December 4th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Why is there only bipartisanship when military is involved?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Bipartisanship in Washington is virtually non-existent these days - except for President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/art.marines.afghan.gi.jpg caption="U.S. Marines are pictured wading through a canal in Afghanistan's Helmand Province."]
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll - conducted after the president's speech this week - shows his plan wins approval from 63 percent of Democrats, a whopping 72 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents. Gee, with a consensus like that you could actually run the country.

The president is getting thumbs-up from people more inclined to extend their middle fingers when it comes to things Democratic. Karl Rove says that the president's speech "deserves to be cheered" and insists victory is attainable.

Newt Gingrich is out praising President Obama for showing political courage on Afghanistan... in going against the anti-war left in his own party.

This is not to say that there aren't critics of the president's Afghanistan strategy in both parties, but on the whole, he's getting support - at least for now. If it doesn't go as planned, all bets are off. But at least for a few minutes we have the leadership of the country agreeing on something.

And this isn't just about President Obama and Afghanistan. The Democrats had no love lost for President George W. Bush but were mostly afraid to buck him on the wars.

Here’s my question to you: Why is it the only time there is bipartisanship is when the military is involved?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Bipartisanship • US Military
December 4th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Should Medicare cuts be part of health care reform?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Senate has voted to cut almost $500 billion from Medicare as a way to help pay for health care reform. Is that an oxymoron?
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/art.medicare.gi.jpg caption="Health care reform supporters participate in a sit-in inside the lobby of a Manhattan building."]
Republicans tried to stop it - but failed. The esteemed senators apparently think they can cut that much from Medicare without hurting seniors. They better hope the seniors agree with them. They insist Medicare is already in trouble and needs to be fixed, "not raided to create another new government program."

Senator John McCain is recording a phone message meant for voters - urging against the proposed cuts in Medicare.

But Democrats say the Republicans are making false claims about the $460 billion in cuts and they insist there's a lot of waste, fraud and abuse that can be cut from Medicare. Keep in mind - they also need to find a way to pay for the nearly $1 trillion health care plan.

The Democrats say the bill won't reduce guaranteed Medicare benefits for seniors, and that it would extend Medicare solvency for another five years.

The AARP supports the proposed Medicare cuts over 10 years - thus giving the Democrats political cover in their push to cut back subsidies to private Medicare plans along with payments to hospitals, hospices, home health agencies and other providers.

Medicare is an extremely popular program among seniors. For some it's the only healthcare they have. Is it really a good idea to cut all this money out of a government-run health program that actually works?

Here’s my question to you: Should Medicare cuts be part of health care reform?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Health care