Charlie Rose

Gelles  12/13/2011 05:43 PM Report

Mathew Dowd offered detail I appreciated. But, we know we cannot predict by social, political or economic pseudo- science, any close election. The polls bounce around. I say 50/50 for Obama, less than that for any other name.

So the hell with prediction. Enjoy advocacy and day-dreams.

What better dream than victory for American moral and material leadership, over all other rivals, for many decades to come. THIS MEANS, we must find missing money by PRODUCING missing non-carbon-energy-fuel, water, food, homes, education, health, infrastructure, conflict-resolution, peace, etc.

All the candidates oppose this -- they all want to find money in DEBT. This is a huge mistake. Only a fool would search for money except as something we produce through work.

So I have to put great faith in Ben Bernanke. He needs to lead the global banking effort.

Next to money, as a problem solver, we need more diplomatic talent in office: here, I imagine Jim Jones as Eisenhower. If he is not positioned, Petraeus is. If neither of them is possible, I have some confidence in Huntsman. Obama and Hillary Clinton are good. We cannot afford nuclear weapons proliferation: and accident or worse will happen. So the election must establish that Iran will be attacked in time for an effective prevention of proliferation.

Preventing terrorism, nuclear accident, and world war are obvious objectives. Less obvious but of great importance is prevention of slow recovery and persistent economic malaise. Here taxes are very much an issue. We need to end taxes and begin inflation protected savings and income protection for all as how to save the middle class and allow lots of great fortunes to be accumulated until we find good reason to wish they were not. It seems to me that un-taxed billionaires are not a problem. Low incomes in our system, which needs to run on high consumption by the least of us, is a real problem. Our system requires the least of us to drink clean water, breathe clean air, and pay for every necessity all of us want for ourselves. We have the machines to produce this minimum output and money to buy it.

loveoflamentation  12/11/2011 02:03 AM Report

Mr. Gingrich is a cog of the machine that continues this system that is currently failing. I feel like he would not be able to defeat President Obama. I think Republicans would rather give Obama another 4 years than run Mr. Paul.

chawlynose  12/10/2011 07:49 AM Report

The problem is, All the politicians are bought out by the Wall Street-Washington 'Connection', OR are 'Quite Willing' to be; with the Only exception being, Buddy Roemer , but he is being StoneWallled by, guess who? 'The WallStreet-Washington Connection'.

So the electorate knows that, and so there is no compromise to electing a 'known' CorruptDevil. The electorate is beyond cynical now but still pragmatic. So here he is, Newt Gingrich; or as I affectionately refer to him, Das Newt, ain't he a Hoot!

chawlynose  12/10/2011 07:34 AM Report

Zeeg Hail! Das Newt!

Launching torpedoes at unsuspecting merchant ships.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I told you all over 3 months ago this would happen. Now look at the stupid so-called experts; So Surprised! Never saw it coming. What a bunch of dumb asses. Why would anybody pay them?.??????

finalfantasytown  12/10/2011 12:28 AM Report

Whoa, that is a huge project. How about Lady Gaga? The mother monster 'born this way'. Which color do you like? Red or pink? The point is to attract the white giant dinosaur 'Rudy', whom we help, upgrade, and send to the alien planet. Deal or no deal? I am in hallucination reflected by rough materials or wrong combination.

finalfantasytown  12/10/2011 12:25 AM Report

Whoa, that is a huge project. How about Lady Gaga? The mother monster 'born this way'. Which color do you like? Red or pink? The point is to attract the white giant dinosaur 'Rudy', whom we help, upgrade, and send to the alien planet. Deal or no deal? I am joking, absolutely.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/09/2011 02:37 AM Report

Yes if you watch "Inside Job" you will probably agree with Matthew (and Michael Moore) that Obama picked the wrong guys for the economy.

We all know their record on predicting unemployment not to mention helping to bring the country to its knees with the Goldman Sachs triangle (Goldman, White House, Economics Departments of Columbia and Harvard).

Still I can forgive this when I look closely at Newt Gingrich (and even Mitt Romney).

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/09/2011 02:27 AM Report

Yes Matthew is correct, Bill Clinton is trying to force himself to say once a day that either he was wrong or he does not know.

You can see him say it here:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302601-1

at the 20:04 mark.

He is being interviewed by his daughter about what the 2012 election will probably hinge on.

Bill Clinton thinks it would be therapeutic for everyone in Washington to say this at least once a day too.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/09/2011 02:16 AM Report

Will the Republicans defeat themselves?

I would say yes unless they can get the Architect to go to the closet for "guns, gays and/or God".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/09/2011 02:13 AM Report

Yes, President Obama represents around the world. He has no axis of evil. He has helped our level of respect globally.

Perhaps Obama and Hillary can job share in 2013.

zb1  12/08/2011 08:08 PM Report

Dowd is one of those people who sounds like they know what they are talking about because they have been around so long they know the languare but in fact really don't know or care about what the words actually mean. The notion that he can't tell you which side of the table he is now on is largely because he is on the side of the table of himself. In any event he has missed the real meaning of what is taking place in today's political landscape: the only mistake Obama has made is the same as Lincoln's - thinking you could actually reason with the other side whose only interest is in destroying the UNION. The Republican/Tparty makes no mistake about it that their goal is to destroy government and their battle cry is "States Rights" (sound familiar). Saying Washington is messed up is exactly what they want because it demonstrates that "government is the problem". But its not Washington that is messed up, its the Republican/Tparty (essentially the party of the old civil war south). Time for Mr. Dowd to pick sides. There is no a moral equivilency between Republican/Tparty and Obama or the Democratic Party.

In the Meantime I need to remind you of a little fact and reality check:

WHAT OBAMA HAS ACCOMPLISHED:

- Saved the country from Republican caused full blown depression.

- Healthcare for 30 million people.

- Rained in Insurance Companies

- Financial Regulation of Banking Industry.

- Killed Bin Laden.

- Courage to go after them in Pakistan. (Republicans did not)

- Got rid of Gadhafi in 6 months, 2 billion dollar cost, no American Lives.

(Compare to Republicans 10 years in Iraq, trillion dollars, & thousands Americans lost)

- Beat Republicans holding country hostage over debt crisis.

- Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy .

- 3 Trillion in deficit Reduction (Super committee, Bringing Troops Home, End of Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy)

- Brought troops home from Iraq.

- Stabilized situation in Afghan (Republicans had abandoned)

- Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell (a vestige of Republican Bigotry)

- Payroll Tax cut for middle class.

- Extended unemployment benefits.

- Got China to reduce currency manipulation.

- Strengthened America’s Military Position in Asia to confront China.

- Financial support to states and local governments for police & teachers.

- Slowed illegal immigration and deported more criminal illegal immigrants then Bush/Republicans.

- Protected Social Security and Medicare from Republicans.

- Set back Iran’s nuclear program with software virus.

- Opening up Miramar.

- Fixing Republican Donut Hole Drug Plan.

- Saving 100 Billion Dollars on healthcare plan.

- Protecting Patients from coverage denial.

- More health and job help for Veterans.

- Saved American Automobile Industry that Republicans wanted to abandon.

- Helped get $20 billion Aircraft Sale for Boeing.

and more!

________________________________________

WHAT REPUBLICAN’S HAVE ACCOMPLISHED:

- Caused the worst economic crisis since Great Depression.

- Lied our way into a trillion dollar war in Iraq (that has killed or wounded nearly 50,000 Americans)

- Unfunded war in Iraq.

- Unfunded Tax Cut for Millionaires.

- Virtually abandoned Afghanistan.

- Did not get Bin Laden.

- Caused housing crisis.

- Turned a 3 trillion dollar surplus into a 5 trillion dollar Deficit

- Caused Banking Crisis

- Made the whole world angry at us.

- Sent millions of Jobs to China

- Killed millions of Jobs in America

- 911

- Held the nation hostage over the debt

- No healthcare.

- Increased the wealth gaps between rich and middle class.

- Assault on personal liberties.

- Ignored China’s growing power.

- Did almost nothing to stop Iran nuclear efforts

- Unfunded drug plan with donut hole

- Gave Tax cuts to the wealthy even as we went to war.

- Republican Appointed Supreme Court gave Corporations more rights then citizens.

- Republican Appointed Supreme Court blocked campaign finance reform.

-

WHAT TO EXPECT IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE ELECTION:

(Based on past actions and statements by candidates)

- More Tax Cuts for wealthy and big corporations;

- Cuts to Social Security and Medicare and probable effort to eliminate;

- Appointment of 2 new Supreme Court Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito;

- Overturning a Woman’s Right To choose;

- Deregulation of Financial Industry;

- Elimination of regulation that protects the environment, consumers, minorities, workers.

- Elimination of worker’s rights to organize;

- Ending healthcare for 30 million people;

- Elimination of regulation of the Insurance industry;

- Elimination of right to sue medical providers for mistakes;

- Elimination of protection against insurance company denial of medical coverage;

- Unfunded war against Iran;

- Elimination of Child labor Laws;

- Religious Takeover of government;

- Higher taxes on middleclass and poor;

- Cut in aid to Students and education;

- Elimination of Department of Education;

- Giving States the Right to discriminate;

- Economic Trade War;

- Destruction of National Parks;

- Loss of Millions of Government worker Jobs thereby undermining effective government;

- Attacks on Gay Rights and other minorities.

- Increase in military spending on wasteful programs;

- Keeping Troops in Iraq even though they don’t want us.

- Kill Consumer protection.

tabs  12/08/2011 04:57 PM Report

Now Comes Part Three:

Because one wears the cloak of Caesar and or affects the mannerism of Caesar it does not mean he is a Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, Reagan or Caesar.

tabs  12/08/2011 01:57 PM Report

Now comes Part Two:

Mr Rose during the Dowd interview you asked, "Is it inexperience" in Obama that makes him a sic poor leader? The answer to your question is that if it were an issue of "EXPERIENCE" one would think that the on the job training of nearly 3 full years years would make Obama a more efficaious leader. THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE, President Obama is as inept at leading the nation as the day he stepped into office. Therfore there MUST be another cause for the Obama leadership style and that comes down to PERSONALITY TRAITS.

One will reiterate to you once again, in very clear terms why President Obama is a POOR LEADER:

1. Barrack Obama's personality set is more suited for academia than the Oval Office. As stated so many times before BO likes to stay in his head (INTELLECTUALIZE) and does not like to be emotional. BO pushes emotion away as being something confusing and messy to deal with. This is a sure prescription of someone who does not do well in real time..(Make Decisions)as decision making involves risk and therefore emotion. He will seem detached as Gen MCHrystal noticed in his conversations with BO on Afghan policy. Further his intellectualization seperates him from using emotion as an intutive device, this seperation leads him to make false assumptions based upon intellectualization about the mood of the nation. This is what makes BO out of touch with the American people.

2. BO's was brought up by a very "Socially Conscience" Mother. As such he has a perception of the world as seen through the eyes of Social Democrat/Marxist. His chosen profession is that of a Community Organizer,as such he does not understand what makes the US economy tick. Rather his Economic Perceptions are based upon ideological notions of social and economic equality which are anthama to the business class. He does not see nor understand the other side of the coin, nor does he listen and learn even though he may give lip service to the contrary.

Further Mr Dowd stated that Preident Obama "has never confronted his own Party." Mr Rose this issue was addressed to you, in an email in 8/09 and is reprinted as follows for the edification of the matter .

Why Obama Will Never Be A Lincoln

08/21/2009 - 02:20 — tabs

This observation goes beyond trite partisan politics, but instead goes to the heart and soul of a man. It takes a look at the inside of a mans character and the "true grit" that he brings to the table.

To begin with one must take a look at the mans personal history. As everyone knows BO was a kid who was moved from family situation to family situation. The hallmark of this as previously stated was that he was always the outsider looking in, even within his own personality. This has given him the objectivity of the outsider, or one who has the ability to be a detached observer of events and feelings.

It was only when BO met his Michelle that he was accepted for who he was and given the comfort and stability of a home. That he found love. It has been reported that while on the campaign trail he would always travel with someone from back home to give him the familiarity of that grounding stability.

BO has always been known as a cautious individual, always evaluating the risk involved in any political move. Further he has always relied on discourse as his method of achieving his goals. These two behavioral traits leads us to the third piece and that is BO legislative history, he has always voted Yes or Present with his own Party and never ever voted NO against his party.

This leads one to conclude that within him himself he can not risk being ostracized by his own political family. He will always go along, he will never be his own man but be subservient to the dictates of his own party. He will not face the fear and disappointment within himself of losing the only home he has ever known. He is not willing to go it alone in the world if necessary and suffer the slings and arrows of being your own man with his own principles and thoughts. This becomes obvious in letting his own party dictate the terms of the Stimulus, Budget, Cap and Trade and Health Care bills. This is why BO will never be a Lincoln.

Lincoln by contrast was willing to face adversity and was willing to go it alone if necessary, to be his own man. . The most telling fact of this in Lincolns life is the fact that he rose above his own fathers ostracization of him for wanting to rise above his station in life, that of being a poor illiterate dirt farmer from Illinois's. This was Lincolns transcendent moment. He became his own man guided by his own principles and own thoughts.

One can now clearly see that the assesment presented above has PROVEN to be the REALITY of the Barrack Obama Presidency and as such was not only an extremely accurate assement but was PREDICTIVE in nature as well.

tabs  12/08/2011 12:56 PM Report

Mr Dowds assessment of the current political landscape with regards to the standing of various candidates campaigns was largely accurate, One can add that in watching a recent Romney interview one can see the desperation is setting in. That he once felt he had a lock on the nomination, and now he can now see it slipping away from him once again. One hears this desperation in the staccato start and stop in his vocal patterns. He seems more agitated. He is clearly losing his comfort zone. Now maybe we can begin to see who Mitt Romney really is.

Further flip flopping in the Romney's seems to be a family trait as has previously been expressed by one. For one has only to look at Mitt's Daddy George (R Governor of Michigan in the middle 60s) who was considered to be the GOP front runner in late 67. George Romney's political Waterloo came when he said that he had originally supported the Vietnam War because the US military had "brainwashed" him into thinking it could be won. This was his excuse for the flip flopping of positions on the Viet war.

REMant  12/08/2011 11:58 AM Report

I didn't think too much of any part of this analysis. Neither the primary, nor the historical analysis. I will tho agree, as I wrote during the last presidential campaign, that Obama and Bush were quite alike, and later that Obama made a mistake in relying too much on Clintonians. And I think the GOP could very well be split as in 1912, and for the same reasons, Taft being clearly the Tea Party analogue, the president being the Roosevelt clone as he claimed the other day. If it can be said that George Bush was a McKinley, the present fight, as then, is over his succession.

They were once very close, TR and Taft. Both graduated at the top of their classes, one from Harvard, the other Yale. They both early fought against patronage to their political detriment. Teddy, basically a political interloper, got kicked upstairs because of it to be made McKinley's running mate, and due to the latter's assassination, president. Taft, like McKinley, was loosely one of the Ohio gang which ruled US politics after the Civil War, and early tapped for higher office, serving in one after another, some simultaneously. But he believed in free trade and rule of law, and Roosevelt, who avoided the issue of tariffs and found politics more to his liking than finishing law school and later attacked the courts, didn't. Yet Taft's Justice Dept brought in one term almost twice as many antitrust actions as Teddy's in two, and he waddled right into the tariff battle. Teddy made headlines, Taft did the work and got the results. Dangerous tho it is (and was) the Federal income tax was passed during Taft's tenure to help lower tariffs, promote free trade and get around the reliance of govt on men of great property pretty much in line with the philosophy of the Founders. Teddy, on the other hand, came to the conclusion in the speech he gave in Kansas in 1910 that the only way to deal with corporate power was to oppose it with Federal power. It was more for that, than for his Liberalism, that he was called, as the president told us this week in that same hall, a socialist. In all this Taft was the successor to Marshall; Teddy, impressed by Holmes' historical interpretation of the law, to the Jeffersonians in the Dartmouth College case.

Roosevelt, too, like many around the world in the years prior to 1914, welcomed war as stimulus to virtue, lacking he felt in modern life, and he justified foreign intervention on behalf of democracy, for instance in Latin America. He was both a nationalist and a firm believer in the spread of Christianity and of the white man's burden, as well as an ardent Anglophile who raked Wilson for dithering over joining the fight against Germany. Teddy felt any German and Irish Americans who identified with the old country were un-American and he disliked Indians every bit as much. He was as strongly in favor of Americanizing immigrants, as in giving them a "square deal." Tho he was opposed to what we would call affirmative action today, he did appoint Jews and Negroes to office, yet also favored eugenic sterilization for those who didn't measure up. In short Teddy was, like Huxley, a Social Darwinist, laissez-faire more than Liberal like Spencer, but with a strong penchant for paternalism and strong government, what we have recently termed compassionate conservatism. Like the current president he compared corporations to slave-owners, Progessivism to abolition, but the problem for both lies in how to reconcile that with freedom.