- Description
A look at the upcoming Midterm Elections with Al Hunt, Executive editor of Bloomberg News, Steve Pearlstein of 'The Washington Post,' John Heilemann of 'New York' magazine and Mark Halperin of 'Time' magazine
In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11250
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
brianbook 10/20/2010 05:29 PM Report
As a student of philosophy & theology, I don't understand the Tea Party. They are angry about change, but as Whitehead said "No generation can merely reproduce its ancestors." Moreover, I have faith in the U.S. electorate. The Tea Party are not critical thinkers, & have no ideas of permanent value. I agree with Steve Pearlstein's analysis.
kurtz64 10/19/2010 11:05 PM Report
I truly believe that the Tea Party is very underestimated by those in the media. I am a Tea Party supporter.
charlizecourriers 10/19/2010 07:45 PM Report
Steve needs to get out of the beltway bubble. The "Tea Party" is the biggest thing to hit the USA in decades. Think of it as TILT(the system). This 'burp baby Obama' cast of demofrats is more wasted time. Paris is leading the way, again, on the issues affecting the West. And it's coming this way, to a city near you!
doodah 10/19/2010 05:06 PM Report
An Amen to THAT. Mr. Mant.
REMant 10/19/2010 01:51 PM Report
Yeah, I think he was not ready for the job, but I don't think he's any worse than the previous nine of them, and perhaps more than that. We don't have a system that does a very good job of vetting candidates.
I'd be happy to vote for the Democrats if I could see the majority of that party had some sense of reality. As it happens I'm sure the Republican incumbent in my district will be easily reelected. For 30 years he has pandered to all local whims regardless of administration, however his challenger doesn't come close to being the right person for the job, either. There is a Libertarian candidate, so I'll vote for him.
I think the public has the right perception of the situation, tho they no less than some more exalted beings don't see understand all of the half-truths told and shenanigans pulled by our leadership. The govt did not make money on TARP, the public paid for it, or will. This is outright lying, just like alleging we have only around 10 percent unemployment, and leaving food and gas out of inflation, because they are too "volatile," and real estate altogether. Or saying ppl are in poverty if they fall below an absolute income threshold.
I don't think there's anything either party has done or could have done to make any difference, tho I don't agree with the idea that they will necessarily vote party even tho polling finds that while they may say they want compromise they don't often vote for it. I have voted against whoever is in power for years, and I'm sure I am not alone. I think only two of the presidential candidates I've have voted for were elected my whole life. The public, however, it appears, has yet to entirely perceive the way libertarianism cuts across the usual right-left party lines. Either that or the polls persistent in asking the wrong questions.
I do think tho that continued efforts by the Fed, with, I believe, the connivance of the admin no matter what they say publicly, to regenerate the kind of bubblenomics we have subsisted on since the end of WWII is bound to fail, and be a very costly failure, no matter which party is saddled by history with it. We are headed for a situation like Britain's if we are, in fact, that lucky, and some liberal govt emerges. We do not have to do everything here ourselves, but we do have to keep our ppl employed in doing something productive to sustain themselves, and it would be common sense not to rely unduly on foreign countries.