August 6th, 2008
05:47 PM ET

What's better: gridlock or one-party control?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/06/art.capital.flower.gi.jpg caption=" Senate Democrats are hoping the 2008 presidential election could give them a big majority."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

All eyes in political circles these days seem to be focused on the race between Barack Obama and John McCain, but the battle for the Senate could end up having as big an impact as the presidential race.

Democrats could win a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate in November. If they do, it will be the first time that's happened since 1977. The so-called "Magic 60" would mean a fast track for the Democrats' agenda. They already enjoy a substantial majority in the House, and if the polls are accurate they stand to pick up more seats there as well come November.

Add to that the possibility that Barack Obama becomes the next president, and the stage is set for a Democratic deluge: Legislation, judicial appointments, you name it – will go through Congress like bacon through a goose.

The good news is the federal government might actually get something done. This would be in sharp contrast to the gridlock, finger-pointing and obstructionism that have paralyzed our government for years. The bad news is: what if they don't do the right things? Our Washington politicians have a long history of disappointing us, and as a result, a lot of people think gridlock is better than no gridlock.

However, the nation's problems have become so large and far-reaching that we may no longer be able to afford the luxury of a government that does nothing. If the Democrats hit the trifecta in November, I guess we'll all just have to pray that they don't make things worse than they already are.

Here’s my question to you: Which is better: gridlock or one party controlling Congress and the White House?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: US Congress
August 6th, 2008
04:54 PM ET

What should be done about Iraq's potential $80 billion oil surplus?

Oil burns at a refinery in Basra, Iraq. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

While you're paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, think about this.

Iraq could end up with an $80 billion surplus thanks to its oil exports. $80 billion. Remember how we were told Iraq's oil money would pay for the war? We've spent more than $700 billion of our money including almost $50 billion to rebuild Iraq, and we haven't seen a dime of their oil money for our efforts.

U.S. auditors report that Baghdad had a $29 billion budget surplus from 2005 to 2007, and with the price of crude oil just about doubling in the last year, the surplus for 2008 is expected to hit as much as $50 billion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pour money into Iraq for reconstruction, repairs to their oil infrastructure, electricity, water and security. How much has Iraq spent? In the last 3 years, they've put less than $4 billion towards similar services.

Senator Carl Levin says it's inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis could pay for themselves. Duh.

Of course Congress continues to approve one spending bill after another for Bush's war despite the Democrats' promise to end the war's funding in 2006.

Here's the bureaucratic explanation for the screwing the American taxpayer is getting. The Treasury Department says the U.S. is working with Iraqis to fix the issue and they believe "progress is being made". What a joke. Progress is Iraq writes the United States a check.

Here’s my question to you: What should be done about Iraq's potential $80 billion oil surplus?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Iraq • Oil Prices
August 6th, 2008
01:39 PM ET

Important for president to be computer literate?

 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:

Will the Internet be John McCain's grocery store scanner moment? Remember how the first President Bush was awestruck in a grocery store by that little gizmo that tells you the price of your Cheez Whiz? The president of the United States with cameras rolling was simply beside himself. You'd think one episode like that would be enough.

Now we have a guy who wants to be president that doesn't know how to use a computer. Two years ago, John McCain expressed amazement that his wife could order movie tickets online, something people had been doing for years at that time. He called her a wizard and admitted he was a "Neanderthal" when it comes to computers.

Watch: Cafferty: PC-proficient prez?

Dear Senator McCain, computer technology and the Internet have changed the world. And the fact that you don't know much about either one suggests you're in some sort of a time warp. Translate that: "old."

Sensing the risk of being perceived as a fossil, McCain recently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he understands the importance of the computer and blogs, that he's using the computer more and more every day. McCain says this doesn't mean he has to e-mail people, but that he reads e-mails – that his staff constantly shows him emails during the day.

Grocery store scanners, computers and the Internet are the ingredients of every day life for the overwhelming majority of Americans. For a man who wants to be president to admit that he is pretty much clueless about some of these things feeds into the perception that old, rich, white Republicans are out of touch. They have no idea what the average American's life is like. For the last 26 years, John McCain has lived inside the cocoon of the United States Senate and his wife's money.

Here’s my question to you: How important is it for the next president to understand computer technology?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: 2008 Election • Computer Literate