Charlie Rose

pjcowley  10/21/2010 09:20 AM Report

Another great interview Charlie! So much negative stuff being pushed on Nancy Pelosi in recent times it is refreshing to hear her in an extended interview and get a chance to make her points in context. I didn't think that it was a 'soft' interview. Got a chance to see some of her strenghts and weakness when it comes to making her point(s) and I came away seeing why she made it to 'speaker of the house'. Worth listening to and 'Thank you'!

winter  10/19/2010 09:20 PM Report

What I want to know is, out of what bar's front door did this character named Paladino fall out of into actually being taken seriously for any political office? Sending emails of President Obama and the first lady dressed as

a pimp and her as I won't even describe another of an African tribal dance with the caption something to the effect of Obama's campaign. This is what somehow we've come to. Inside, Cuomo must be laughing at this Paldino or better not even aware of his existence. I wish I weren't.

Thoughtful  03/17/2010 03:09 AM Report

In our country's history, whenever Congress has tackled issues of great complexity, the process has been a messy one. Our system of "checks and balances", as opposed to British parliamentary democracy, requires the kind of compromises that result in, depending on one's perspective, weaker legislation or better legislation. The British parliamentary system makes for a "cleaner" democracy, as the Prime Minister is guaranteed a majority in Commons and can expect his legislation to pass with a majority vote - even if its after a noisy debate. Not so us.

This current bill is the result of that messy process, but it's the best our government seems able to do.In our current health care reform, not only has the "politics" made for incredible "spin" and deception, the substantive policy differences have been deep. The compromises that have been made, the "deals" that have been agreed to, have gained some additional support for the bill, but have also lost some support. Still the primary provisions are those Americans want. In the future, it can be modified - as has Medicare and Medicaid. But at least we'll fix some of the major problems we have with health care today. For the richest country in the world to not have the best health care possible, at affordable costs for ALL of its citizens is untenable. There are enough elements of the market economy in this bill to allow for increased competition and choice. There is no government "ownership" of the "means of production", just regulation. We regulate our food in the interest of the consumer. We accept government regulation over the financial sector - in the interest of the consumer. And we should regulate health insurance - in the interest of the consumer, as well. This is not "scientific socialism" or communism, and its not even "democratic socialism", but a new 21st kind of democracy that restrains the negative externalities of a broken down health care system.

KeenObserver  03/15/2010 04:29 AM Report

So this is the person that's trying to shepherd the country into its new Rube Goldberg healthcare system. There was absolutely nothing inspiring. And poor Charlie -- Try and hope as he might, he was unable to get a single coherent thought out of Nancy Pelosi’s head. It’s really scary.

esantoro  03/14/2010 11:23 AM Report

Just checked in to read the bloggers, who are usually more informed and less obsequious to talking points than Rose and his guests.

Thanks for the reads.

This might be the Al Jazeera roundtable referenced by REMant (couldn't copy the URL from the AJ site itself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUE3iBAih3k

Anga2010  03/14/2010 04:25 AM Report

I believe that healthcare is a right. I will defend your right to purchase any kind of healthcare you like, or, not to purchase any healthcare at all if you like.

I will also defend your right to purchase oxygen, water, food, or anything else that you want. It is your inalienable right to purchase all of these things, and many more.

It is not your right to force me to purchase them for you.

rec3569  03/13/2010 09:59 PM Report

Once again, this administration, which promised transparency is behind closed doors ...... what are they afraid of ???? who are they making secret deals with ?????.

Early in his administration, Obama met behind closed dooors (after promising transparency) with corporate groups including the lying murdering pharmaceutical industry.

They promised, on a handshake (of all things)to provide savings of 80 billion dollars to the american people, Obama said.

Brand name drug prices went up 9% in last year alone .... there is no honor among thieves.

Now, either Obama is a fool (he is not), or he is a deceitful politician without ethics who cynically misled the american people.

Both parties are corporate whores working for the same corporations ......

Choosing between a democrat and a republican is choosing between one criminal who says this and another criminal who says that.

Viva la revolucion ....

charlizecourriers  03/12/2010 03:45 PM Report

How does a viewer of this show find out its(the shows) ratings. I have never seen this information-ever. I can't imagine a more boring, self-serving, uninformative interview ever. Why?

ksjayhawk  03/12/2010 03:27 PM Report

After Pelosi's "no public option" statement today I would like to think her voters would toss her out on her ear in November. I see little to choose between the republican and democratic parties at this point.

Tisow  03/12/2010 01:00 PM Report

A death grip on the unraveling rope of power.

doodahdaze  03/11/2010 08:18 PM Report

Crony Capitalism... The profits privatized, the losses socialized... The Somalian pirate stock market... doo dah doo dah...

Now what is Nancy Pelosi el okie dokie yapping about now?

doodahdaze  03/11/2010 07:21 PM Report

"The bankers' pursuit of self-interest (greed) did not lead to the well-being of society; it did not even serve their shareholders and bondholders well. It certainly did not serve homeowners who are losing their homes, workers who have lost their jobs, retirees who have seen their retirement funds vanish, or taxpayers who paid hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks.[...] Never has so much money been transferred from so many to so few." - Stiglitz from Al Jazeera blog.

Is this what the republican politicians are referring to as "wealth redistribution?."

doodahdaze  03/11/2010 07:14 PM Report

Well written REMant.

Now I'm going to try and find that Al Jazeera roundtable with Stiglitz.

REMant  03/11/2010 01:22 PM Report

So now it is health insurance reform not health care reform. That these bills contain endless gifts to the very same insurance cos goes a ways toward explaining the admin's new sense of outrage and betrayal. But call it what you want, there isn't any point to it when the Fed's monetary policy accounts for most of the price, and your own budget deficits, much of the rest, leaving little to be accounted for by the publics' apparently bottomless desire for security, which gives unscrupulous entrepreneurs their opportunity. Actually, I'm a little surprised the admin doesn't consider the rise in health care costs "stimulus." The Dow's return to a point about the same as the late 90's is certainly no advantage; price rises - stock, real estate, or whatever - help no one. In any case the purchasing power of the dollar, except for some of the things in the govt's carefully-managed market basket, is a great deal less than it was 10-15 yrs ago. And all of this is due to printed and borrowed money, which is what is dictating the rise in health care prices, as well. Anyone who says this measure or any like it will reduce the deficit, while keeping the same level of quality, is either ignorant or dissembling. It will much more likely make owning health care stocks as attractive as owning utilities, or given the govt's propensities, defense stocks, which I believe is the game these folks are playing. If the bills' regulations actually result in higher productivity it will certainly be a first. If you really want to teach the health care industry a lesson I suggest you start up your own clinics, hospitals and nursing facilities and direct Medicare, Medicaid and anyone else you care to include, to them. You will have a two-tier system, but who cares, if, as you allege, the second tier is better?

Also, a right is not an entitlement. That's not the definition. If health care were a right, we'd all already be entitled to it, and inalienably entitled, as well. Jefferson and cmte following Locke and the natural lawyers enumerated only three: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An entitlement is a privilege, because it is at the discretion of the government. For sure, he did not write that we were entitled to have the government provide us health insurance. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention anything like that either. What the Democrats always seem to be arguing is that they are entitled to what everyone else has, something Tocqueville wrote extensively about many yrs ago. If they keep it up this the country will look more like the USSR than it already does, not least because entitlements undermine the morality rights must rest on.

And the lady doth protest too much. Her unseemly self-absorption, cattiness and lack of candor gives women executives a bad name. It seems WETA, the major public TV station in the Washington area, agrees, for they decided not to air this program in favor of a fund raiser, perhaps the one they are advertising that tells us how to be "rich forever" by keeping our money away from the govt.

BTW, Charlie, just about every economist is a Nobel laureate, or at least a Sveriges Riksbank Prize laureate - they're running out of ppl to give it to - so I wouldn't get too excited up about that distinction. I saw Stiglitz recently on an Al Jazeera roundtable where three unknowns - two of them women, incidentally - ate his lunch.