How tired are you of Blogojevich, Coleman, Franken, and Palin?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
I have a bone to pick with my own industry.
From L-R: Rod Blagojevich, Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Sarah Palin
Minnesota held an election for a Senate seat last November. It is almost February, and they still can't figure out who won: Norm Coleman or Al Franken. I quit caring several weeks ago. Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura to be their Governor, a former wrestler. They have no credibility when it comes to elections.
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich came to New York a few days ago to babble incoherently about all the various charges pending against him, including his impeachment, and the news media reacted like he was the second coming. If the New York media is hungry for three dollar bills, we have a great home grown crop of our own, without indulging this narcissistic phony product of Illinois machine politics.
And finally, there's my all-time favorite empty dress: Sarah Palin. She announced she's forming a political action committee. I'll give you eight to five she can't even spell it. But the media breathlessly jumped on this story like the future of the free world hung in the balance. Who cares? The next presidential election is almost four years away. And she's got as much chance of being the next president as Bugs Bunny.
OK, I feel better now.
Here’s my question to you: How tired are you of hearing about Rod Blagojevich, Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Sarah Palin?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Obama Charm Offensive: How should GOP handle?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Our sister publication, TIME Magazine, has a great story about how the Republicans are grappling with what they call Obama's "Charm Offensive." The piece says that after President Obama met with Republicans on Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss the emergency stimulus package, many walked away gushing as if they'd met their favorite rock star and admitting the new Democratic President was paying more attention to them than their own Republican President George W. Bush ever did.
President Barack Obama walks towards the podium to speak to the media at the U.S. Capitol January 27, 2009 in Washington, DC. Obama was on the Hill to meet with Congressional Republicans for support to stimulate the economy.
Barack Obama is by no means the first President to meet with leaders of the other party to get a bill passed or to be open and willing to changes. He even made calls to leaders of his own party requesting changes to get this thing through, all in an effort to achieve the bipartisanship he campaigned on.
He even took it a step further, hosting a happy hour at the White House for House and Senate leaders from both sides of the aisle.
But his maneuvering may have backfired. The Republicans are staying away from attacking the popular President, who's only been in office for a little over a week, but they aren't letting him coast on through. The stimulus package that passed the House yesterday did so without a single Republican vote. Perhaps a calculated move so they won't be responsible if things don't turn around. Of course if they do, those same Republicans might as well go stand in front of a bus.
Here’s my question to you: How should Republicans handle President Obama’s "charm offensive"?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does quitting smoking stimulate the economy?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As you know, the House passed an $819-billion stimulus package yesterday. Now a different version of the legislation will make its way through the Senate.
A version of the stimulus bill includes $75 million to get people to quit smoking.
That version includes $75-million to get people to quit smoking. It was sponsored by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin who says the idea is to ultimately reduce health-care costs.
To make his case, Harkin cited reports that show smoking is the leading cause of preventable diseases and costs $110-billion a year in health costs.
Seems straight forward: Get people to quit smoking and they won't drain the health care system. Perhaps that's the same line of thinking that went into the $400-million the Senate included to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The House version included $335-million for that.
Some of the $75-million to get people to kick cigarettes will go to the Department of Health and Human Services to bolster anti-smoking campaigns that already exist. Another chunk will go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for equipment that tests the contents in cigarettes. Do we need this? Cigarette packages plainly tell you smoking will probably eventually kill you. And I find it very hard to believe we need additional equipment to test the contents in cigarettes. Tobacco and carcinogens would seem to cover it.
Here’s my question to you: How does getting people to stop smoking stimulate the economy?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments