November 4th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Palin, Beck, Limbaugh fail in N.Y. congressional race

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democrats took a beating in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races... but the far right got their clocks cleaned in that congressional race in upstate New York.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/04/art.crist.jpg caption="Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been accused of being Republican in Name Only (RINO)."]
In defeating Conservative Doug Hoffman, Bill Owens will be the first Democrat to represent Congressional District 23 since the Civil War. Hoffman was aggressively supported by a bunch of the right wing's loudest voices - Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

They tried to make this race a symbol of how the Republican Party has strayed from its conservative values. Pressure from the right-wing of the party helped push the Republican candidate out of the race last week - because she just wasn't Republican enough. Some even saw this contest as a struggle for the soul of the GOP. At least the results don't suggest Sarah Palin won that fight.

Nevertheless, it seems like conservative activists are just warming up. They have their eyes on a list of so-called RINOs - or Republicans in Name Only - for the midterm elections, people like Florida's Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, who's running for the Senate.

And some warn that Sarah Palin could be entering dangerous territory if she leads the movement against well-established figures like Crist. After all - Florida is often a key state in the presidential election. And, there's the issue of Palin's ability to control a group of activists once they're fired up. You could make the argument Palin entered dangerous territory when she left City Hall in Wasilla.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say that the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh failed to get their candidate elected in the N.Y. congressional race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Rush Limbaugh • Sarah Palin
November 4th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Chances of health care reform if it doesn't pass this year?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has raised serious doubts about the future of health care reform by saying he can't promise a health care bill will pass this year: "We're not going to be bound by any timelines."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/04/art.reid.jpg caption="Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke at a news conference on Capitol Hill yesterday in DC. Reid discussed efforts to pass health care reform legislation."]
The words were barely out of Reid's mouth before his office issued a statement saying their goals remain unchanged and they want to get health reform done this year - and send a bill to President Obama by Christmas.

You suppose the White House wasn't happy with Reid's initial assessment? Delay on health care is probably just about the last thing the president wants. First, it brings back memories of President Clinton's failed attempt at reform. And it means other legislative priorities - the energy bill, immigration, regulation of Wall Street, etc. - will remain on the back burner.

Plus - and this is a big one - once 2010 rolls around, all 435 members of the House along with one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election. Good luck getting these lawmakers to commit to a controversial health care bill ahead of the midterms.

Meanwhile – the Associated Press reports that the House health care bill, which is headed for a vote soon, would cost $1.2 trillion or more over a decade. See, the Democrats have added on billions in additional spending.

After saying $900 billion was the limit on what he wanted to spend for health care reform - I wonder if President Obama would sign one that costs $1.2 trillion... just so he could claim victory.

Here’s my question to you: What happens to the chances of health care reform if it doesn't pass this year?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Health care
November 4th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

How can Democrats avoid getting noses bloodied in midterms?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Democrats could be in for some serious bloodshed come the midterm elections - if yesterday's races in New Jersey and Virginia are any indication. Voters in both those states elected Republicans governor. The message was pretty clear: "It's the economy, stupid."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/04/art.va.gov.jpg caption="Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia greeted the crowd at his victory party last night in Richmond. McDonnell beat out Democratic challenger Creigh Deeds."]
Exit polls showed more than 80 percent of voters in both states said they were worried about the direction of the economy in the next year; more than half said they were very worried.

Another trouble spot for Democrats - those independents who were a key to President Obama's White House victory last year broke big for the GOP yesterday. And, exit polls suggest Democrats had a hard time turning out their base - including the first-time minority voters and young people who voted for Obama last year.

Nevertheless, most voters in both Virginia and New Jersey said President Obama was not a factor in their vote. But if the administration can't do more to lessen the impact of this recession in the next year - yesterday's elections could be a sign of serious trouble in the midterms, when most governors, all of the House and a third of the Senate will be on the ballots.

Of course the White House is dismissing the New Jersey and Virginia losses as "two very local elections" that say nothing about the president's standing with the American people right now. They have to say that. President Obama campaigned for both these candidates.

Here’s my question to you: What can the Democrats do to keep from getting their noses bloodied in next year's midterm elections?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democrats • Elections