How can Michele Bachmann reestablish herself as a serious contender at tonight's debate?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Of all the Republican candidates in tonight's tea party debate... so-called tea party queen Michele Bachmann probably has the most at stake.
It wasn't so long ago that Bachmann was a GOP favorite. She started raising Republican eyebrows after a strong debate performance this summer and a victory in the Iowa straw poll a few weeks back.
But all that was before Rick Perry launched his campaign. And since Perry - another conservative, tea party favorite - has joined the race and grabbed the spotlight, the question on a lot of people's lips these days is "Michele who?"
Many thought Bachmann was too restrained at last week's debate - which was mostly a back and forth between Perry and Mitt Romney. Also, some say she hasn't been able to capitalize on that straw poll win.
In CNN's latest poll, Bachmann receives a measly 4%. That's way behind Perry at 30%, but also behind others who poll in the double digits - like Romney, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin - who's not even a candidate.
So look for tonight to be a "do or die" moment for the Minnesota congresswoman - either she finds her footing again and the campaign picks up speed... or it could be over before it starts.
My guess is one interested viewer of tonight's debate might be Sarah Palin. If Bachmann doesn't do well… well, who knows.
Here’s my question to you: How can Michele Bachmann reestablish herself as a serious contender at tonight's debate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does Rick Perry's lavish lifestyle match his country boy image?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Rick Perry would have us believe he's a country boy at heart, a down-home cowboy who can relate to the plight of ordinary Americans.
But there's another side to the Texas governor.
Politico reports that for years, Perry – who makes $150,000 a year as governor – has enjoyed additional lavish perks and travel, mostly funded by wealthy supporters.
Texas donors have paid for the governor and his family to travel around the world, sometimes on private jets; stay in luxury hotels and resorts; vacation in Colorado ski towns; and attend tons of sporting events and concerts.
Perry has also accepted a wide range of expensive gifts over the years, including 22 pairs of cowboy boots, some costing more than $500 a pop. Somebody even pays his cable TV bill.
Also, the taxpayers are paying the rent, at $8,500 a month, for Perry's 4,600-square-foot Austin mansion. The governor and his family have been living in the five-bedroom, seven-bath mansion since 2007 while the governor's mansion undergoes repair. Four years? What kind of repairs are those?
But it's all copacetic in the Lone Star State, which has some of the loosest ethics and campaign rules in the country.
Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine that supporters aren't buying influence when they lavish all these perks on the governor.
Some donors have wound up with appointments to state commissions or million-dollar state grants to businesses they're involved in.
Perry's camp insists that this is all on the up and up. A spokeswoman tells Politico that the governor fully discloses all gifts and travel in his financial disclosure statements.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Ten years after 9/11, did the terrorists win?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As our country prepares to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, there's no doubt we were forever changed on that sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001.
One of Osama bin Laden's biggest victories was to make millions of Americans afraid.
So afraid that most of us stopped questioning our government – whether it meant launching unnecessary wars, removing some of our civil liberties, eroding constitutional rights, ignoring international treaties like the Geneva Conventions or torturing detainees.
So afraid that intrusive government security, especially invasive pat-downs and X-rays at airports, became the norm.
So afraid that we let politicians manipulate our fear to win elections and use Americans' deaths to advance their own agendas.
So afraid that in the name of national security, we've allowed the ill-defined wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to drag on. Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars gone. Along with our once dominant position as the world's biggest superpower.
Bin Laden is, fortunately, dead and gone now, but not before accomplishing much of what he set out to do on 9/11.
On Thursday, a USA Today/Gallup Poll shows almost 1 in 5 Americans say the terrorists have won. Have they? Or have we defeated ourselves?
How much of the way our life has changed in the last 10 years is a result of that single act of terrorism on 9/11, and how much of it is because we allowed ourselves to succumb to our fears and in the process surrender much of what we have always been most proud?
Here’s my question to you: Ten years after 9/11, did the terrorists win?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Message sent by Ford opening new plant in India?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here's just one more example of where the jobs have gone: Ford motor company says it's broken ground on a $1 billion manufacturing and engineering plant - in India. It will employ 5,000 people when fully operational. In India.
Translation: That's 5,000 additional jobs in India while America struggles under 9.1% unemployment.
The Ford plant is expected to open in 2014 and produce 240,000 vehicles and 270,000 engines a year.
This will be Ford's second plant in India. So far Ford has invested $2 billion in that country. It's also one of seven new plants that Ford is building in China, Thailand and India. It's not unusual for manufacturers to build plants where the customers are... happens all the time.
Ford says the new Indian facility will help them reach the goal of increasing worldwide sales by 50% to 8 million vehicles a year by 2015. They say they're expanding in markets - like India - that have the most growth potential.
Makes perfect sense. India likely has more people itching to buy cars than the U.S., with its rapidly vanishing middle class.
And therein lies the problem. People in America who don't have jobs are less likely to buy a new car. As President Obama prepares to address the nation with his jobs plan tomorrow night, the American worker is facing a real uphill battle.
Unemployment is at 9.1% nationally, underemployment is even higher... and last week we learned that there were zero jobs added to the economy in august. Zero.
Here’s my question to you: What message does it send that Ford is opening a new plant (with 5,000 jobs) in India?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How should Obama's $300 billion jobs plan be paid for?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here we go again: President Obama wants to spend another $300 billion we don't have.
The president is set to roll out his jobs plan Thursday night in a speech to a joint session of Congress.
But you need a magnifying glass to find where the job creation is hidden.
Early reports suggest the plan will focus on new infrastructure spending. OK, might be some jobs created there. But an extension of unemployment benefits? How does that create jobs? Aid to local governments meant to prevent teacher layoffs? That preserves existing jobs but doesn't create jobs.
There may also be an extension of the payroll tax cut, as well as some tax breaks for businesses.
Bottom line is a lot of this is just more government giveaways.
And once again, it's being advocated with no plan for how to pay for it.
Apparently the cost of the roughly $300 billion will have to be offset by "tax increases in later years." It would all be part of a long-term deficit reduction plan that would include spending and entitlement cuts as well as tax increases.
Translation: More empty rhetoric designed to justify more deficit government spending.
No one is making any tough decisions about cutting spending or raising taxes. The government continues to kick the national debt time bomb down the road, piling on more and more government spending for which there is no money.
Of course it's unlikely that much of the president's plan will make it through Congress. Some Republicans have already dismissed it, saying it's just a continuation of the failed 2009 stimulus plan.
Here’s my question to you: How should the estimated $300 billion cost of President Obama's jobs plan be paid for?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's the point of President Obama's job speech?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Barack Obama has a lot riding on Thursday's jobs speech - maybe even a second term.
As the president prepares to address a joint session of Congress and with the nation reeling from 9% unemployment, he's in a tough spot. And the Republicans know it.
Obama's approval rating continues to slide. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows him at the lowest mark of his presidency with only 44% approving.
Another new poll by Politico shows 72% of those surveyed say the country is headed in the wrong direction. That's up 12 points since May. Only 39% approve of the president's handling of the economy.
If this economy doesn't start to turn around, the president is finished. In fact, one Democratic pollster already says that Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election.
That’s why Thursday's speech is so important. But here's the thing: The president has made speech after speech on the economy for three years now. Where are the jobs?
The details of this speech are being kept under wraps, but the president might call for infrastructure spending, job training programs, tax breaks for businesses and workers and extending unemployment benefits - again. So far, no word on where the money for all this will come from. We are $14 trillion in debt.
The president claims he will propose ways to get Americans working to which both parties can agree. Don't bet on that agreement thingy.
Washington is more divided than ever, and Republicans can smell blood in the water here. They know Obama is vulnerable, and it seems unlikely that they'll agree to anything that will improve his position.
Here’s my question to you: What's the point of President Obama's job speech?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Do you think of the government as your 'federal family'?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Don't think of it as the government... instead try to think about those weaselly politicians in Washington as your "federal family."
The Obama administration has ramped up the use of this term in describing the federal government's response to disasters, including the recent Hurricane Irene.
For example, they described "the entire federal family" - under the direction of President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano - "leaning forward" to support state and local governments. Does that make the president and Napolitano the parents? What a thought.
"Government" has become a dirty word in most parts of this country... Congress' approval rating is the worst it's ever been, and the president's is at or near all-time lows. Think debt ceiling debate, the downgrading of America's credit rating, etc. It's no surprise that federal officials may be trying to re-brand themselves. And "family" could conjure up images of support and security instead of an unpopular government.
Also, politicians have re-branded other unpopular words... "revenue enhancers" instead of "taxes"... or "the estate tax" instead of the "death tax."
Officials are quick to point out that the idea of the "federal family" is nothing new. the term was used under both the Clinton and Bush administrations - including by former FEMA director michael brown, also known as "you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie". But the Obama administration has taken the use of the phrase to new heights.
Critics doubt the so-called "federal family" will give people warm, fuzzy feelings about government. Instead it might make people think of "big brother" or the mafia, or if family, a highly dysfunctional one.
Here’s my question to you: Do you think of the government as your "federal family"?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
When it comes to politics, how important is hair?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In Texas, Rick Perry is also known as Governor Good Hair.
In fact, when he jumped into the race just a few short weeks ago, fellow Texan Paul Begala described it as "when Rick Perry threw his hair in the ring."
Say what you want about the current Republican front-runner - love him or hate him - the guy's got great hair.
Maybe it will help Perry make it all the way to the White House.
In any case, it probably won't hurt him.
In recent memory, especially since when you could see these guys on TV, our commanders-in-chief have been blessed with the good hair gene.
In fact, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s and Dwight Eisenhower to find a bald-headed president.
Even if they go significantly more grey while in office, like Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, our presidents seem to have pretty healthy heads of hair.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of those aspiring to the office, like Perry, are blessed with good hair genes, too.
Look at Mitt Romney, or even John Edwards back in 2008.
Edwards reportedly went all out for his hair, spending as much as $400 for a haircut. Wait until he sees the haircut he could get in prison, but that's another story.
The point is: In the age of television, appearance matters. I don't expect we'll elect another bald president anytime soon, which is too bad. There are undoubtedly a lot of qualified bald people out there.
Anyways, all this got us wondering if there's something magical about good hair and politicians.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to politics, how important is hair?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much trouble is President Obama in?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The following is an understatement: Heading into an election year, President Obama has some "issues"... and they start very close to home.
Top black leaders are criticizing the president. They say he hasn't focused enough on problems devastating the African-American community - things like poverty, civil rights and jobs.
The unemployment rate among blacks is almost 16%, and for young African-Americans, it's nearly 40%. Nationally, unemployment is a shade over 9%.
The congressional black caucus recently challenged the president in a series of town halls. Leaders say they don't know what his jobs plan is for the black community, and "we want him to come out on our side and advocate, not to watch and wait."
Politico reports the president is reportedly angry that black leaders aren't giving him credit for achievements like health care reform and protecting medicaid - things that will help minority communities.
But here's the bottom line: If President Obama wants to win a second term, he needs blacks to come out in record numbers like they did in 2008 - especially in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
African-Americans will likely vote for Mr. Obama overwhelmingly, but the question remains how high turnout will be.
And it's not just blacks. The president is also losing support among another key Democratic voting bloc: Women.
A new Gallup poll shows a record low of 41% of women approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing. That's a 30-point drop since he first took office.
Overall, a recent CNN poll shows that more than 1 in 4 Democrats think the party should nominate someone other than President Obama in 2012. And, 2/3 of all Americans give him a thumbs-down on the economy - the nation's top issue.
Like I said... saying the president has some "issues" is an understatement.
Here’s my question to you: How much trouble is President Obama in?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments