GOP voter registration declining since 2005?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There may be hope for the survival of our country. The rise in the number of independent voters in several states has been so sharp that they now virtually constitute a third party. That's not good news for the Democrats and Republicans, and it's really not good news for the Republicans.
The New York Times reports that for more than 3 years now, there has been a decline in the number of voters registering as Republicans and an increase in the number registering as Democrats.
These shifts could affect local, state and national politics for several election cycles to come. Already, Republicans have lost control in many state houses and governors' mansions, and they took a beating in the midterm elections of 2006.
It's important to note that swings in party registration aren't uncommon from year to year, and party registration often has no impact on how people end up voting. But experts say what is remarkable is that this shift away from the Republican Party is now in its 4th year. One analyst says it suggests a "fundamental change going on in the electorate."
Former House Majority Leader Republican Dick Armey says these are "not good numbers" for the GOP, but cautions they don't give a clear indication about what will happen in the presidential race. Armey suggests the key is who all these new independent voters will support.
Democrats point to President Bush as the main reason for the shift, but they're also benefiting from demographic changes – things like the rise in the number of younger voters and the urbanization of the suburbs.
Here’s my question to you: Republican voter registrations have been declining since 2005. Why?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Book claims President Bush ordered forgery to justify Iraq war
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A new book says President Bush committed an impeachable offense, ordering the CIA to forge a letter to bolster his case for war in Iraq.
These explosive charges are contained in a new book, "The Way of the World" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind. He says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who said that President Bush was informed in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. The president's response to this information was reportedly "F- it. We're going in." Three months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq using a forged document as its rationale, according to Suskind.
He writes that the White House called on the CIA to concoct the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein. It was backdated to before 9/11 and indicated that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had trained for his mission in Iraq, according to Suskind. The phony letter, he writes, was designed to prove a non existent link between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Watch: Cafferty: W.H. forged letter?
Meanwhile, that head of Iraqi intelligence, who told British intelligence sources that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and no WMD was "resettled" in Jordan with the CIA's help and paid $5 million in hush money, Suskind writes.
Suskind calls Mr. Bush's actions "one of the greatest lies in modern American political history" and suggests they constitute a crime worse than Watergate.
The White House is pushing back hard, calling Suskind's claims "absurd" and describing his work as "gutter journalism" including "wild allegations that no one can verify." Former CIA director George Tenet ridicules the credibility of Suskind's sources and calls the White House directive to forge a letter "a complete fabrication."
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter in order to bolster its case for war in Iraq?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
McCain or Obama more sympathetic to big oil?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Barack Obama has a new ad out that tries to tap into Americans' anger over rising gasoline prices. Obama's target is John McCain.
The ad says:
“Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now big oil's filling John McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can't afford another.”
Factcheck.org says the actual number is $1.3 million, not $2 million, and the claims about tax breaks for big oil are a little fuzzy.
The fact is both Obama and McCain have flip-flopped on the issue of offshore drilling. And both men have been quarreling rather childishly about which one wants to solve America's energy problems more. Obama points out that for 26 of the 30 years it took for America to develop its addiction to foreign oil, John McCain was a part of the Washington establishment that looked the other way and allowed it to happen.
McCain's camp says Obama's ad is misleading, that it doesn't mention the $400,000 Obama got from employees of oil companies. And they say McCain voted against a 2005 bill that provided billions in tax breaks for energy producers. Obama voted for it.
Voters have to remember that politicians will say anything in order to be elected. Whether this latest blustering amounts to any more than a big political wind remains to be seen.
Here’s my question to you: As president, which candidate would be more sympathetic
to the big oil companies: John McCain or Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments