November 15th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Should Pres. Obama not run for re-election?


FILE PHOTO: Obama campaigning in 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

To be a great leader, President Obama should not seek re-election in 2012.

That's according to a Washington Post piece by two pollsters who worked for Democratic presidents.

Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen write that Mr. Obama needs to decide how he wants to govern for the next two years. And, they believe the only way he can attempt to fix the serious problems facing this country is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

By announcing he won't run again, Mr. Obama "will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable."

Caddell and Schoen write that President Obama would not be a lame duck if he forgoes another term. Instead they believe it would give him much more leverage with both parties.

If the president showed more bipartisanship, the Republicans would be forced to meet him half way. Plus, Mr. Obama wouldn't be constantly worried about pleasing the Democrats' base - people like senior citizens and unions - in order to convince them to vote for him in two years.

Could make it a whole lot easier to accomplish something meaningful on the tough issues - like the deficit.

The writers do believe that President Obama can be re-elected if he chooses to run, but to win he'll have to carry out a "scorched-earth campaign," the kind of divisive campaign that President Bush ran in 2004 and that Mr. Obama completely rejected the first time around.

Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama not run for re-election in 2012?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


November 15th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Has airport security gone too far?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If you enjoyed your last mammogram or prostate exam, you'll love your next trip to the airport.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/11/art.body.scan.jpg caption="Airport staffer demonstrates full body scan. The image on the right is not the airport employee pictured left."]
That's a quote from a Chicago Tribune column, headlined "Government in our pants," that suggests airport screening is out of control.

More than nine years after the 9/11 attacks, it seems as if airport security might have finally crossed the line.

Grassroots groups are calling on people either not to fly or to protest by refusing to submit to those full body scanners, the ones that show "everything."

Major airline pilot unions are urging their members to avoid full-body scans. They're worried about health risks because of repeated small doses of radiation, along with intrusiveness and security officer behavior.

The Transportation Security Administration insists machines are safe. And you believe what your government tells you, don't you? But some scientists say not enough is known about them.

As for the pat downs, one pilot says it was like "sexual molestation."

A California man learned this after being thrown out of the San Diego, California, airport over the weekend.

John Tyner first refused to submit to a full body scan, opting for the traditional metal scanner and a basic pat-down. He then refused a groin check by the TSA guard, saying at one point, "You touch my junk, and I'm going to have you arrested."

Tyner has been threatened with a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

All this comes just days before Thanksgiving and the start of the busiest travel time of the year.

Here’s my question to you: Has airport security gone too far?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Airlines