March 25th, 2008
05:52 PM ET

What will it take for world to boycott Beijing Olympics?

Nepalese policemen arrest a Tibetan monk protester in exile during an anti-Chinese demonstration in front of the consular section of the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu on March 25, 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's a small but growing chorus of voices that's telling the Chinese government to knock it off.

Latest reports are Chinese police opened fire on hundreds of monks and nuns in an effort to quell demonstrations by Tibetans in parts of China. Witnesses say one monk and a farmer were killed and about a dozen people were wounded.

The government in exile of the Dalai Lama in India says the overall death toll has risen to 140; the Chinese government says it's lower. Of course, there's no way to verify these numbers because there's no such thing as a free press in China and foreign journalists are being barred from any areas where there has been unrest.

The president of the European Parliament has said European countries should not rule out threatening China with an Olympic boycott if violence continues in Tibet. Shooting monks and nuns is not a good way to make friends in the global community.

So far, the only response from President Bush is that he plans to attend the opening ceremonies in Beijing, saying the Olympics are about the athletes and not about politics.

When it comes to the United States, the politics are: we are in debt to China up to our eyeballs. Money borrowed to finance President Bush's war in Iraq and the stimulus package. And it might be hard to keep borrowing billions from the Chinese if the U.S. called them out for being nothing more than barbaric savages in their treatment of one of the most peaceful people on earth, the Tibetans.

Here’s my question to you: How bad does China's crackdown on Tibet have to get for the world to boycott the Olympics?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Beijing Olympics • China • Tibet
March 25th, 2008
05:00 PM ET

American voters all ears?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/25/art.voteing.md.gi.jpg caption=" "Potomac Primaries" a sign at a polling station in Arlington, Virginia."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The sleeping giant may be starting to wake up. All it took was: The illegal invasion of Iraq, which led to a war that's now in its sixth year. The destruction of our civil liberties in the name of the war on terror. The quadrupling of oil prices. And the early signs of a recession that could be as bad as anything we've seen in a long time. And suddenly, the American voter is all ears.

The evidence is in the record turnouts for this year's primaries, especially among Democrats. Young people are suddenly showing up to vote in numbers we've never seen before. And based on information from places like Arizona, it looks like this tidal wave of voters is only going to continue to swell right into November.

Politico reports Arizona says voter turnout could be as high as 80%. In 2004 voter turnout hit 61% nationwide – and that was the highest level since 1968.

It's about time. For the first time in our history, our worldwide reputation is shot and our standard of living is beginning to decline. One reason this has happened is we have allowed it to.

By not being proactive and participating in our democracy, the forces that would exploit it and ultimately destroy it have had a free rein. But these voter registration numbers are very encouraging because when Americans finally get up off their collective butts and decide to do something, it's a force that's simply unstoppable.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the importance of this election if voter turnout in November could be as high as 80% in some states?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: 2008 Election • Voter Turnout
March 25th, 2008
02:15 PM ET

Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats?

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

In a newspaper interview, Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

It's an interesting idea. It's not clear if Democrats really know what they're in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it's over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.

Al Gore has insisted he won't run and that he has "no plans to be a candidate", although he's also said "I see no reason to rule it out entirely." And, it's worth pointing out that the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner has not yet endorsed either Clinton or Obama. So stay tuned.

Here’s my question to you: If a ticket led by Al Gore somehow emerged from a brokered convention, would that be a good thing for the Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democratic Race