John King, USA

The latest political news and information on the most important stories affecting you.
January 23rd, 2012
01:05 PM ET

Be in the know: Today's political bullet points

Everyday we ask influential politicos to send us their top three bullet points that are driving the day's conversation in and outside Washington:

Senior Editor of Mario Solis-Marich:

– Multiple Gains: Newt moves ahead in the GOP nomination process and heads to Florida where he believes his Latino strategy will pay off. Adios Mitt?

– Return on Investment: After two years of saying that there is no such thing as a “shovel ready project,” GOP House members are using the term to describe the Keystone pipeline, so government policies can create jobs???

– Loss: “ lonely days are over and life is like a song” – Etta James an American Artist

RedState.Com Editor Erick-Woods Erickson:

– Romney outspends Newt $7M to $.0008M in FL just to watch his 15 pt lead implode overnight.

– The attacks on Newt will first focus on his taxes and a method he took to try to underpay into Medicare — a tactic the IRS frowns on. The Gingrich response will be that Romney may do the same, but we won't know unless we see his taxes.

– During the primaries, we've focused on what had been more or less a Romney ceiling until the voting started. Does the President have a ceiling too? He seems to be perpetually below 50% unable to shake out of it. Does he need a nominee to be compared to? Probably.

Editor's Note: The blog is a place for a freewheeling exchange of ideas and opinions. CNN does not endorse anything said by its contributors.

Filed under: Bullet Points
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Truthis

    Sperm and egg is biology.Everything after that is a show of human intelligence. The Anti Abortion Activist should hold the picket that says, "Dear GOD, we have taken good care of all of the souls that you have granted to us, obligate them now to give us more." A good politician would inform the gay community that they do not have the power to rewright the Bible but are willing to unite them in respect to their union by creating new title and laws on the matter. Gays should though first realise that their stances were made diminisahed in seriousness when the sex addicts seemingly infiltrated their causes, their ligitimate rights...

    January 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  2. barbara hayes

    America projects itself as an ethical, moral, freedom-loving country. Our President is a reflection of that. I think John King was totally correct in bringing up the conversation about Newt Gingrich's ex-wife. Attacking the media seems to be popular today; but it doesn't answer the question. Too many people today use the term "going to God", "changing their ways", etc., as an excuse for their past behavior. Maybe Mr. Gingrich needs to get some help with his anger issues, instead of attacking Mr. King.

    January 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  3. nancy

    You go John – thank you for your beginning question to newt in recent debate & thank you for "taking it on the chin" for all of us who are interested in this matter as it points to the issue of character, which for me is a vital issue for someone running for any office – newts response to your question was vicious, ungracious,totally lacking in class as well as unbecoming of a candidate for president, and anyone who doesn't recognize this embodies the same qualities. FYI – intimidating someone with anger, when being confronted with something that is uncomfortable is a common evasive move used by narcissistic people, which newt most certainly is – again many thanx

    January 23, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  4. Dan M. Appel

    Dear Mr. King,

    I am an undecided voter living in California. There are two undiscussed issues which I wish would be discussed in the debates and discussion as we approach the election.

    1. The discussion about Mitt Romney's contributions is somewhat misplaced. As a member of the Mormon Church he is required by his church to donate a minimum of 10% of his gross income to remain in good and regular standing, and especially to be a leader. His charitable contributions to his church are not so much a measure of his generosity as his desire to remain in good and regular standing in his church. That does not bother me – I am an evangelical Christian, clergy to be exact, who has great respect for virtually every Mormon I have ever met even as I disagree with them on many specific issues. My intent in raising this is that all of the discussion should focus in the proper place no matter what candidate is being discussed and the reason for the 10%, tithe it is called in most churches, is about obedience to the tenets of his church and what he believes God requires, not because he is necessarily generous.

    2. There is an aspect of the immigration debate that I keep waiting to be raised and which, so far has not surfaced. Most of the Latinos who came to the U.S. from Mexico in the last 30 or so years came with the implicit encouragement of both Democratic and Republican administrations and the business community. It is no secret that our economy in order to survive and expand has to keep adding people on the low end of the wage scale who are willing to do jobs virtually none of us who have lived in the U.S. for very long, would work for. That has been true for over 100 years. It was much of the impetus for slavery and what brought most of the Eastern Europeans and Irish, Germans etc. to the U.S. who worked in much of our agriculture and industry and made it what it is today.

    I have had a number of Mexican members of the churches which I have pastored for the last 35 years. All have told me that until 9/11 it was understood at the Border that the U.S. Immigration Service, with a wink and a nod, stopped just enough people coming across so that it looked like they were doing their job in the press. They were sent back across and it was understood and often stated by all that they could try again the next night. This tacit approval was on the part of both Republicans and Democrats as I stated above because it was understood that most of the food in our restaurants would not get cooked without Mexican labor, most of the food itself would not be harvested, most of our lawns would not be trimmed and mowed and most of our clothes and houses would not be cleaned.

    To even suggest that people we encouraged to come should be sent back across the border is the height of hypocrisy and pandering! I am one who believes that we need to seriously strengthen our borders – not just to the North but on all sides including the 1000s of miles of Canadian border that are barely patrolled if at all. We need to reform our immigration policies. We need to be honest in declaring that we need workers at bottom wages who will work at scales Unions in the United States would never allow. And, we need to find a way of letting them come that keeps track of them as they work and prepare to apply for citizenship. At the same time . . . as I stated, as much as we all hate the word "amnesty" I think that Newt Gingrich has a valid point that, no matter how the other candidates might protest, most Americans would never stand for rounding up and deporting millions of good people from our Communities. To do so would be a worse travesty than what happened to many West Coast Japanese families after Pearl Harbor. We did it once, I don't think most Americans would stand for it happening again.

    January 23, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
  5. Joe Siwiec

    I think John King missed a beat re the following note to Senator Santorum

    Senator Santorum,

    Regarding John King's interview with you today in a town hall meeting where you answered a woman participant who claimed President Obama was a Muslim. John asked you why you didn't reject that notion. Your answer was that you had stated your position many times that you didn't believe he was a Muslim and felt it was not necessary to restate it. Your actual answer/comment to the woman was, 'I'm trying to get him out of office'. I think your response was pandering to the worst elements of your constituency. Regardless of how many times you stated your position, your response at that meeting actually encouraged that mistaken belief. Surely you must be know that every interested voter in the country is not aware of your position. I was not. I am a registered independent and I am always trying to determine the true character of our representatives regardless of their party or position. I'm sorry to say in this case, you did not enhance yours. I can only assume John King did not pursue this line of questioning because he was still reacting to the "beating" he took from Speaker Gingrich at the last debate.

    January 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
  6. Ellie Moore

    New Gingrich is APPALLED by your question about his ex wife – very relevant in a state that prides itself on conservative values With revisionist and short memories, the world can forget about Mr. Gingrich leading the charge for Clinton impeachment. Really – you want to revisit this. Amazing righteous indignation!

    January 24, 2012 at 7:41 am |
  7. Mark Thompson

    I was so disappointed and sad to see you back away – kowtowing – to Newt Gingrich in the last debate. Your question was legitimate in a crowd of "values voters" and yet you mumbled and tumbled away like chaff in the wind.

    January 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  8. cbr

    Mr. King blew the opening question of the debate in South Carolina. He opened the door for Newt Gingrich to blame everyone but himself for the stories swirling around him. The television interview with Mrs. Gingrich number 2 should never have been the basis for questioning. It had nothing to do with the problems facing America today.. Mr. King allowed Mr. Gingrich to rant against the media and to blame them for his problems.

    January 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm |