a sort of national malaise..

And, as Politico points out, by framing yourself as Carter's enemy, you can try to make yourself Ronald Reagan. Brilliant. If it works.

Meanwhile Michael Barone suggests in a column on "Real Clear Politics" that the 2012 election could mirror what happened in the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan. There was a late break away from the incumbent that year.

Jimmy Carter actually led Ronald Reagan in the polls for much of the race. His job rating was kept higher by attempts to free the Iran hostages even though voters were unhappy with the economy and other issues.

But during a debate just days before the election, Reagan famously asked: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Suddenly the polls took a 10 point shift in Reagan's favor. He won in a landslide.

Barone suggests that despite economic concerns and opposition to Mr. Obama's policies, voters might be keeping his ratings artificially high for fear of rejecting the first black president. They might change their support to Romney at the last minute.

Here’s my question to you: Is former President Carter an effective weapon in Mitt Romney's campaign against President Obama?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Drones aren't just for fighting the war on terror in the Middle East anymore - they might be watching you.

As more and more of these unmanned aircraft pop up over U.S. soil, they may be used to spy on Americans.

There is an Air Force document that says if unmanned drones accidentally capture surveillance footage of Americans, they can keep the information for up to 90 days and analyze it. Where is that in the Constitution?

The U.S. military and the government aren't supposed to conduct surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil without their consent, but if they accidentally capture you on video, that's OK.

They can apparently hang on to that material to determine if you are a terrorist.

There's no question that spying on Americans without a warrant could, and should, raise some serious red flags. But when you allow something like the Patriot Act, the law of unintended consequences is likely to follow.

Make no mistake, drone use is expanding on the home front.

Regulators have approved the use of drones for dozens of law enforcement agencies and universities, including the Department of Homeland Security and local police departments.

These drones can be used for law enforcement, firefighting, news coverage and monitoring wildlife. Or to spy on American citizens.

Lawmakers from both parties have asked the FAA to answer questions about privacy, to make sure the public knows these things are being used and why.

Experts predict the use of drones domestically will increase as more of the technology is brought back from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Here’s my question to you: Should drones be used to spy on Americans?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Washington hard at work.

ABC News reports our government is just out with a study of a study of studies.

Try to stay with us here.

Back in 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was "awash in taskings for reports and studies." He wanted to know how much they cost.

So the Pentagon commissioned a study to find out how much it really costs to produce all those studies.

Fast forward two years: The Pentagon review was still going on - so Congress asked the government accountability office to check in on them.

Now the GAO is out with its report - and the results aren't too promising.

They found only nine studies that had been reviewed by the Pentagon review - in two years - and the military was unable to "readily retrieve documentation" for six of those nine reports.

As for how much all this costs - don't ask. The GAO says the Pentagon's approach "is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards." Meaning these are our tax dollars they can't keep track of.

Meanwhile, try understanding what these reports even say:

"GAO's cost guide states that cost estimates should include all costs, but allows flexibility for the estimates to exclude costs where information is limited as long as steps are taken to clearly define and document what costs are included or excluded."

Huh?

Perhaps it should come as no surprise. Anytime anything goes wrong, or someone drops the ball in Washington, politicians like to start a study or name a commission to investigate.

The hope is that by the time the results actually come out, we've all forgotten about whatever it was in the first place.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when the government is issuing a study of a study of studies?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss highlights what could be a huge Wall Street problem for President Barack Obama as he faces re-election.

Nearly four years after the financial crisis, little appears to have changed on Wall Street.

These guys can still play fast and loose with whatever rules there are and in the process risk huge losses.

JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday doing damage control. There have already been several resignations at the company.

Dimon acknowledges the $2 billion loss was due to a series of massive bets placed through credit default swaps - which is what nearly brought the country to its knees in 2008.

In other words, what happened at JP Morgan, one of the largest banks in the U.S., is exactly the kind of thing the president's financial law was supposed to stop. But it didn't.

Working in Obama's favor - he can paint his opponent, Mitt Romney, as a big business guy who would slash financial regulations.

But voters will hold up the president against his record - and ask how this could happen again. In light of the mess at JP Morgan, it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run as the president who got tough on Wall Street.

Critics of the president say the White House should have pushed for stronger legislation - and that financial reform took a back seat to the health care and stimulus bills.

They say the president had a historic chance to bring real reform to Wall Street since there was such intense public anger toward the banks.

Administration officials argue Obama pushed for the toughest financial reform law that he could get through Congress.

Here’s my question to you: How big is President Obama's Wall Street problem?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

While President Obama's support for gay marriage is sure to fire up parts of the liberal base, it could alienate others - including black voters.

In other words, backing same-sex marriage might be a risky position for the president in an election year when it comes to one of his core voting blocs.

In 2008, African-Americans were crucial in making Mr. Obama the nation's first black president. Exit polls showed 96% of black voters supported him and they made up 13% of the electorate.

Fast forward four years: While polls suggest America on the whole is moving toward support of same-sex marriage, ABC/Washington Post polling shows 55% of black voters are still against it. That compares to 43% of whites.

And this opposition from blacks could hurt the president - particularly in the South.

Just this week in North Carolina, blacks voted two-to-one in favor of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

North Carolina is a swing state where near-unanimous black support for Mr. Obama secured his 2008 victory.

So what if even some black voters in a state like North Carolina choose to sit this election out due to the president's support of same-sex marriage?

Groups on both sides of the issue like to compare gay marriage rights to the struggle for civil rights; but many blacks don't like that comparison. And black churches tend to see the issue in religious terms, with ministers playing a big role in the opposition to gay marriage.

While it's unlikely blacks will suddenly decide to vote for Mitt Romney over this, if some of them decide to stay home, it could make a difference in the outcome of the election.

Here’s my question to you: Will President Obama's support of gay marriage cost him black votes?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

"America's problems are still big. It's most of our leaders who have gotten small."

That's a quote from a terrific piece today on Politico by Roger Simon.

He hits the nail on the head in describing a Congress which used to do things, but now specializes in not doing things.

Simon writes that Congress today is about making sure nothing gets done.

Because if something actually gets done, then one party or the other will take credit for it.

What a sad state of affairs. Our leaders, who used to be able to reach across the aisle, will no longer budge.

And those who are seen as bipartisan - people like Republican Senators Dick Lugar and Olympia Snow or Democratic Senators Jim Webb and Kent Conrad - are being voted out or are not bothering to run again.

Simon describes Congress as collapsing "from its former state of sluggishness to one of paralysis."

Even when it comes to issues that both sides support, like low interest on college loans, they can't get it done.

According to The New York Times - this week's Senate vote on student loans was the 21st time Republicans have successfully filibustered a Democratic bill since January 2011.

Meanwhile, our country is drowning in troubles - from skyrocketing deficits and more than $15 trillion in debt, to high unemployment, an ongoing housing crisis, and record poverty and food stamp use.

But the people we elect to represent us turn a blind eye to things that, if left unattended, will bring us down. No foreign enemy will have to fire a shot.

Here’s my question to you: Why won't our leaders focus on the problems that are destroying our country?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Today's definition of political opportunism? Gay marriage.

President Obama has been in office for 3 1/2 years and has artfully dodged the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Suddenly his vice president, Joe Biden, comes out publicly and says he doesn't see anything wrong with gay marriage.

And right away people want to know where the president stands.

Then the voters of North Carolina go to the polls and overwhelmingly pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Again the questions: Where does the president stand?

Suddenly at 3 o'clock this afternoon, after 3 1/2 years of not answering the question, Mr. Obama decides to take a position.

All of a sudden he thinks same-sex marriage is a good idea.

He's locked in what promises to be a close race against Mitt Romney.

So picking this moment to pander to the gay and lesbian community on the issue of same-sex marriage suits his political purpose, which is to be re-elected.

One of the major broadcast networks interrupts programming to breathlessly report that the president has decided that it's OK for same-sex couples to marry.

Pardon me if I don't hyperventilate over all of this. We have real issues in this country for which President Obama has been glaringly short on answers.

We have more than $15 trillion of debt, an unemployment rate that's an embarrassment for the largest free-market system in the world, a Congress that refuses to agree on whether it's daylight outside or not, and the country is supposed to come to a screeching halt because President Obama was pressured into taking a position on a wedge issue. I'll pass.

Oh, and at the end of the day, it's still up to the states.

Here’s my question to you: Is President Obama simply using gay marriage for political gain?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Voters "like" Barack Obama more than they "like" Mitt Romney - and that might be all it takes to decide the outcome of the election.

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 60% of registered voters say that President Obama is likable. That's nearly double the 31% who feel that way about Romney.

Even among crucial independent voters, the president holds a double-digit edge.

So despite the fact polls show Romney and President Obama in a dead heat both nationally and in key battleground states - Mitt Romney is facing a huge likability gap here.

And it could cost him.

Consider this: In each of the last five presidential elections, the candidate the voters "liked" the most won.

When you put all the other issues aside, a lot of people vote for the guy who does a better job connecting with them on a personal level.

In 2004, polls famously showed undecided voters would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than John Kerry; and swing voters found Bush to be more of a "real person" than Kerry.

As for Romney, pollsters say this likability deficit presents a challenge for his campaign as it tries to shape his image.

They can either work on making voters see Romney as more likable or they can give up on likability and try to emphasize other areas where Romney is stronger than President Obama.

For now it doesn't look like Romney is hurting too badly on this issue since he's neck-and-neck with the president.

But he might be doing even better if he hadn't tied his dog to the roof of his car.

Here’s my question to you: How much does it matter if you like a candidate for president?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

A dramatic warning about just how fat Americans are getting: By 2030, 42% of people in the United States will be obese. Yes, 42%.

According to a new study, 11% of them will be severely obese, meaning that they are 100 or more pounds over a healthy weight.

Already in 2010, 36% of adults are obese, or roughly 30 pounds over a healthy weight, and 6% are severely obese.

If the obesity rate increases as predicted, it could mean we'd have more than 100 million obese people in the U.S. in just 18 years.

The numbers are staggering, and they come with a huge price tag.

This report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine suggests the increase in obesity would cost an additional $550 billion from now until 2030 in medical expenditures.

It's estimated an obese person costs at least $1,400 more in medical expenses per year than someone who has a healthy weight.

Carrying around all that fat increases your risk for many other diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, several types of cancer and sleep apnea, not to mention a shorter life expectancy.

Obesity is one of the biggest reasons why health care spending has been skyrocketing in the last 20 years.

The report’s authors say we have an environment in the U.S. that promotes obesity, with fast-food chains, cheap junk food and technologies, like the Internet, that keep people sitting at home and at their offices all day long.

Meanwhile, this study doesn't even address children. Currently, one out of every three children in the United States is obese or overweight.

Here’s my question to you: Where is the U.S. headed if 42% of us are obese by 2030?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

When it comes to presidential campaign ads - it's already ugly out there. Very ugly.

A new study shows negative campaign ads in the race for the White House have skyrocketed since 2008.

According to the Wesleyan Media Project, 70% of presidential campaign commercials run so far have been negative. 70%. That compares to just 9% at this point in the 2008 campaign.

Experts say part of the reason for all this negativity is the "skyrocketing involvement of interest groups." Their activity is up 1,100% from four years ago. But it's not just the interest groups that are going negative. The campaigns are also to blame.

The study shows more than half of the ads put out by the campaigns have been negative, as well as 86% of the commercials put out by independent groups, like Super Pacs. That's a lot of trash talking.

These groups are dominating the airwaves, accounting for about 60% of commercials. The campaigns account for just 36% of the spots. Compare that to 2008 when virtually all of the ads in the White House race - 96% - came from campaigns.

We have the Supreme Court to thank for the outsized role of outside groups. The 2010 Citizens United decision allows for unlimited donations by corporations as long as they're made to groups independent of the candidate. Like Super Pacs.

Meanwhile with six months to go until the election, get ready for an onslaught of negative ads from both sides.

That's because even though voters say they don't like negative campaigning, the ads are effective. Experts say negative ads tap into emotions like anxiety, fear and disgust - that can push a voter away from a candidate.

Here’s my question to you: Why do negative campaign ads work?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.