April 23rd, 2010
06:11 PM ET

Have Democrats done enough for their base?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/23/art.housedems.0423.gi.jpg caption=" Have Democrats done enough for their base?"]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democrats are just not cutting it. One top Democratic official says the party is not giving its base enough of a reason to vote for them in the midterm elections.

Pennsylvania Governor and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Ed Rendell says that everyone gives a little bit too much credit to the Independents.

Rendell insists Democrats do want to win the independent vote, but ultimately a lot also depends on turnout of the party's base.

Quote: "we have to give our base a reason to get out there, a reason to feel proud of who we are and what we stood for as a party. And I don't think up to now we've done a very effective job" unquote.

Rendell has a point. Polls show Republicans are much more fired up about voting in the midterms. One survey taken after health care reform passed showed 55% of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting in November.... that's compared to only 36 percent of Democrats who feel that way.

In theory – health care, a major Obama campaign promise, should get the base going. But a lot of Liberals were disappointed it didn't go further and include a public option.

Also, the Democrats risk alienating more of their base with reports this week that they plan to undertake immigration legislation before climate change. Although immigration reform which is a long shot could help with the Hispanic vote lots of Liberals believe now is the best time in years to pass a bill on global warming.

Still Other democrats are waiting for the party to address other issues, like gays in the military.

Here’s my question to you: Have the Democrats done enough for their base to win in November?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democrats
April 23rd, 2010
04:39 PM ET

SEC watching porn instead of Wall Street?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/23/art.wallstreet.0423.gi.jpg caption=" SEC watching porn instead of Wall Street?."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As Wall Street brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse a couple years ago some of our so-called top government regulators were spending hours a day of agency time watching pornography on government computers instead of watching the investment bankers on Wall street who were going south with the economy.

The inspector general for the Securities and Exchange Commission says at least 33 employees were involved watching internet filth. Almost all of these cases occurred in the last two and a half years which would coincide with the near-collapse of the financial system.

More than half of these employees were at a "senior level" making up to $220,000.

And if you're not disgusted yet, let me continue:

One senior attorney at the SEC in Washington spent as much as 8 hours a day looking at and downloading porn. After running out of hard drive space on his computer, he burned the files onto CDs or DVDs and stored them in boxes in his office.

An SEC accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in one month from trying to access porn sites.

Another SEC accountant tried to access pornography online almost 2,000 times in a two-week period. She had 600 pornographic images saved on her computer.

The SEC won't release the names of these people even though they work for you. They claim those involved have been disciplined, suspended or fired. They should all be fired end of discussion.

Meanwhile President Obama wants to create another new government bureaucracy to oversee Wall Street. What if the SEC just did its job instead?

Here’s my question to you: Should Pres. Obama be more concerned about the SEC watching pornography when they should have been watching Wall Street?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President Obama • Wall Street