March 2nd, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Is Sen. Jim Bunning right to hold up unemployment benefits?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's a great political game of gotcha going on right now in our nation's capital, and it all comes down to one man: retiring Republican Senator Jim Bunning.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/02/art.bunning.jpg caption="Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)"]
The Kentucky lawmaker is the only senator to block an extension of unemployment benefits that could help millions of jobless Americans.

But Bunning says he's against the $10 billion aid package because it isn't paid for and he doesn't want to add to the deficit.

The one-man filibuster is also blocking federal flood insurance, small business loans and an extension of federal highway funding - which means more than 2,000 workers are on paid furloughs.

So far it's been pretty much radio silence from Bunning's fellow Republicans.

And Democrats are loving it - pointing out that Bunning didn't make such noise under the Bush administration when there were two unpaid wars along with Bush's tax cuts. The Democrats are challenging their GOP colleagues to come out and defend what Bunning is doing.

After all, the Republicans are making hay railing about Democrats spending the country into bankruptcy. With all the preaching of fiscal conservatism - they should support Bunning's move to stop unemployment benefits if there is no money to pay for them, right? The Republicans probably wish he would just go away.

Meanwhile Bunning isn't exactly acting like a statesman. After one Democrat criticized his move on the Senate floor, Bunning reportedly muttered "tough ****." And the senator gave the middle finger to a reporter who tried to question him.

Here’s my question to you: Is Sen. Jim Bunning right to hold up unemployment benefits because there's no money to pay for them?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Unemployment
March 2nd, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Why won't N.Y. Gov. David Paterson just resign?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Embattled New York Governor David Paterson insists resignation is "off the table." Maybe he should think again.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/02/art.paterson.jpg caption="New York Gov. David Paterson"]
The New York Times reports the governor personally directed two state employees to contact the woman who accused his aide of assault.

Paterson allegedly told his press secretary to ask the woman to publicly describe the episode as non-violent.

The woman has accused Paterson aide David Johnson of choking her, smashing her into a mirrored dresser and preventing her from calling 9-1-1. A sort of violent non-violent.

According to the article, The governor also asked another state employee to contact the woman before she was to appear in court. That same employee set up a phone call between the governor and the woman.

And it apparently went just like it was supposed to. The woman never showed up in court and the case was dropped. Paterson could face criminal charges for his role in this. If he helped lead an effort to influence the accuser, he should.

The governor, of course, denies any wrongdoing... saying he "never abused the governor's office. Not now, not ever."

Last week, he announced he's ending his campaign for election. But he is refusing to resign and just go away. Paterson says he retains enough authority to govern New York for the next 10 months. Sounds like he better be retaining a defense lawyer. Even some top Democrats are calling on Paterson to quit.

Chicago's got nothin' on us... Yesterday we told you about Rep. Charlie Rangel being admonished by house ethics committee - he remains under investigation for a basket of other stuff, but he won't step aside either. Rangel is arrogant. In Paterson's case, he's just being dumb.

Here’s my question to you: Why do you suppose New York Governor David Paterson won't just resign?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Government