As Syria's brutal crackdown intensifies it seems increasingly likely that there could be some sort of military action.

The United Nations is calling for the international community to protect the Syrian population.

One opposition group reports that government forces killed more than 130 civilians in Syria today - most of them in the city of Homs.

There are reports of bomb explosions every few minutes; of wounded people bleeding to death in the streets because they can't get help; and of snipers picking off civilians who are running for cover.

Doctors inside Syria say government forces are targeting hospitals, medical staff and patients.

Meanwhile the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command have started reviewing military options.

One senior official calls it a "scoping exercise" to see what's possible - given all our other military commitments in the region.

It's not unusual for the Pentagon to do such a planning exercise - so they have options ready if the president wants them.

They're likely considering everything from humanitarian relief to support for opposition groups. Senior officials tell CNN that outright military strikes are unlikely.

Some have suggested setting up a "humanitarian corridor" or safe haven for civilians. That could require the use of troops.

Others, including senator John McCain, have said the U.S. should consider all options "including arming the opposition."

The State Department says while they never take anything off the table, they don't think sending more arms into Syria is the answer.

It's believed that any military action in Syria would be riskier and more complicated than the Libyan mission. And a lot of people don't think the U.S. should have gotten involved in that.

Here’s my question to you: If there is military action against Syria, should the U.S. be involved?

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.

Mitt Romney has been running for president for six years – and he still can't seal the deal.

After losing the Republican nomination to John McCain in 2008, Romney became the presumptive nominee this time around.

The problem is, no one told the rank-and-file Republicans.

And instead of a coronation for Romney, Republican voters have spent the past year holding tryouts for candidates to fill the anyone-but-Romney slot.

They’ve gone from Rick Perry to Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum.

And if Santorum's sweep this week didn't shake Romney up, it should have. Compared with Romney, Santorum has little money or organization. But conservative voters like him.

For many, the bottom line is that Romney just hasn't been able to connect. He is seen as out of touch, too scripted and even aloof.

Think about the infamous $10,000 bet he offered during one debate or his comment that he's not that worried about the very poor.

Furthermore, it's not really clear what Romney's message is, other than attacking President Obama. As Howard Kurtz writes in the Daily Beast, Romney "lacks an animating idea that would bring voters to their feet."

Romney is still the likely Republican nominee. However, with low voter turnout and a lack of enthusiasm among Republicans, there are signs that he might not fare that well against Obama.

InTrade, the online betting site with a high accuracy in predicting elections, puts Obama's chances of winning in November at 60%. Romney's odds are only 32%.

Here’s my question to you: What advice would you give Mitt Romney?

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.

The Santorum sweep of Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado once again raises serious questions about why many conservatives can't stomach Mitt Romney.

One, it wasn't even close. And two, Romney failed in places where he was successful four years ago.

Santorum had more than double Romney's support in Missouri.

Romney came in third in Minnesota, a state he won in 2008.

And worst of all for Romney, he was losing Colorado, where he won 60% of the vote last time around.

Writing for the Daily Beast, CNN political contributor Paul Begala points out Romney has more national experience, more staff, more money and "better hair" than Santorum.

Begala described Romney's losses this way, "There's a technical term in political consulting for a performance like that: It's called sucking."

Although Romney is still the GOP's likely nominee, Tuesday’s thumpings will make more people wonder about his electability.

Santorum is now out to convince Republicans that he, not Newt Gingrich, is the strongest conservative challenger to Romney.

And the convergence of recent events is a conservative's dream come true, from the Komen Planned Parenthood uproar to the Proposition 8 ruling in California to President Obama's dust-up with the Catholic Church over birth control.

As for Gingrich, his showing pretty much confirmed that it's over for him.

For Republicans, none of this can be very encouraging. Low turnout in Tuesday’s races suggests Republican voters aren't overly thrilled with any of their choices.

President Obama must be watching all this the way NASCAR fans enjoy a multi-car pileup at the race track.

Here’s my question to you: How does Rick Santorum's sweep change the race?

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.

Nearly half of Americans live in a household that receives government assistance.

This stunning finding comes from a new report from a George Mason University-based research center.

More than one-in-three Americans lived in a household getting Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in 2010.

When you add in those getting Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits, it represents almost half of the country.

More than 148,000,000 Americans.

The federal government sent a record total of $2 trillion to individuals in 2010. The stunning part is that's up 75% from a decade ago.

There's another new study from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that shows the public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two-years under President Obama.

This comes at a time when fewer Americans - less than half of us - pay income taxes.

Some say the rise in dependence under President Obama is due to the recession and high unemployment. But others say extending unemployment benefits indefinitely actually keeps unemployment rates higher because it creates an incentive not to work.

Meanwhile the country's safety net has become a hot topic in the presidential race.

Mitt Romney is under fire for saying he's not concerned about the very poor because they have an "ample" safety net. It's a comment I bet he wishes he could take back.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when half of Americans live in a household that gets government assistance?

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.

Another primary/caucus day - and with it, yet another day of bad news for Newt Gingrich. In this case, it looks like three more losses.

For starters, Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in Missouri. Plus, recent polling shows him in third place in Colorado and Minnesota. That’s probably why Gingrich is in none of these states today, choosing instead to campaign in Ohio.

Newt's future doesn't look too bright at this point. There are two more weeks to go before the next debate, where he tends to excel. At the end of the month come Arizona and Michigan. Romney is favored in both.

Super Tuesday is on March 6, but Gingrich has even given up on getting on the ballot in his adopted home state of Virginia that day.

When Gingrich took a beating at the hands of Mitt Romney in Nevada - much like he did in Florida - he seemed to ignore the results.

Gingrich held a bizarre news conference after the Nevada loss in which he vowed to "find a series of victories which by the end of the Texas primary will leave us at parity" with Romney.

Say what?

The writing is on the wall for Newt - but it appears he's the only one who can't see it. Former candidate Michele Bachmann says she thinks the race will soon be over; and tea party leader Dick Armey says Gingrich is a lost cause for those voters.

Meanwhile, here’s one more sign that Gingrich is losing touch: Wikipedia says Gingrich's communications director has made or requested dozens of edits on Gingrich's behalf. These include factual references to Gingrich's three marriages and ethics charges brought against him while U.S. House speaker.

Here’s my question to you: Is Newt Gingrich kidding himself at this point?

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.

The Catholic Church is at odds with President Obama - which is not a comforting thought for Democrats in an election year.

And it all goes back to the president's health care law.

Catholic leaders are furious over a provision that requires all employers - including religious ones - to pay for contraceptives through health insurance plans.

This includes the birth control pill and Plan B.

Churches are exempt, but religious hospitals and schools must comply.

Critics say this provision violates their freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives even though a large number of rank-and-file Catholics disagree.

Catholic leaders have called for protests and are asking the faithful to put political pressure on the administration. They say they will fight this thing out "with lawsuits, with court decisions, and maybe even in the streets."

Like we said, not what Mr. Obama needs in an election year.

Which is probably why the president's re-election campaign now says they're open to compromise.

David Axelrod tells MSNBC that they'll look for a way forward that "both guarantees women that basic preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions."

There are 70 million Catholics in the U.S. and a lot of them live in critical swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida.

Back in 2008, President Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote.

Here’s my question to you: Does Pres. Obama risk alienating Catholic voters because of the birth control part of his health care law?

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.

The issue of race is already rearing its ugly head with nine months still to go before the general election.

No one knows what impact the race card will have on President Obama's re-election prospects - but it's out there.

There was Newt Gingrich describing the nation's first African-American president as the "food stamp president.” Gingrich also suggested poor inner-city - mostly minority - New York students should show their work ethic by mopping their own schools.

First Lady Michelle Obama pushed back against the idea that she's an "angry black woman."

And the president's own re-election campaign fought off stories that he's practically given up on the white vote.

Oh, and Attorney General Eric Holder suggested some of the trouble he's in because of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation is because he's black.

But the gasoline that got the race fire raging this time around was this: Obama and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer facing off on an airport tarmac.

All that many saw in the photograph was a white woman wagging her finger at the first black president.

Their disagreement was part of the ongoing battle over immigration policy. Brewer tells Politico their differences were only about politics.

But not everyone sees it that way. When Brewer said she felt "threatened" by Obama, the NAACP replied, "What were you afraid he would do, steal your purse?" It's already getting ugly.

Experts say the true impact of racism on voting is too difficult to measure. Some say it will matter less in 2012 since people are focused on their own financial anxieties.

But rest assured, racism will be lurking in the shadows throughout the remainder of the campaign.

Here's my question to you: How much of an issue will race be in the 2012 presidential election?

Tune in to "The Situation Room" at 5 p.m. ET to see if Jack reads your answer on the air.

And we'd love to know where you're writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Another deadly day of bloodshed... as the world stands idly by and watches Syria's government murdering its own people.

Opposition groups say more than 50 people were killed today. Hundreds more were reportedly killed in the city of Homs over the weekend.

And the killing has become butchery. One Syrian told the New York Times of seeing the beheaded bodies of women and children lying on the roads.

And the civilized world looks on and does nothing.

China and Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded President Bashar Al-Assad stop the violence.

China and Russia say it was a potential violation of Syria's sovereignty.

The U.S. - along with other Western and Arab nations - are pushing back, calling for the international community to do more.

The U.S. says it was "disgusted" by the veto.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that blocking the U.N. resolution is to "bear responsibility for the horrors" happening in Syria.

President Obama has condemned Syria's "unspeakable assault" against its people.

France calls the recent massacre in the city of Homs a "crime against humanity."

The British say the veto will only encourage more killing, while Germany says "the scandal would be failure to act."

Lots of words, no actions and the killing continues.

The U.N. says at least 5,000 people have died since the conflict started.

Here's my question to you: Why isn't anyone doing anything about the bloodshed in Syria?

Tune in to "The Situation Room" at 4 p.m. ET to see if Jack reads your answer on the air.

And we'd love to know where you're writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Shocking new numbers on the housing crisis which show home prices down nearly 33% since peaking in the summer of 2006.

Translation: the value of many Americans' biggest asset has dropped by one-third in just the last 5 years.

The latest S&P/Case Shiller 20-city report shows home prices posted a steep drop in November, falling 1.3%. Some of the hardest-hit cities include Chicago, Atlanta and Detroit.

Compared to a year ago, home prices are down close to 4%.

Experts say that home prices are still falling despite record low interest rates and better GDP growth. They think prices will continue to drop this year and maybe even into next year before finally stabilizing.

Some suggest prices are down in part because more sellers are willing to accept the weak market conditions and lower their asking prices.

Also playing a role is the increase of sales of properties in foreclosure - look no further than Nevada, the site of Saturday's caucuses, which is the foreclosure capital of the country. Arizona and California also suffer from some of the highest foreclosure rates.

Meanwhile the U.S. Census Bureau says that the nation's homeownership rate has fallen to 66% - the lowest in seven years.

Economists tell USA Today that while the housing industry's downturn may be nearing a bottom, the impact will be felt for years.

They say even for people who want to buy a home, they may have difficulty getting financing for a mortgage.

In short, we've got a long way to go before the housing market rebounds.

Here’s my question to you: How have collapsing home prices impacted you?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Loren:
Not yet, knock on wood. Just keeping my fingers crossed the president and Congress don’t do anything to screw up this already slow recovery.

Tom in Chico, California:
My house has lost 30% of its value, but property taxes haven't gone down at all. State and local services are struggling with less tax revenue. If a foreclosed house is "bank owned", why don't the banks pay the property taxes that they owe on their empty houses? That expense would make the banks sell them sooner and get some relief to taxpayers.

Noel in New Mexico:
Since I'm neither selling nor buying, the market doesn't worry me much. I don't even know how much my house is worth anymore, and I don't want to know. Since I have a place to hang my hat and can afford the mortgage payments, I prefer to live in ignorant bliss.

Carol on Facebook:
We live in Cape Coral, Florida. Don't ask. We're holding on tight; many, many of our neighbors GONE! Impact? This is a living nightmare.

Paul in North Carolina:
Not much at all, really. Like everywhere else, prices here have declined since '07 but my house is still worth more than it cost to build and I'm not underwater. Eventually, the housing market will heal and prices will start rising again. In most cases, people who did it the right way, with a substantial down payment and mortgage payments that fit their budget, will come through this debacle with very little pain. But there is no sympathy here for those who thought they could buy a million dollar house on a blue collar salary. Common sense is still the best defense.

Michael in Virginia:
One bathroom shared with two females. Hell by any definition.

As the Republican candidates keep tearing each other apart, President Obama may want to start worrying about November - if he hasn't already.

New Gallup state-by-state polling on the president's approval rating suggests he might be in trouble.

Overall, President Obama averaged a 44% job approval in his third year in office - down from 47% in his second year.

According to gallup, his approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in 47 of the 50 states. Not good.

The president's approval rating was above 50% last year in only 10 states plus the District of Columbia.

Gallup suggests that the state approval rating could provide some clues into how President Obama will fare in the electoral college.

If the president were to carry only the states where more people approved than disapproved of him last year, he would lose to the Republican nominee 323 to 215. That's landslide territory.

And Politico reports on several additional factors working against the president.

The congressional budget office says unemployment is likely to climb to 9% by the election.

There's polling that shows President Obama tied or trailing Mitt Romney in key swing states.

And there's growing evidence that the idea that the president will raise a lot more money than the Republicans just isn't true.

Of course there are still nine months to go before the election; and we don't know yet who the Republican nominee will be, or if there will be a third party candidate - which could work to Mr. Obama's advantage.

Nevertheless...

Here’s my question to you: How worried should President Obama be about winning a second term?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

David in Virginia:
He should be very worried. When your performance in leading the country is so bad, and you can only blame your predecessor and vilify your likely successor, people start to wonder, "Four more years of what?" That's where I am. This hasn't worked and if he is re-elected, there is no reason to think anything would change.

George in Italy:
Obama should not worry about winning a second term, the Republican candidates are strange beings. We should be the ones worrying and afraid.

Dan:
Jack, He should be concerned as all incumbents should be. However, he is in a position no president since FDR has had to face. And, he has been facing a do-nothing Congress of historic proportions with half of it deliberately blocking every bill that has been proposed to help jobs and the economy. It is amazing what he has done without their help.

Dave in Phoenix:
As an independent voter, I cannot see how. The Republican Party is clearly anything but pro-American anymore. Pro-white, pro-religion, pro-rich people, but not pro-American.

Felicity:
Solyndra, Fast and Furious, trillions in debt, unemployment unchanged. If President Obama is not shaking in his boots, then he should be. Also, he promotes class warfare and envy towards rich folks, except the ones who give billions to his campaign.

Joe:
If Romney is Obama's opponent, the president has nothing to worry about. Mitt Romney is a dolt, a vapid man with very few ideas and the stage presence of a Greek column. Obama is beatable, but not by this guy.