Charlie Rose

selfservant  02/07/2012 07:30 AM Report

Rarity defines value, of course the upper class is small, those who know how to game the system will always bring in larger amounts of money, its not about morality its about professionalism. Don't blame others for your situation when you are exclusively responsible for your own wellbeing. I am living only two thousand a year over the poverty line but my choices brought me there and I take one hundred percent responsibility, suck it up my fellow poor people.

laserhaas  01/14/2012 08:42 PM Report

I've had my own personal battle with Mitt Romney for a decade.

Questions that need to be asked - (taking off the gloves)

Sankaty (Bermuda off shore 100% owned by Mitt the Pitts)

NeoStar

The Learning Company

Jumbo Sports

Kay Bee

Michael Glazer

Jack Bush

Barry Gold

Stage Stores

Liquidity Solutions

eToys

and - the Biggie

PAUL TRAUB

winter  01/10/2012 10:55 PM Report

Doesn't want to reveal his tax returns huh. I'm thinking, off shore shell corporations and tax shelters in the Caymans? Hell, if they can't reach people who've had them for decades w/o any REAL action ever being taken then what makes me think that someone with the profile level Romneys reached wouldn't know the right people in the right places too. Public cynicism and reportage on the subject can be marginalized given what floodgates any real reform on that front would open. Freedom, the first line of defense for how our gangsters do business.

chawlynoze  01/07/2012 03:59 PM Report

I am looking forward to the debates between President ObamaDrama and the Mr. MittsterMeister, myself (it should be a Clash Unheard of, for the ages).

They'll "throw the covers off each other", and then, voowahlah, they'll be standing there pretty the same as before, and pretty much the same as each other, 'happy Pragmatic politicians'.

As it stands now, I was laid-off when Bush was President, it took several Painful years, but now I am gainfully employed once again (No Thanks to Any Republican RHETORIC that I can think of)(in fact, their self-serving recklessness may have ruined my chances at getting a better job). So, ole Mittster, better walk on water before he'll get my vote.

winter  01/07/2012 10:51 AM Report

Looking forward to the debates between Obama and Romney. Obama has much to draw from to throw off the covers

of what Romney is pretending to stand for. Romney would make Cheney and all the Haliburton contracts look like the Gates Foundation. Americans don't know how good they have it with Obama. Whatever compromises he's made were the only way a working peoples President can unfortunately even get elected ...see Kucinich. Its almost funny really, not only do they not want to regulate the financial environment that caused the meltdown, they actually want to elect as President a wall st. variety huckster. When you're skating on thin ice, your safety is in your speed.

Christopher  01/06/2012 04:31 AM Report

I just think he is the best candidate, a real competent manager who gets the job done.

Gelles  01/06/2012 01:16 AM Report

[Repeating last post:]

..... "So which idea moves YOU? Idea 1, of course: because it is easiest to follow. All you need to do is exactly what you like -- until you're in the toilet and have heard it start to flush."

www.outputbasedmoney.info/.crs.htm

Gelles  01/06/2012 01:09 AM Report

The contending ideas on HOW TO CREATE A MORE PROSPEROUS AND FAIR a system for production and distribution of necessary individual WEALTH are not well defined at present by those running president or those writing to this archive.

Idea 1 is called rugged individualism -- it believes we need to win our wars and nothing more. Peace, the idea maintains, is self-correcting -- with little need of agreement by individuals on more than leaving each other alone.

Idea 2 demands cooperation by most individuals in a systematic approach to problem solving that respects human rights and the scientific method. This second idea is not popular except when Idea 1 has completely failed for years and left most of us in the toilet.

Where are we now? In clover or the toilet? NOT IN EITHER PLACE -- you observe.

So which idea moves YOU? Idea i, of course: because it it easiest to follow. All you need to do exactly what you like -- until you're in the toilet and have heard its start to flush.

chawlynose  01/02/2012 07:05 AM Report

Actually, Capitalism CAN Drive the Democracy, but without regulations, the SocialistsElite (disguised as "conservatives") will drive it(Capitalism) right off a cliff. They STILL are Trying to do That. And without leadership that can say enough is enough (like a 'Buddy Roemer', who is Smart enough to pull Only the weeds (can't say that about ron paul)). The question remains, yes, Romney should be an Excellent 'manager'; but does he have the balls to be a real leader and stand up to the Socialist Elite, who, btw OWN HIS ASS.?.

It doesn't look good.

chawlynose  01/02/2012 06:51 AM Report

correction - Not "Democratic"Capitalism' as in the 'political party', no, but as in , 'DemocracyDrivenCapitalism' (the opposite of Socialism).

Anybody who calls themself a republican and a conservative, but defends the 'socialists elite's right to own the politicians and corrupt the economy, IS A SOCIALIST. so, Rush Limbaugh IS A SOCIALIST.

chawlynose  01/02/2012 06:20 AM Report

A 'MisterMittsterMeister' nomination WOULD Lift the Level of the Debate (assuming a 'Buddy Roemer' nomination is made impossible by the corrupt powers that be)(a 'Buddy Roemer' nomination would advance DemocraticCapitalism to it's intended Reality, but the 'SocietalMoneyManagers'(the SocialistsElite) aren't ready to get a real job. So that being the case, at least Romney would raise the level of the debate, compared to the rest of the nutty professors.

Santorum, may have his chance later; but not now; he's still too much a junior.

NeilMacCallister  01/01/2012 02:52 AM Report

Wow! ..10 days of comment, ..41 writings, ..and yet not one of you respondents here in this land of "let's not change horses in the middle of this tar-pit we are sinking into" dares to table any acknowledgement of our bankrupted national budget, world-shattering national debt, or our recklessly 'highest-ever-in-history' deficits!

What is wrong with you people?

Would your love of a particular car compel you and all your children to stay in it as it plummets over a cliff?

What are you thinking????

Mitt Romney graduated cum laude from Harvard with a double-degree, simultaneously earning both a J.D. Law degree and a Masters in Business Administration! ..he was in the top one-third of his law class, and the top 5% of that MBA class!!!

Aren't we tired of living poor and jobless???

Couldn't we use someone with these economic management skills to lead us out??? ..If not Romney, who?????

Sheesh!

chawlynose  12/31/2011 07:49 AM Report

The Mittster Meister crys, 'Play Misty for me Governor Christy'. Misty Christy says, "me likes Mittster Meister" and commands his sheep to do so as well, and then eats a big bowl of spaghetti; that buys with his hard earned money, because he's 'a Conservative', and that's what "conservatives" do. And so it is written

chawlynose  12/31/2011 07:19 AM Report

'Mister Mittster Meister' , is on the offensive now, and soon will blitzkrieg his tank tracks all over 'Das Newt's desperate pancaked face.

Run for your Lives!

winter  12/27/2011 10:31 AM Report

Never stops looking for suckers.

chawlynose  12/24/2011 06:56 AM Report

If he wasn't a Mormon, I don't think I'd trust him.

The good thing about Mormons, is they force each other to be good; and although they can be hypocrites and bullshitters, it's less prevalent than in the mainstream religions (where stealing and cheating is more predominant).

chawlynose  12/24/2011 06:30 AM Report

The Ole Mittster! In Our Mittster! ... :)

Mittster Mittster Mittster! .. How could you?! :(

How does 'Protecting' and 'abetting' the corrupt interests (to put it mildly) of "insurance company executives and wall street all these bad people" (LOL), how does All That, encourage and motivate Freedom and INGENUITY that "will lift up the rest of the world" in Exceptional American Tradition?. It seems to me, that, Doing That (which is what you propose between the lines) will be the beginning of the end of American Freedom to INNOVATE (credit default swaps, etc. and the pigs that created them; according to your twisted definition is INNOVATION, because their lobbyists own you, just as much as they own Obama).

Nice Try! You Ole Mittster You! :)

jamikel  12/23/2011 06:50 AM Report

Boy, it sure is difficult reading these posts and trying to figure out who's a Liberal and who's not -- "not" being the rest of the plant -- and "not" necessarily a conservative. "Virileine" sure has me stumped. So do many of the others posting here...NOT.

You people are insane. You're so closed minded in your Liberal constitution (minds), that you can't see the forest for the weeds, which must be the POV you're measuring Charlie Rose, and Mitt Romney's responses. Everyone's an armchair critic. CR's credentials as a Host, an Interviewer and a Journalist is beyond the reproach or bedside thoughts of anyone commenting here. That's number one.

And had you been listening to Romney, instead of digging to hear only what you wanted to satisfy your blatantly obvious bias against him (we on earth call it "prejudice"), then maybe from Mars, where you obviously must be living, you'd have grasped the clarity of his slight referral to a FACT of history. Kennedy's decisions, and most importantly, that idiot Johnson's Liberal Executive acts that extended way beyond anything Kennedy would ascribe to having done, CRIPPLED the country in every way.

There is a "mind set" among people of low aspirations, low intelligence, low historical contributions to the advancement of humanity and society in every way measurable; and this mind set is "give me." These people, and we all know who the are (and by the way, they come in all colors... so don't take my point where you think I'm going), live their lives, have lots of little babies raised in the like mind set of "give me" and "what can I get from society?", and "you owe me, because...", etc., etc.

The Liberal policies and laws enacted in the '60s and thereafter have created the very class that Romney was referring to, but was too much of a gentleman (and politician) to say it as clearly as I am here. Hopefully. Romney’s only failing, is the totally hypocritical conclusion that the Tax Code should be some form of escalating scale. He’s obviously NOT a “visionary” with intrinsic instincts about right and wrong, as I would hope.

The Tax Code shouldn't have ANY escalation It should be clear and simple: TEN or FIFTEEN percent of the GROSS RECEIPTS anyone and everything (corps) takes in, however they take it, right off the top. No deductions, no credits for some special contributions, or expense, or anything. Period. If you're ten years old and mow lawns for $20 (small lawn), you pay $3.00; if you're eBay and raked in $60 Billion, you $9 Billion. Period. There's no justice in anyone, poor or rich, being treated differently for their success or their failures. To do so, only instills a subliminal class division that impedes and undermines the balance of fairness to all.

And one last thing for all you Liberal gurus: Romney's “dead-on” about immigration. “Get out, go to the back of the line, and start over. You got ONE WEEK to prepare for every year you've enjoyed our country.” Period.

I was never impressed with Romney, and frankly, I’m still not, but he’s elevated quite a bit following the EXCELLENT, CLASSIC Charlie Rose Interview. I saw a human side of someone with a firm belief in “some” of the main principles that made this country great, SIXTY years ago, which has been sliding downhill ever since. He’s still got a long way to go, and he’s no visionary, but he’s eons of light years better than what we’ve got now on Pennsylvania Avenue. Even though, personally, I like the guy. He’s just no leader, and he too is no visionary. Hasn’t a clue. Way in over his head. Needs to go back to school. --j. Michael O'Hara

bonalibro  12/23/2011 01:31 AM Report

Krugman really took Romney to task, and Charlie Rose by extension, for the inflammatory statements in this interview. Recommend you all read Krugman.

Scandinavia  12/22/2011 07:20 PM Report

What went wrong Charlie? The program with Mitt was so, so under your high standard and quality. It was painful to watch platitude after platitude - usually you don´t allow this to happen.

winter  12/22/2011 02:26 PM Report

Taxpayers have to make up for guys like Romneys eating. They can't do business w/o eating now can they ...or entertaining themselves?

"Of course they're people!"

We should be allowed to execute them then.

Virileine  12/22/2011 10:21 AM Report

Charlie Rose is normally one of the best values on television, but this interview was utterly unwatchable. Unfathomable how a respected journalist like Charlie Rose turns his show over as a platform for a lying politician to trash his opponents---and Charlie Rose was nowhere to be found! No challenges, no followups, no calling Romney on his doubletalk. Politicians need to be 'interviewed' like they're in a deposition, and Charlie Rose clearly didn't have the energy to engage Romney meaningfully. Either take a vacation and prepare for a significant interview, or go back to interviewing movie stars and book pluggers. Giving Romney such a free pass was irresponsible.

Richard_DeBiase  12/22/2011 09:31 AM Report

In response to tbo88 12/21/2011 12:26 AM:

I normally do not respond to personal attacks but here goes.

tbo88, you clearly do not understand the magnitude of Obama's betrayal on the issue of medical marijuana.

In 2008, Obama got a lot of support from our side based on a campaign promise not to prosecute people delivering medical marijuana, when they are complying with state law. Based on this promise, many people got involved in delivering medical marijuana who otherwise would not have. These people filed all required state and federal paperwork, especially tax returns. And now these people are going to jail, and all the paperwork they filed, especially tax returns, are being used as the evidence against them.

What Obama did was entrapment, plain and simple. Due to Obama, the cause of getting people to comply with drug laws has been set back 50 years. Due to Obama, Mexican drug cartels look trustworthy compared to the U.S. Government.

Gelles  12/22/2011 04:02 AM Report

Courtesy the REMant suggestion at the start of these comments:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html [spelling modernized:]

John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity (1630)

WRITTEN ON BOARD THE ARBELLA, ON THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.

By the Hon. John Winthrop Esqr. In his passage ... from the Island of Great Britain to New-England in the North America. Anno 1630.

[The model ends on the following note:]

Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then he will have ratified this covenant and sealed our Commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but IF we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall [from grace, in order] to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking [more] things for ourselves and our posterity, [THEN] the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us; be revenged of such a [sinful] people and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to doe justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other's necessities.

We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make other's conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways. So that we shall see much more of his wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with.

We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when he shall make us [worthy of] praise and glory that men shall say [in] succeeding [generations], the Lord [will] make it likely that of New England ... we must consider ... "[it] shall be as a city upon a hill."

The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be [removed] out of the good land whither we are a going.

I shall [close] this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. Beloved there is now set before us life and good, Death and evil, in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his Ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it.

But IF our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship and serve other Gods, [for] our pleasure and profits, and serve them; [THEN] it is propounded unto us this day, [that] we shall surely perish [and be banished from] the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess ...;

..... ..... Therefore let us choose life

..... ..... that we, and our seed may live,

..... ..... by obeying His voice cleaving

..... ..... to Him, for He is our life and

..... ..... our prosperity.

====== end of John Winthrop's model =======

====== begin comment by John Gelles ======

Does this admonition to obey the Golden Rule and God's decision to demand GOOD over EVIL find obedience among our leaders and their followers in this election year? If so, can you name a leader whose rhetoric and record agree with you? Is the Golden Rule ever mentioned by a candidate or the free press in his corner? And what of the burden to prevent nuclear world war or monumental accident?

At Cern, Switzerland, (and previously, at Fermi Lab, near Chicago,) the God particle has been chased as a Holy Grail in Modern Times.

The requirement God set forth at His beginning that mankind be kind and sober in its pursuit of its own virtue seems less the object of our work than particles we will never see or know anything about beyond their arbitrary name.

Science may be our friend -- but only God Himself can save us from our love of sin.

Science observes. God commands. Man sins against both and expects to get away with it. Woe is the fate of every double-crosser.

rcbakewell  12/22/2011 02:13 AM Report

After about 15 minutes had to turn away - Charlie was AWOL .. let this guy get away with unsubstantiated charges , such as Obama is ' a failed leader " and a " socialist " . When Mitt got to the charge of ' class warfare ' I couldn't watch. Charlie should have anticipated this boilerplate and pressed him way harder. This interview was a dud and diminished my respect for Mr. Rose. .

brizz36  12/21/2011 01:45 PM Report

Dude you don't believe me? Watch it for your self. The biggest impression that i got was. The tipical mentality that most politicians have and that is that, we work for them. They for get that we hired them to make wise decisions so that justice rules the land. They work for us, not the other way around.

brizz36  12/21/2011 01:39 PM Report

It was amazing, Mitt spilled the beans on how he is sold out to Corporate interest. I am glad that Charlie questioned him the way he did. The biggest insult, was when he diss'd JFK. Saying that he had a poverty mentality. Can you believe this guy. That he didn't know why he left buisness for politics? Are you kidding Mitt???? Oh I don't know uuuhhhhh how bout for money? Do I dare say Lobbyist sell out?

pbergmans  12/21/2011 10:39 AM Report

I was not impressed. It was obvious that Mitt and Charlie didn't connect in any way. I will give Charlie the benefit of the doubt and say Mitt dropped the ball. He will need to be much more engaging and genuine if wants to win the nomination.

Mitt's unease with Charlie suggests self doubt. Not an attractive trait for a leader.

Gelles  12/21/2011 09:42 AM Report

Presidential leadership is the opposite of Dictatorial leadership (also called autocracy). The autocrat rules subject only to assassination -- a president under American rules must find consent among branches of government and evidenced public opinion attempting to protect what little we know of liberty and justice when other nations would suppress these two ideals if they could.

Washington, Lincoln, and all presidents since the advent of nuclear war have faced this challenge -- successfully thus far.

Russia, China and Islamic terrorists are two nations and one culture that confront our presidents at the moment with forces he must prevent from reducing liberty and justice to a shadow of their merited effect.

However, internally, our own institutions have become a near-enemy to liberty and justice. These two ideals cannot be effective when poverty and fear of it stalk a nation inside its own skin.

I do not think Mitt Romney knows enough about the threat of poverty occasioned internally by the richest nation on earth to effectively raise the minimum standard of living in America to a respectable floor beneath our feet. He would not stand before our institutions and read them the riot act.

Admittedly, we must avoid world nuclear war, abuse of our environment, total ignorance, and failure to prepare for and recover recover from natural disaster. So there is more to his job that preventing further loss of liberty and justice.

But Mitt Romney never mentions these elements of his requested assignment either. He wants a job for which he has no preparation. He wants it because it's there and his dad wanted it.

Obama is as unprepared for the job as Romney. He proves that every day in office with his failure to explain to the people who elected him how government can do everything we need that markets do not deliver to our neglected industrial capacity and on our dining room tables.

If markets fail government is our backup. Republicans have made our markets fail by abusing their position and the fact that Noblesse Obliges (Rank has its Responsibilities). Democrats have made our markets fail by embracing corruption as their way of life and deregulation of finance along the way.

If there is an honest man or woman left in the United States to run for president, that person will support the Second Bill of Rights (the legal entitlement to earn an honest decent living) and nuclear non-proliferation (fast effective preventive war to kill autocracy before its armed with WMD's).

Richard_DeBiase  12/21/2011 09:38 AM Report

Charlie,

talljimbo (12/21/2011 02:33 AM) is right. Now that you have had Romney on, you should give equal time to Ron Paul. Ron Paul may win Iowa, and matches up against Obama with the exact same percentage as Romney.

The mainstream media says that Ron Paul is out-of-touch with the Republican Party because of his position on the Drug War. But William F. Buckley Jr., Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute declared the Drug War to be a failure 20 years ago. When Nixon declared "war on drugs" he was talking about methadone clinics, not what we have today.

Charlie, you have interviewed Mexican officials on your show. Do you think that Ron Paul's position on the Drug War is unreasonable, or out-of-touch?

If Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson) switches to the Libertarian Party, they will take a lot of Republican votes with them.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/21/2011 04:16 AM Report

Stephen Colbert takes five and a half minutes to tell us about Mitt's Bain Capital:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/389132/june-09-2011/the-word---the-business-en d

Cut jobs, bankrupt companies, collect huge management fees, . . . doesn't sound sustainable.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/21/2011 03:43 AM Report

On playing the Olympics card (over and over and over) . . .

"He didn't want to give anyone else any credit," she said. "We became nobodies. A lot of us were hurt and angry. It didn't surprise any of us when he ran home and ran for governor."

So Mitt you saved the Olympic games but was it Authoritarian leadership or Dictatorial?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/18/mitt-romney/the-effort-was-olympic/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/21/2011 03:35 AM Report

Charlie, four years ago (and a couple of weeks) you spoke about Mitt Romney and his speech in College Station before that Iowa Caucus:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8826

Perhaps a question now about church and state versus religion and politics.

As your guests four years ago asked: Is there a right not to believe? Can Mitt still be a friend and ally if someone has never knelt before the Almighty?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/21/2011 03:27 AM Report

Mitt, can a party make a leader fail?

"He (Obama) has failed as a leader.”

If I sign an oath created by a guy--who should have gone to jail with Casino Jack--and then stay true to that oath no matter what happens to the country, then can I make a leader fail?

If I am a member of a party that marches lock-step with a goal to make a leader fail (and has their leader in the Senate state this is his primary purpose) then can I make the leader fail?

If Democrats sign oaths and march lock-step against you how then will you lead?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/21/2011 03:17 AM Report

Let us head over to PolitiFact and see the Mitt Romney score:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/

So 35 claims were true enough BUT 53 were either Half True, Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire.

Here are his Pants on Fire statements:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

Not good Mitt.

Charlie, let the people call the fouls. You keep your head in the game and move the ball to the basket.

talljimbo  12/21/2011 02:33 AM Report

Okay Charlie, if you have Mr. Romney on your show as a presidential candidate, then you really need to give Ron Paul equal time, please. Ron Paul is no longer a second tier candidate (see polling in Iowa please).

MetroMD  12/21/2011 12:51 AM Report

Charlie Rose's worst hour.

Not a single follow up question of any significance despite dozens of inaccurate statements and ridiculous accusations.

Charliie - next time take the night off and let Karl Rove interview Romney - same result and you'll get some well needed rest.

Sad.

tbo88  12/21/2011 12:26 AM Report

Basically, I liked the interview because it was the 1st time I could get a good understanding of what Mitt is all about. I am not sure I agree with his illegal immigrant policy or ideas, but I need to reflect on that more. I did want to get the feedback from other viewers and figure out what pros and cons they see in Romney.

Argus9, I like what you had to say about the interview, because I as you did get something out of it. Romney just needs to relax and allow us to see his personality more so more Americans can feel comfortable with him.

Winter, I have no idea what field you are coming from? Left field for sure. More military spending and potential war down the road?

Others who wanted to hear more about Romneycare? Would have been good to discuss more about it, but down the road we will and yes it did appear to be a lawyer assisted canned campaign discussion, but helpful nontheless.

Richard D., you don't understand how business works in American. Romney was right to say that Obama should not have tried stimulating job growth by picking a specific company to fund and run to be successful. It would have been an uncompetitive balance and yes, those in Europe do the same thing unsuccessfully. It is not the same as bailing out GM and taking control of them on a short-term basis or the same as the banks and handing them a bail-out.

To finialize then Richard, dude. I don't want to smell your pot smoke on my street because you don't feel free to smoke in your basement. Your plenty free enough in American to do that.

tbo88  12/21/2011 12:26 AM Report

Basically, I liked the interview because it was the 1st time I could get a good understanding of what Mitt is all about. I am not sure I agree with his illegal immigrant policy or ideas, but I need to reflect on that more. I did want to get the feedback from other viewers and figure out what pros and cons they see in Romney.

Argus9, I like what you had to say about the interview, because I as you did get something out of it. Romney just needs to relax and allow us to see his personality more so more Americans can feel comfortable with him.

Winter, I have no idea what field you are coming from? Left field for sure. More military spending and potential war down the road?

Others who wanted to hear more about Romneycare? Would have been good to discuss more about it, but down the road we will and yes it did appear to be a lawyer assisted canned campaign discussion, but helpful nontheless.

Richard D., you don't understand how business works in American. Romney was right to say that Obama should not have tried stimulating job growth by picking a specific company to fund and run to be successful. It would have been an uncompetitive balance and yes, those in Europe do the same thing unsuccessfully. It is not the same as bailing out GM and taking control of them on a short-term basis or the same as the banks and handing them a bail-out.

To finialize then Richard, dude. I don't want to smell your pot smoke on my street because you don't feel free to smoke in your basement. Your plenty free enough in American to do that.

laguna  12/20/2011 10:05 PM Report

I am a big fan of Charlie Rose but was shocked and disappointed that he essentially allowed Mitt Romney to recite propaganda and campaign talking points. There were so many inaccuracies that Charlie just let go by without any confrontation. In fact, he helped Romney by changing the subject for him. It was really a non-interview which makes one wonder if there was a prior agreement that Charlie would not be challenging and basically provide a softball interview. It really made me miss Tim Russert :-(

All in all, the "interview" was a big disappointment and raises concern for me about how "soft" he's going to be on his new AM show. Hope I'm wrong...

gerryh  12/20/2011 06:31 PM Report

Mr Romney claims leadership experience but may need to be challenged re the basis for some of his capitalistic beliefs and lack of empathy for "illegal" immigrants.

He claims that we need more "rich" leaders to help the middle-class - he doesn't acknowledge that many of these leaders have exported jobs in America in order to make their "riches." And he wants to help the middle-class?

On immigration, could Romney accept that the American people have enabled many of these "illegal" immigrants to stay and prosper and build families in this country. Many worked for low wages doing jobs others did not want and they were "allowed" to stay by the "rich" upper class that condoned these practices. To now suggest they should be sent home to get in line after they "earned" their positions seems unfair and suggests a need for Romney to rethink his position. OK, stop future immigrants but those with families that support themselves should stay.

OysterCreek  12/20/2011 05:37 PM Report

Charlie Rose struck out! Why didn't he ask Romney about his gubernatorial accomplishments - like "Romney Care" in Massachusetts. Mass has the highest percentage medically insured of any state. There are few complaints about it in Mass. It served as a model for so called "Obama Care". Is it that part of the deal was that Rose would not ask Romney about "Romney Care"?

Richard_DeBiase  12/20/2011 04:17 PM Report

Well I have too many comments after watching this, but I'll limit it to just these three.

First, Charlie Rose may think it is politically incorrect to act like religion matters, but the Religious Right certainly seems to think that religion does matter. I'm not religious myself, but I've known many people who qualify as the Religious Right, and I've known many Mormons. I believe the Religious Right is more likely to vote for a Muslim, than a Mormon. Mormons are not at all shy about sharing their religious beliefs (hence the required two-year mission); it is my understanding that Mitt Romney believes that God was once a Mormon, and some day Mitt Romney will be a God with his own universe.

Second, Mitt Romney said Obama should not have acted as a venture capitalist in the solar energy market. But he also said that the economic stimulus should have stimulated private industry, not simply hired more government employees. I do not understand how he reconciles these two statements.

Third, I voted for Obama last time, but I will not again because of Obama's betrayal on the issue of legalizing marijuana use. In this interview, Romney says [paraphased] that Obama does not believe in the pursuit of happiness (which is true enough). But other news reports indicate that Romney does not believe that marijuana users should be free to pursue happiness in the privacy of their own homes either. This seems like another contradiction on Romney's part to me.

tonytrupp  12/20/2011 04:07 PM Report

Part of me really wants to like Romney, buy he seems just as intellectually dishonest as the rest of the GOP.

johnbekker  12/20/2011 03:54 PM Report

Horrible interview, talking about heroes, people he looks up to, imaginary situations where Europe is in a financial crisis and USA somehow is not? This sounded more like a republican debate where candidates get away with not answering questions but just giving us this generic "America is #1" answer and talking out of their asses.

cosmic_utensil  12/20/2011 03:38 PM Report

I wish Charlie could channel a bit of Tim Russert in his political interviews. Mitt got away with a lot here.

Of course Barack Obama can't unite two parties when the opposing leaders explicitly state that their #1 goal is to make him a one term president.

REMant  12/20/2011 02:06 PM Report

NB- I meant to revise my comment to "although of perfect age to have served in Vietnam, or protested that war, he instead...." before posting.

tabs  12/20/2011 02:02 PM Report

Mr Romney is authentically inauthentic. Mr Romney presents his audience with a NARRATIVE story but is never an ACTOR in the story he is presenting. Not once did he sit back and become reflective. Further his narrative is so seamless or flawless that it seems machine like or ROBOTIC. This flawlessness in narrative is too perfect to be an affectation and as such goes to the heart of the man. Mitt Romney is always like this day or night. There does seem to be a certain lack of awareness or internal life in the man.

winter  12/20/2011 02:01 PM Report

Seems Romney is opposite of Paul in the sense that he's just chompin at the bit to get us into another military spending spree-filled foreign campaign. Thats about the last and best joystick left for a President where he can exercise his power unobstructed. Probably contributes to why Obama is pulling troops out with little forewarning and effectively telling republicans, "YEA, watch THIS." But Romney, in my opinion, is not what the country needs right now. He views assisting middle class struggles as a by product not the focus of where resources and policy should be concentrated. And opening the floodgates to financial deregulation is the only reason his super-pac is in the game at all. The path he boasts of, that he took toward personal financial security that enjoys a retirement package of over 13 million dollars a year,

was investing in businesses, and siphoning fees in the hundreds of millions some of the companies of which actually went bankrupt, so the criticism he levels at Obama's vision for energy independence failing in the one instance would apply right back into his lap.

So how does building a stronger Staples business not simply result in taking market share from Office Max? Stock more printers on the shelves and "they will come?" I think --they will come when They, The Demanders, need more printers. Create jobs here only to take jobs from there -- then apply fee. When you're skating on thin ice, your safety is in your speed, and Mitt has learned more moves than Barry Sanders for gladhandedly convincing his base that he's trustworthy. Let us not double down on what got the economy over leveraged.

reward1  12/20/2011 01:52 PM Report

After Mr. Rose's interview, it became apparent to me that he sets up straw men to knock down. He seems to have had a desire to be President for a long time and will change his positions to match any situation. He is a man of little cemented conviction.