Who would you support as 3rd party candidate in 2012?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Maybe 2012 will be the year when a third-party candidate has a real shot at the White House.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/09/art.bloomberg.jpg caption="New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg"]
Maybe this time will be different.
It's still two years away, but some potential candidates are already making some noise, including our mayor here in New York, Michael Bloomberg.
The Republican-turned-independent is out with some colorful criticism of the incoming members of Congress.
During a trip to Hong Kong, China, Bloomberg said many of them "can't read" and probably don't have passports. He warned that we're about to start a trade war with China because "nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is."
Bloomberg added that the United States should stop blaming China and everybody else and take a look at ourselves. There's a thought.
Some suggest that if the Republicans nominate a far-right candidate - like Sarah Palin - in 2012, it could provide a perfect opening for a politician like Bloomberg to run for president.
It wouldn't hurt to have someone who knows a thing or two about the economy and business sitting in the Oval Office. Especially if the economy doesn't improve and we're still looking at high unemployment.
Of course there are always the same challenges for a third party - including getting on the ballot, raising money and generally trying to make yourself heard in a political system that's intentionally built to keep two parties in and keep everyone else out.
But if the voters are as fed up in 2012 as they are in 2010 - if they're as set on voting against the status quo - maybe, just maybe, we'll try something new.
Here’s my question to you: Who would you like to see run as a third party candidate in 2012?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Calif. borrowing $40 million/day for unemployment benefits
Unemployed people search for jobs in an employment office in the southern California town of El Centro. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
California is borrowing $40 million a day from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.
That means California is borrowing $40 million a day from you and me to pay unemployment benefits.
The Los Angeles Times reports the state will have a $362 million bill for interest alone due on a total debt of $10 billion next fall.
Thanks to the recession and poor management, California is an economic disaster zone, with one in every eight workers unemployed. More than 1.2 million Californians have lost their jobs since the start of the recession, and they're staying out of work for longer periods of time.
Plus in 2001, state lawmakers nearly doubled unemployment benefit levels without raising taxes. That was smart.
The result of all this is that if California keeps borrowing from the federal government, employers could face a steep hike in their unemployment taxes.
California is not alone here. 32 states in total have been borrowing from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits. The total is $41 billion. Some of these states are asking the feds for a deferral on repaying the loan until the economy improves.
The solution to this is fundamental: either increase contributions or decrease benefits - or both. Want to bet neither one happens?
Here’s my question to you: Should California borrow $40 million a day from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
America's love affair with Pres. Obama over?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
America's love affair with President Obama is over.
So says Mort Zuckerman in his U.S. News and World Report column.
Zuckerman writes that the midterm election results show just how far away the country has drifted from Mr. Obama:
"A man who was once seen as a talented and even charismatic rhetorician is now seen as lacking real experience or even the ability to stop America's decline."
There's a growing sense that Mr. Obama has isolated himself from everyone who matters. According to Politico, members of his own party worry that he has distanced himself from: Congressional Democrats, state party leaders, Democratic lobbyists, business leaders, big-dollar donors, Republicans, the media, members of his own cabinet... and most importantly, a lot of voters.
And he may not be able to turn it around in time for 2012, the question being whether he's self-aware enough to make the big changes needed to mend all these relations.
One Democratic official says: "He's more of a movement leader than a politician. He needs someone to kick his ass on things large and small, and teach him to be a politician."
Ouch.
On some level, the president seems to be catching on here.
In an interview with "60 Minutes," he acknowledged mistakes he's made since taking office.
Mr. Obama says he misjudged the pace of the economic recovery and didn't always live up to his campaign promise to change the tone of debate in Washington.
Here’s my question to you: Is America's love affair with President Obama over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Time for Nancy Pelosi to go away?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Some people just don't know when to call it quits - and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking like one of them.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/08/art.pelosi.jpg caption=""]
Despite her party being crushed in last week's midterm elections - despite her party losing control of the House of Representatives - Pelosi wants to stay on as the Democrats' minority leader in the House.
But a growing number of Democrats are having none of it.
Fox News is reporting a group of defeated Democrats has written a letter urging Pelosi to step aside.
The draft letter suggests that with Pelosi in charge, "the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding."
Other Democratic House members have said they will vote against Pelosi if she insists on running for minority leader.
The Republicans couldn't be happier. They're positively giddy at the prospect of Democrats keeping Pelosi as their leader in the House. It's generally agreed that Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid drove the Democrats off the cliff.
An analysis of TV ads shows more money was spent and more commercials were run against Nancy Pelosi in the midterms than against any other congressional leader since Newt Gingrich. More than $65 million was spent on more than 161,000 ads targeting Pelosi.
Is she oblivious to this?
A poll taken right before the midterms showed Pelosi with an anemic 26 favorable rating and a 53 percent unfavorable rating.
Here’s my question to you: Isn't it time for Nancy Pelosi to just go away?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Hillary Clinton challenge Pres. Obama in 2012?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
While her party was being tarred and feathered at the polls Tuesday, secretary of state and former first lady, senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was 9,000 miles away on the other side of the world. How convenient.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/04/art.debate.jpg caption="(FILE PHOTO) Obama and Clinton square off in a 2008 Texas debate."]
She attended a women's empowerment conference in Papua, New Guinea this week. Clinton knows a thing or two about empowerment.
Meanwhile, back in the states, her husband, the former president, was campaigning like a madman. He made more than 100 appearances around the country on behalf of Democrats leading into the midterm election.
Why? Surely he could read the polls as well as anyone. Democrats got the beating everybody knew they would get. So why was the former president racing around in a losing cause?
Was it payback for the IOUs collected when Hillary was running two years ago? Or was it, perhaps, creating some new IOUs of his own on behalf of his wife?
It's an intriguing question. And there's certainly some appetite within the Democratic party for a primary challenger for the president, with some polls suggesting as many as half of Democrats want that to happen.
Unless the economy turns around and there are jobs to be had, Obama could be had in 2012. And what a rematch it would be. Think Ali-Frazier. Toe to toe for 15 rounds until both are too tired to stand.
Hey, we can dream can't we? And if you want to get real silly, what if the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Republicans to try to repeal health care law?
(FILE PHOTO) March 23, 2010: President Obama signed into law his historic health care insurance reform legislation, enacting the most sweeping social legislation in decades, ensuring coverage for almost all Americans. (PHOTO CREDIT: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Come January, President Obama's health care law will be on the chopping block.
The incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, says voters have given the GOP a mandate to cut government and roll back what he calls the health care "monstrosity."
Boehner says the American people are concerned about the government takeover of health care. He says Republicans want to repeal it and replace it with "common-sense reforms" that will bring down health care costs.
Throughout the campaign, Republicans blasted the president's signature issue of health care reform, with many promising to repeal it if the GOP won control of Congress.
For his part, Mr. Obama says it would be a "misreading" of the election results to think Americans want to spend the next two years trying to "re-litigate" health care reform and other major pieces of legislation.
The president called the process of passing the bill "an ugly mess" and something he regrets, but insists the outcome was a good one.
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Republicans' top priority for the new Congress is repealing the health care law and cutting federal spending.
As for Democratic voters, they want Congress to pass a new stimulus bill to create jobs.
Meanwhile it's worth noting that even if Republicans make the repeal of health care reform a priority, it may not go anywhere.
While Republicans will control the House in the next Congress, the Democrats will still remain in control of the Senate.
What that means is likely - you guessed it - more gridlock.
Here’s my question to you: Should Republicans try to repeal President Obama's health care law?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Lame-duck Congress' first order of business?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite the fact that the Democrats took a real beating yesterday, the Democratic-led Congress will soon be back in Washington for a lame-duck session. Heavy emphasis on the word, "lame."
Because this Congress allowed so much unfinished business to pile up before the elections, there'll be no shortage of things to do should they actually decide to tackle some of the people's business.
There are the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of this year. If nothing is done, the biggest tax increase in American history will land on our doorsteps January 1.
There's the issue of expiring unemployment insurance for two million Americans.
And don't forget about the budget. Lawmakers need to either pass another temporary measure to keep the government funded - or pass the remaining spending bills for fiscal year 2011. The second won't happen, the first has to.
Other pending issues include the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.
Don't hold your breath on any of this stuff. Congress will only be in session for a few weeks before the Christmas recess.
Plus, insiders say this lame-duck session could be more unpredictable than most since the balance of power is shifting. They say Republicans could spend at least a week figuring out who will take leadership roles in the next Congress.
More importantly, it's likely the Republicans won't be in the mood to do much cooperating, since they'll be running the show come January.
Here’s my question to you: What should be the lame-duck session of Congress' first order of business?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Ready for start of 2012 presidential campaign?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
While the dust settles from yesterday's historic Republican victory, it won't take a minute for attention to start to turn toward 2012.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/03/art.palin.rally.jpg caption="Sarah Palin greets supporters during a rally."]
The end of the midterms marks the unofficial start of the presidential race, and by the looks of some Republicans, they're already on their way.
Several potential GOP contenders have been laying the groundwork. They're visiting the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, courting donors, building up strong fundraising operations and testing messages.
Some of these hopefuls include: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Baptist minister and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and of course former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who recently proclaimed, "We can see 2012 from our house."
And what about President Obama? After his party took a real beating, the president has two years to fix what went wrong yesterday and secure a second term.
The biggest challenges for the president will be fixing the economy and rebuilding the coalition of voters that put him in the White House in 2008.
The president carried Independents two years ago, but they've since abandoned the Democrats. Big time.
If the economy doesn't turn around and the jobs don't come back, it could be a real uphill battle for re-election. A recent Associated Press/Knowledge Networks Poll suggests 47 percent of Democrats say President Obama should face a primary challenge for the nomination.
In the meantime, enjoy what will surely be a short break from the posturing, speeches, polls, debates, fundraising, mudslinging and on and on.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Country more divided now than under Bush?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For most of the eight years George W. Bush was president, the United States was a nation divided.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/02/art.gwb.jpg caption=""]
Liberals and many independents passionately opposed what President Bush was doing and the way he was doing it - from the wars, to torture, wiretapping of U.S. citizens, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the president's cowboy attitude when it came to international relations.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we were told things would change. Candidate Obama promised a new era of bipartisanship. He promised to change the way Washington works. A tall order for sure, but a lot of people believed it could happen.
Fast forward two years and in many ways this country seems more divided than ever. For starters, critics say the administration is insular and out-of-touch with most Americans. The same thing many said about Bush.
Also, they say the president's promises of bipartisanship fell flat, with the Democrats pushing through controversial legislation like health care reform with few, if any, Republicans on board.
Many Americans are now opposed to what this president has done, including health care, the stimulus bill and record government spending.
Some are so disgusted with what's going on in Washington that a whole new political movement has been born. In many ways, it seems like the phenomenon that is the Tea Party sprung up in reaction to President Obama's policies.
And, as the country votes today in the midterms, it's an election that's been marked by angry, nasty ads and personal attacks between the political parties, which seem to be worse than ever.
Here’s my question to you: In less than two years, does it seem the country has become even more divided than it was during the Bush years?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Has Democratic leadership been "authoritarian" and "closed?"
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A candid Congressman... it's an endangered species in Washington. Unless they're retiring and have nothing to lose by being honest.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/01/art.baird.jpg caption="Representative Brian Baird (D-WA)."]
The Wall Street Journal interviewed Congressman Brian Baird, a six-term Democrat from Washington State who's retiring at the end of this term.
Baird calls out the Democratic leaders, saying they're "authoritarian" and "closed." He says they've repeated some of the Republicans' errors: "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."
And we're talking about a loyal Democrat here. Baird voted for all of the Democrats' legislative priorities - including the stimulus bill, health care reform and cap and trade. Although he does admit that all three have serious flaws.
Baird says he was very excited when his party won control of Congress in 2006, but saw troublesome signs early on. For example, right after the election, he says Speaker Nancy Pelosi abandoned all work on a rules package to make the House more ethical. He says the leaders told party members to quote "trust them to clean things up."
That worked out well, didn't it?
Baird says he was optimistic when President Obama was elected. But the White House's decision not to make job creation its top priority made him lose hope pretty quickly.
His advice for incoming Republican members of Congress is to "treat the voters like adults."
Now there's an idea.
Here’s my question to you: One retiring Democratic congressman says the party's leadership has been "authoritarian" and "closed." Is he right?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments