Is former President Carter an effective weapon in Mitt Romney's campaign against President Obama?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Mitt Romney is hoping Jimmy Carter can help him win the White House.
The likely Republican nominee has been comparing President Barack Obama to the former Democratic president on the campaign trail.
For example, when Romney was asked if he would have approved the bin Laden raid, he answered "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."
And when talking about the economy, Romney described the Obama White House as "the most anti-small business administration... probably since Carter."
For many, the name alone evokes an incompetent, liberal commander-in-chief and a time of recession, inflation, unemployment, high taxes and gas prices, more government and a sort of national malaise..
And, as Politico points out, by framing yourself as Carter's enemy, you can try to make yourself Ronald Reagan. Brilliant. If it works.
Meanwhile Michael Barone suggests in a column on "Real Clear Politics" that the 2012 election could mirror what happened in the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan. There was a late break away from the incumbent that year.
Jimmy Carter actually led Ronald Reagan in the polls for much of the race. His job rating was kept higher by attempts to free the Iran hostages even though voters were unhappy with the economy and other issues.
But during a debate just days before the election, Reagan famously asked: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Suddenly the polls took a 10 point shift in Reagan's favor. He won in a landslide.
Barone suggests that despite economic concerns and opposition to Mr. Obama's policies, voters might be keeping his ratings artificially high for fear of rejecting the first black president. They might change their support to Romney at the last minute.
Here’s my question to you: Is former President Carter an effective weapon in Mitt Romney's campaign against President Obama?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Should drones be used to spy on Americans?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Drones aren't just for fighting the war on terror in the Middle East anymore - they might be watching you.
As more and more of these unmanned aircraft pop up over U.S. soil, they may be used to spy on Americans.
There is an Air Force document that says if unmanned drones accidentally capture surveillance footage of Americans, they can keep the information for up to 90 days and analyze it. Where is that in the Constitution?
The U.S. military and the government aren't supposed to conduct surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil without their consent, but if they accidentally capture you on video, that's OK.
They can apparently hang on to that material to determine if you are a terrorist.
There's no question that spying on Americans without a warrant could, and should, raise some serious red flags. But when you allow something like the Patriot Act, the law of unintended consequences is likely to follow.
Make no mistake, drone use is expanding on the home front.
Regulators have approved the use of drones for dozens of law enforcement agencies and universities, including the Department of Homeland Security and local police departments.
These drones can be used for law enforcement, firefighting, news coverage and monitoring wildlife. Or to spy on American citizens.
Lawmakers from both parties have asked the FAA to answer questions about privacy, to make sure the public knows these things are being used and why.
Experts predict the use of drones domestically will increase as more of the technology is brought back from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.
Here’s my question to you: Should drones be used to spy on Americans?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments