Michele Bachmann's leading in Iowa and Sarah Palin thinks she can be president. Are the Republicans in trouble?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For a second straight day, a new poll of likely voters in the Iowa caucuses has Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as the front-runner of the current field of GOP candidates.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/12/art.bachmann.jpg caption="Michele Bachmann"]
She's big with Tea Party voters, running on smaller government, no new taxes, but she's come under criticism most recently by fellow Minnesotan and GOP hopeful Tim Pawlenty for not having much of a record on anything in Congress. She also has some strong views on social issues that will likely turn independents and more moderate Republicans off.
Last week Bachmann signed something called "The Marriage Vow" penned by a conservative group in Iowa. It's a vow to be faithful to one's spouse and to the Constitution. It condemns adultery, "quickie divorces," and pornography. It also describes homosexuality as a choice. And the initial draft suggested that life was better for black children under slavery because more African-American children are born out of wedlock now than they were back then. Lovely. That part was later edited out and the group claimed it was a misinterpretation.
Is someone who would sign a document like that really the best Republicans can do? Apparently a lot of voters in Iowa think so.
Then there's the question of who else may enter the race...specifically former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who has been playing games with the media for months now. In this week's Newsweek cover story, Palin says she thinks she can be president. She made these comments following the premiere of a documentary produced by a conservative filmmaker highlighting all the positive aspects of her political career. It's not a long film. Palin also said that even if she's not the nominee - she's not even in the race yet - she thinks President Obama is beatable in 2012. Maybe so…but not by her or Michele Bachmann.
Here’s my question to you: Michele Bachmann's leading in Iowa and Sarah Palin thinks she can be president. Are the Republicans in trouble?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
In light of alleged crimes in England, should the U.S. government investigate Rupert Murdoch's companies in the U.S.?
A copy of the front and back page wrap of the last edition of the British tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. (PHOTO CREDIT: CARL COURT/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As fallout intensifies over the hacking scandal that brought down the British tabloid News of the World, the CEO of parent company News Corp., Rupert Murdoch, his son James, and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks have been asked to testify before Parliament next week.
And as this scandal grows, chances are Murdoch's troubles won't be contained to that side of the Atlantic. News Corp. could face investigations in the United States for possibly violating bribery laws. The U.S. watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is calling on Congress to look into whether News of the World journalists engaged in illegal newsgathering practices in the United States.
Earlier this week, the UK paper The Daily Mirror reported claims by a former New York police officer that the News of the World offered him money to give the paper access to voice mails and phone records of 9/11 victims and their families. Just sick.
But where does this end?
The Rupert Murdoch media empire, under the News Corp. umbrella, goes far beyond tabloids in the UK. Here in this country, Murdoch owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. You have to wonder what other illegal or unethical practices journalists working for other Murdoch outlets might be engaging in.
On Sunday's "Fox News Watch" program over on the F-word network - a show devoted each week to media criticism - the panel did not discuss the British scandal on air, instead focusing on topics like the Casey Anthony trial and the ongoing sexual assault case against former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
However, on the Fox News website, in its regular "Behind the Breaks" segment, which is essentially video shot during commercial breaks, the panel chats about "the subject we're not talking about today." And at one point hosts jokingly dare another to bring the topic up.
Not surprisingly, nobody did.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How do you see the debt ceiling issue being resolved?
The U.S. National Debt Clock billboard is displayed on July 11, 2011 in the New York City. The national debt exceeds over $14.3 trillion.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama and Congressional leaders from both parties met behind closed doors at the White House this afternoon to discuss a deal on the debt ceiling - the second time in two days. All parties are still pretty far apart.
Both Republicans and Democrats have laid down ultimatums– Republicans have said everything's on the table except tax increases. Democrats have said they will not agree to a deal based solely on spending cuts. The President has proposed his own deal– a 10-year, $4 trillion plan that tilted 4-to-1 in favor of spending cuts. Boehner said it was dead on arrival.
And the clock is ticking...If they don't reach an agreement by August 2nd, the U.S. could default on some of its loans...and that could send stock markets tumbling, shoot interest rates sky high and cause the dollar to plummet. Both sides in the debate know this. Right now it seems to be a game of chicken - who will blink first. But this time the stakes couldn't be much higher. And it will be interesting to watch the head-on collision between politics and the reality of default. They're juggling hand grenades here.
The president has ruled out signing a short-term extension of the federal debt ceiling. And with just a few weeks left the rhetoric more resembles school yard trash talk than statesmanship. If you're not worried about the outcome of this, you probably should be.
Here’s my question to you: How do you see the debt ceiling issue being resolved?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Treasury Secretary Geithner: Hard times for some time to come. Is he right?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The secretary of the Treasury has an ominous warning for the American people: It's going to take awhile for this economic recovery to feel like a recovery, and for a lot of people, it's going to be "harder than anything they've experienced in their lifetime - for some time to come."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/11/art.geithner.jpg caption="Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner."]
Timothy Geithner made those comments Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," in the wake of an outright ugly jobs report for June. The U.S. economy added just 18,000 jobs last month - just dismal - and the unemployment rate went up to 9.2%.
Not very encouraging, especially if you're one of the more than 14 million Americans who are jobless in this country right now. Millions of jobs don't exist here anymore. They've been shipped overseas where labor costs are much less, meaning corporate profits are much higher. But what about the country?
There are 4.6 unemployed Americans for every job opening out there, according to the Labor Department. In some states, it's much worse. In Arizona, for example, there are 10 job seekers for every opening.
What's more, nearly 20% of personal income in the United States is now provided by the government - in the form of jobless benefits, Social Security, food stamps and other programs.
The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but many Americans haven't gotten back on their feet. They can't find work. Job growth has been slower since then than after any recession since the Great Depression. And for a lot of average Americans times are tough.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should the U.S. leave troops in Iraq past the deadline for leaving the country?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In 2008, President Obama promised over and over again to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. After winning the presidency, he vowed to keep that promise.
Now as that deadline for military withdrawal from Iraq approaches, he's apparently prepared to break that promise. Gee, what a surprise.
The President announced this week that he's offering to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, beyond the scheduled December withdrawal date. The White House says it's concerned that the planned pullout of nearly all U.S. troops at the end of the year could spark violence and trigger militant attacks there. Oh, and don't forget the oil.
Any extension of U.S. military presence depends on a formal request from Iraqi government, and so far no request has been made. But the Pentagon wants to give Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his government time to decide so if they need the help, there is time to plan. The Iraqi government is reportedly divided on whether the U.S. should leave additional troops behind and al-Maliki is facing pressure from hard line members of his own party to let the troops leave on schedule.
There are about 46,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now. Only about 200 were supposed to remain in the country in "advisory" roles beyond December to train security forces there. The White House said yesterday that's still the Pentagon's plan and that time for the Iraqi government to ask for the troops to stay is running out. What'll you bet they ask.
Meanwhile there are discussions about cutting Social Security and Medicare to deal with a ballooning national debt and deficit caused at least in part by the war in Iraq which so far has cost an estimated $1 trillion. Makes a lot of sense.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. leave troops in Iraq past the deadline for leaving the country?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is the cost of higher education becoming prohibitive?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here's something that will scare you out of a vacation if you've got kids in high school or junior high school: During the past 20 years, tuition and fees at public universities have jumped nearly 130%, and they're going up some more - again. With states facing budget crunches like never before, some state colleges and universities are being forced to raise tuition and fees even higher.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/07/art.tuition.jpg caption=""]
According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, 25 governors have proposed slashing college funding in their states. That would total $5 billion in potential cuts nationwide. And these cuts in funding are forcing colleges in some states to boost tuition by more than 20%.
In Arizona, for example, the legislature voted to slash higher education funding by $198 million in fiscal year 2012. As a result, tuition will jump 22% at the University of Arizona, more than 19% at Arizona State University and 15% at Northern Arizona University. Incoming freshmen at the University of Arizona this fall will pay more than $10,000 a year, almost double what freshmen in 2008 paid.
Public colleges and universities in California, Pennsylvania, Washington and New Hampshire are also being forced to raise tuition because of state budget issues. And schools in Florida and Tennessee are also raising tuition as federal stimulus dollars have dried up.
And considering the median income for middle-class Americans is actually $400 less than it was 20 years ago, more and more young people and their parents are digging themselves a deeper hole just so they have a better shot in a dismal job market.
Here’s my question to you: Is the cost of higher education becoming prohibitive?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would you want to live to be 150 years old or even older?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A leading British scientist says the first person who will live to the age of 150 has already been born.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/06/art.cake.jpg caption=""]
Doctor Aubrey De Grey, the chief scientist of a foundation dedicated to longevity research, also believes that the first person to live to be 1,000 years old could be born in the next two decades. You heard right. A thousand.
De Grey made these comments in an interview at Britain's Royal Institution's academy of science.
So far, the longest-living person in the world on record lived to age 122.
But Dr. De Grey says we have a "50/50 chance" of bringing aging under medical control within the next 25 years.
He believes that aging is really just the accumulation of molecular and cellular damage in the body over a lifetime...and that some day doctors will be able to undo this damage. We'll all just go to the doctor for "maintenance checks"– you know, like a tune up for your car. But these visits will include gene therapies, stem cell therapies, and immune stimulation.
De Grey does have his critics. In 2005, the MIT Technology Review Journal offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who could prove Dr. De Grey's theories were so wrong they were not worthy of debate. But no one ever won that cash prize.
Here’s my question to you: Would you want to live to be 150 years old or even older?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution a good idea?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The warnings continue that if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2, the U.S. could default on its debt obligations. That's less than a month away. If it happens, this already weak economy could get its legs knocked out from under it.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/06/art.constitution.jpg caption=""]
On Thursday, the top two leaders from each party in the House and Senate will meet with President Barack Obama in the White House to talk about reaching a final agreement. Good luck.
Nothing much has changed - Republicans want spending cuts and no tax increases. Democrats want to avoid steep cuts to social services and get rid of tax breaks for wealthier Americans. No reason to expect one side or the other is suddenly going to say, "You're right. Let's do it your way."
And to complicate matters further, there is a growing group of Senate and House Republicans who say their vote to increase the debt ceiling would be contingent on caps on federal spending as well as the passage of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget every year.
It might sound good, but it would be an uphill battle. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate. In other words, if all 47 Republican senators support the measure, 20 more Democrats would have to join them. And even if it passed the House and Senate, the measure then would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, which could take years.
Critics of a balanced budget amendment say the results could be disastrous as the population of this country ages and relies more heavily on social services. The Senate and House versions of the legislation require a balanced budget starting in 2018, but both also mandate how it must be done. Federal spending would be capped at 18% of the gross domestic product - that spells major cuts. And two-thirds of Congress would have to vote to approve any tax increase.
That may be difficult math to do down the road. And as usual, they are talking about "down the road."
Here’s my question to you: Is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution a good idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What role did the news media play in the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Casey Anthony's defense team is slamming the media over its intense coverage of the case leading up to and during the high-profile trial.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/05/art.caylee.jpg caption="Caylee Anthony"]
Anthony's attorney Jose Baez applauded the jury shortly after leaving the courtroom today for doing what he said they are supposed to – finding their verdict based on evidence and not emotion. Baez said, "You cannot convict someone until they have their day in court."
The defense team believed the public and the media had already decided Anthony was guilty of killing her two year old daughter before the jury even heard arguments in the case. Baez and his colleagues pointed to the seemingly non-stop coverage of the case on cable television outlets, commentary by so-called "legal experts" on various pieces of evidence and testimony on television and in print, as well as the crowds that gathered outside the courthouse daily possibly as a result.
But despite what these and other defense attorneys perceive as a media bias in high profile cases– guilty until proven innocent– many juries simply don't buy in. Many very famous defendants in very high profile cases with the most media coverage have all gotten off. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and William Kennedy Smith were all acquitted in trials that featured intense media coverage.
And while the defense slams the media, it might be worth taking a moment to think about why so many of these big cases have the same outcome.
Here’s my question to you: What role did the news media play in the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why did the Casey Anthony murder trial captivate the nation?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Like millions of Americans, I got sucked into watching the Casey Anthony murder trial. Over the July Fourth weekend, I spent several hours engrossed in watching the closing arguments, fascinated by the skill of the lawyers, particularly of the prosecutors, as they practiced their craft at the highest level in pursuit of justice for a 2-year-old girl who couldn't speak for herself.
It was the stuff of high drama. And for six weeks, the country has been riveted by the goings-on inside the courtroom in Orlando, Florida.
Our sister networks, HLN along with Tru TV, have mined ratings gold from trial coverage, garnering some of the highest numbers in their history.
But why?
This isn't the first time a mother has been put on trial for the death of her child. This isn't the first time television cameras have been allowed in a courtroom. Or the first time a defendant has been caught in countless lies and cover-ups or been depicted as a less than stand-up person during testimony. Nor was it the first time a defendant showed little emotion throughout it all. But for some reason, the country couldn't get enough. It was almost like O.J. all over again. Right down to the outcome.
The verdict left a lot of people scratching their heads. After my weekend on the couch watching the proceedings, I would have bet on a guilty verdict. And I would have been dead wrong.
Here’s my question to you: Why did the Casey Anthony murder trial captivate the nation?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments