Election results a referendum on Pres. Obama?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For someone who electrified the electorate during his run for the White House, President Obama isn't getting it done when it comes to helping out his fellow Democrats.
The losses just keep piling up: First his candidates lost the governor races in New Jersey and Virginia; then came the shocking loss of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.
And now, Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter - who was backed by the president - has been turned out. His career in the U.S. Senate is over
Suddenly Democratic incumbents are like deer on the opening day of hunting season, running for cover and fearing the worst.
Come November...one or both houses of Congress could fall to the Republicans. As one top Democrat tells the New York Daily News: "If the election were held today we'd lose both houses."
And it seems like the White House is starting to get it. After his guys got their hats handed to them in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey, President Obama pretty much stayed away from Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.
But it's worth pointing out that some of these candidates didn't want the President's help either; they don't want to get too close to a president with mediocre approval ratings whose policies - like health care reform - aren't popular everywhere.
Meanwhile the White House is busy spinning another awful day the best they can. They claim the race that meant the most was the Pennsylvania congressional seat - where Democrats managed to hold onto the late Congressman Murtha's seat.
The White House also cites weak candidates in the other races as well as a toxic political environment for incumbents.
Here’s my question to you: To what extent are yesterday's election results a referendum on President Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Revelations that Connecticut senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam couldn't have come at a worse time for the Democrats.
It's not like they don't have enough problems with their candidates getting knocked off right and left; and with the Republicans' renewed efforts to retake control of the Senate in November.
That's why Blumenthal, who is Connecticut's attorney general, was carefully pre-selected and packaged to replace Senator Chris Dodd. Closest thing to a sure thing they could find. Except it turns out he's a liar and overnight has become a liability and an embarrassment to the Democrats.
Republicans are all over this, calling Blumenthal's lies "a serious blow to his candidacy." They say it's appalling that he would lie about such a significant issue.
And a lot of veterans aren't happy either. True to form Blumenthal surrounded himself with veterans during his non-apology yesterday at a VFW hall in West Hartford. Turns out Blumenthal isn't a member of the Veteran of Foreign Wars - and he's not eligible to be - you know, because he didn't go to Vietnam and he's not a Veteran of Foreign Wars. In fact, Blumenthal received five military deferments before finally joining the Marine Reserves.
The Democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to support Blumenthal. They're trying to contain the damage by circulating other videos that show Blumenthal accurately describing his military service. So sometimes he was honest and other times he lied... and apparently that's okay with the Democrats.
His primary opponent, Merrick Alpert, calls Blumenthal a "coward" and a "liar." Connecticut Democrats decide this weekend on their Senate candidate. If they're smart... well, we'll see...
Here’s my question to you: Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments