Why has U.S. politics lost any semblance of dignity?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's no wonder the American public is disgusted with Washington and politicians of all stripes.
Our lawmakers sound more like children messing around on the playground than the people meant to represent us and solve the nation's problems.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/11/art.fiorina.jpg caption="In an open mic gaffe, Carly Fiorina was caught on camera referring to Barbara Boxer’s hair as 'so yesterday.'"]
And that starts right at the top.
This week, President Obama decided it was appropriate to go on the "Today Show" and talk about "whose ass to kick" when it comes to the Gulf coast oil spill.
This is a program that's watched by millions of families every morning. Classy.
Then one top Republican jumped in the game.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, who wants Democrats to focus more on reducing the federal deficits, suggested Mr. Obama find someone's "ass to kick" on the budget deficit.
Nice.
Meanwhile out on the left coast - the races for California governor and Senate have devolved into nasty insults - and there are still five months to go before the election.
Democrat Jerry Brown – who's running for governor - is comparing his Republican opponent, Meg Whitman, to Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels.
When pressed on the comment - Brown's people call it "jogging talk" that was "taken out of context."
Brown made these dumb remarks to a reporter on a jogging path.
Then there's Republican Carly Fiorina - who was caught insulting Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer's hair.
Fiorina's spokeswoman dismisses it as "early morning small talk."
California is broke and swimming in problems; and the newest crop of political wannabes engage in personal insults under the labels of jogging and early morning small talk.
What's small are the people making these remarks.
Here’s my question to you: Why has American politics lost any semblance of dignity?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why is Democratic Congress refusing to pass a budget?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
At a time of skyrocketing federal deficits and a national debt that just passed $13 trillion, the Democrats in Congress can't be bothered to pass a budget for next year.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/10/art.donkey.jpg caption=""]
That's their job. Congress is supposed to decide how to spend the taxpayers' money. They are mandated to pass a budget; and presumably to stick to it... but that's a whole other story. Yet efforts to pass a budget have stalled in the House because Democrats can't agree on what and how much to cut. See, it's an election year - can't be seen cutting things in an election year.
It's simply outrageous.
Republicans say Democrats are making a "huge mistake" by not passing a budget; and they're right. House Minority Leader John Boehner suggests Pres. Obama should find someone's "ass to kick" when it comes to the budget deficit. He says the GOP will be relentless about this issue.
One Democratic Congressman - Gerry Connolly from Virginia - calls budgets "inside baseball." Suggesting it's not something the public is interested in.
Meanwhile our government just keeps spending and spending - from the Wall Street bailouts to the economic stimulus to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and health care reform.
They are bankrupting the country by running up an astronomical bill. The national debt is now estimated to reach $19.6 trillion in less than five years.
It is a debt that can never be repaid. Our government is in the process of destroying this country. And despite warnings of the dire consequences of their actions, they continue undeterred taking us down the road to financial ruin.
Here’s my question to you: Why is the Democratic Congress refusing to pass a budget?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What stories will shape debate going into midterm elections?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With the midterm elections only months away, Americans are fed up with both major political parties.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/art.elephant.donkey.jpg caption=" "]
A new Gallup Poll shows near record-low favorable ratings for both Democrats and Republicans. The GOP has a measly 36 percent favorable rating - that's only five points above their all-time low in 1998 when the Republican-led Congress voted to impeach President Clinton.
The Democrats aren't much better. Their favorable rating is only 43 percent - just a couple points higher than their record low, which came during the recent health care debate.
Gallup says that low ratings don't usually occur for both parties simultaneously. Typically when one is down, the other is up. But this just goes to show you how disgusted Americans are with politicians of all stripes these days.
Meanwhile in a piece called "Stories that Could Rock the Summer," Politico looks at some of the issues that could shake up the elections in the next couple of months.
At the top of the list, no surprise: The Gulf oil spill - which could continue into August.
Then there's hurricane season - which is expected to be "very aggressive" and could once again put the focus on the government's preparedness, or lack thereof, for a natural disaster. Plus, don't forget all those other oil wells in the Gulf where the hurricanes blow.
There's also the possibility of a summertime terrorist attack which could certainly affect the midterms... and of course there's the economy. History suggests if unemployment is in double digits, that's bad news for the party in power. Right now we're hovering just below 10 percent. And we'll get a big jobs report on Friday.
Here’s my question to you: What stories will shape the debate going into the fall's midterm elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Revelations that Connecticut senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam couldn't have come at a worse time for the Democrats.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/19/art.blumenthal.jpg caption=" Democratic Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal holds a press conference to explain discrepancies in claims that he served in Vietnam. "]
It's not like they don't have enough problems with their candidates getting knocked off right and left; and with the Republicans' renewed efforts to retake control of the Senate in November.
That's why Blumenthal, who is Connecticut's attorney general, was carefully pre-selected and packaged to replace Senator Chris Dodd. Closest thing to a sure thing they could find. Except it turns out he's a liar and overnight has become a liability and an embarrassment to the Democrats.
Republicans are all over this, calling Blumenthal's lies "a serious blow to his candidacy." They say it's appalling that he would lie about such a significant issue.
And a lot of veterans aren't happy either. True to form Blumenthal surrounded himself with veterans during his non-apology yesterday at a VFW hall in West Hartford. Turns out Blumenthal isn't a member of the Veteran of Foreign Wars - and he's not eligible to be - you know, because he didn't go to Vietnam and he's not a Veteran of Foreign Wars. In fact, Blumenthal received five military deferments before finally joining the Marine Reserves.
The Democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to support Blumenthal. They're trying to contain the damage by circulating other videos that show Blumenthal accurately describing his military service. So sometimes he was honest and other times he lied... and apparently that's okay with the Democrats.
His primary opponent, Merrick Alpert, calls Blumenthal a "coward" and a "liar." Connecticut Democrats decide this weekend on their Senate candidate. If they're smart... well, we'll see...
Here’s my question to you: Could supporting Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal cost Democrats the Senate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Democrats support candidate who lied about Vietnam service?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democrats may soon wish they had a different horse in the race for the Connecticut senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/18/art.blumenthal.jpg caption=" Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal reportedly lied about serving in Vietnam. "]
The New York Times has an explosive front page story today about Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal - saying he has lied on multiple occasions about serving in Vietnam.
Blumenthal, who is the state's attorney general, never served in Vietnam. Yet on numerous occasions he has said things like: "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." He's also referred to: "When we returned." These are lies.
Blumenthal never returned from Vietnam, because he never went to Vietnam. What's more, he got at least five military deferments so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. And he eventually joined the Marine Reserves - so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam.
Blumenthal's campaign was quick to slam the New York Times story calling it an "outrageous distortion." How is it a distortion if the New York Times said he lied about serving in Vietnam if he never served in Vietnam. He just lied about it.
Blumenthal held a news conference this afternoon where he said he unintentionally misspoke on a few occasions, adding that he regrets it and accepts full responsibility. What does that mean? Unintentionally misspoke? Is he not sure whether or not he ever fought in Vietnam? What garbage. He repeatedly referred to his comments as "a few misplaced words."
It's called lying.
In what will prove to be a huge mistake, Democrats say they will continue to back him in the race to replace Chris Dodd in the U.S. Senate. If he wins, Blumenthal will fit right in in Washington with the rest of the weasels down there.
Here’s my question to you: Should Connecticut Democrats support Richard Blumenthal who lied about serving in Vietnam?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Have Democrats done enough for their base?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/23/art.housedems.0423.gi.jpg caption=" Have Democrats done enough for their base?"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democrats are just not cutting it. One top Democratic official says the party is not giving its base enough of a reason to vote for them in the midterm elections.
Pennsylvania Governor and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Ed Rendell says that everyone gives a little bit too much credit to the Independents.
Rendell insists Democrats do want to win the independent vote, but ultimately a lot also depends on turnout of the party's base.
Quote: "we have to give our base a reason to get out there, a reason to feel proud of who we are and what we stood for as a party. And I don't think up to now we've done a very effective job" unquote.
Rendell has a point. Polls show Republicans are much more fired up about voting in the midterms. One survey taken after health care reform passed showed 55% of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting in November.... that's compared to only 36 percent of Democrats who feel that way.
In theory – health care, a major Obama campaign promise, should get the base going. But a lot of Liberals were disappointed it didn't go further and include a public option.
Also, the Democrats risk alienating more of their base with reports this week that they plan to undertake immigration legislation before climate change. Although immigration reform which is a long shot could help with the Hispanic vote lots of Liberals believe now is the best time in years to pass a bill on global warming.
Still Other democrats are waiting for the party to address other issues, like gays in the military.
Here’s my question to you: Have the Democrats done enough for their base to win in November?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Tea Party favorable rating almost as high as Dems & GOP
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks at the Tea Party Express' "Showdown in Searchlight" rally March 27 in Searchlight, Nevada. The rally, held in the hometown of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), serves as the kickoff for a 42-city bus tour that ends in D.C. April 15. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's about time. The American people may have finally had it with both Democrats and Republicans... and might just start seriously considering another option.
A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows for the first time, the two major political parties are viewed unfavorably by most Americans. What's more - the Tea Party movement's favorable rating of 37 percent is nearly as high as the 41 percent for Democrats and 42 percent for Republicans.
This means the anti-tax, anti-big government movement that's only about one year old is ranking almost as high as these political machines that have been around for a couple hundred years.
The same poll shows 28 percent of all adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party... more than a quarter of Americans is nothing to sneeze at. When it comes to their politics, Tea Party supporters mostly lean Republican and conservative. They're also more likely to be male and less likely to be poor.
But in many other areas, Tea Partiers are representative of the general public - including their age, education, employment status and race. And whether it ultimately comes from the Tea Party or not, it could finally mean some real competition for the 2 major parties, which have long since ceased to give much of a damn about American citizens.
Meanwhile an article in the British Newspaper "The Telegraph" suggests that with Americans so disgusted with their politicians, a real outsider is needed in the White House. They say no one stands out like General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command.
Petraeus emphatically denies any interest in being president... but then again, so have lots and lots of other future candidates.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when the Tea Party movement has a favorable rating almost as high as the Democrats and Republicans?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Worse for Dems come Nov.: passing health care or not?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Democrats could face "unmitigated disaster" in the mid-term elections... if they continue to ignore the public's opposition to health care reform.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/12/art.blood.pressure.jpg caption=""]
This dire warning comes by way of pollsters who worked for the last two Democratic presidents.
Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen write in the Washington Post that the Democrats' "blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November." They suggest that if health care reform passes - the Democrats' losses in the midterms will be even worse.
They say the political reality is that the battle for public opinion has been lost. Polls show a solid majority of Americans oppose the health care reform plan... even though most people believe that reform is needed and they support certain parts of the bill.
Caddell and Schoen write that President Obama and the Democratic party are deceiving themselves into believing that this reform is what the public wants.
They also point to polls that show the country is moving away from big government... saying the debate over health care has now become less about the issue itself... and more about the politics surrounding it. The American people see a government that "will neither hear nor heed the will of the people."
They suggest the only way for the Democrats to change course is to acknowledge that health care reform is a failure - whether or not it passes.
Here’s my question to you: Which will be worse for the Democrats in November: passing the health care bill or not passing it?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm 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.FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Should Dems try to ram health care reform through with 51 votes?
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor picks up a copy of the Senate's health care reform plan prior to the start of a bipartisan meeting hosted by Pres. Obama. (PHOTO CREDIT: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As predicted, that day-long televised health care summit wasn't much more than political theater.
The Democrats are taking a hard look at using a 51-vote shortcut in the Senate to ram a health care bill through. It's a procedure known as reconciliation and it is supposed to be used only for legislation that affects taxes and the deficit.
Democrats are trying to figure out how the complicated process could work, and whether they even have enough votes in both houses to make it happen.
The plan would be for the House to pass the bill that's already gone through the Senate, and then for both houses to pass a package of changes that mirror the president's plan. Under those rules, the Democrats would only need 51 votes in the Senate.
But there are problems. Plenty of them...
For starters, Senate Democrats aren't even sure if they would have the 51-vote simple majority needed. They could also face a big-time backlash from the public for trying to jam this thing though.
Over in the House - Democrats may not have enough votes either. The one Republican who voted for the health care bill last time already says he'll vote "no," not to mention Democrats facing tough re-election races who may change their votes to "no."
And, abortion might be the biggest obstacle of all. There could be as many as a dozen house Democrats who'd vote against the senate bill because they say it's not strict enough in making sure tax money doesn't pay for abortions.
Here’s my question to you: Should Democrats try to ram health care reform through the Senate with 51 votes?
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.
Why are some Obama '08 'blue' states turning 'red' again?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Everything blue is red again... well, sort of.
Politico reports that the electoral map - which Pres. Obama remade back in 2008 - is returning to its old patterns.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/art.map.jpg caption=""]
During the presidential campaign, there was lots of talk about how Barack Obama had changed the playing field and put several so-called red states into play.
By winning in places like Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia and the Mountain West, Obama didn't need to rely on states that had decided previous elections, like Florida and Ohio.
Fast forward a year and a half... Democrats are facing some tough races for Congress and governorships in November in these very same states. No doubt Republicans are loving it, with one congressman saying: "One election doesn't make realignment."
But Democrats insist these states that used to be red will be competitive now, although some worry that without Pres. Obama on the ballot, young voters and African-Americans are more likely to sit this one out.
Meanwhile a new poll suggests trouble for any incumbent - red or blue - come the midterm election. And that's exactly as it should be. Vote them all out and start over.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll shows only 34 percent of voters think most members of Congress should be re-elected; that's the lowest number ever in this poll. 63 percent say send the incumbents home.
As for Pres. Obama, a majority - 52 percent - say he does not deserve a second term in office. The American people are angry.
Here’s my question to you: Why are some of Pres. Obama's 2008 "blue" states turning "red" again?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments