Charlie Rose

CarolJ  01/05/2012 07:41 AM Report

Happy Birthday Charlie, hope your friends have a hugh party for your special birthday.

brick001  01/05/2012 03:36 AM Report

Al's the best.

I wish you'd book him more often than every few months.

Enough, with all the showbiz people. They rarely have anything to say and if i really wanted know what it was like for someone to pretend to be somebody else I'd ask a child.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/05/2012 02:11 AM Report

Charlie you played the clip of Rick Santorum saying that a Pyrrhic victory is what could happen.

Ah providence.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/05/2012 02:07 AM Report

According to Politico, Iowa Republican caucus participants are not your average American: In 2008, more than 60 percent of them earned more than $50,000 a year, and 73 percent were older than 45. Almost all were white (97 percent) and close to three in four identified themselves as Protestant.

So Charlie, here is THE question for the panel: "How much time and money are we wasting covering this?"

Ricardo_Amaral  01/05/2012 01:51 AM Report

I understand that we have to go through the motions, but at the end of the day Barack Obama will win and he will be reelected.

These Republican candidates are going nowhere fast.

Anyway, after you read my predictions for 2012 then you will understand that it does not make any difference who is president of the United States in the next 5 years.

Economic Forecast for US Economy for 2012 and Beyond

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s&threadid=233861

.

eyalbar  01/04/2012 06:01 PM Report

Marc Halperin ---> who is paying you and how much are they paying you to pretend that Ron Paul does not exist? I believe in karma. May the karma hurt you for your corrupt establishment position. May you and others like you be exiled to the worse place on earth.

tabs  01/04/2012 05:37 PM Report

In watching Romney give his Iowa victory speech one had the feeling that he had the same demeanor, tenor and false sincerity as a TV GAME SHOW HOST. Later it was brought out that the speech he gave was the same one that he gave earlier in the day. One also noticed that the Romney sons standing behind him never blinked and that they had a certain Stepford child vacuous stare during the speech. Thus as one has stated before, that Romney is an "Obama Lite," in that the only difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney believes in the Free Enterprise system whereas Obama is into social equality through bigger and better government. Hence the Gingrich statement that Romney would only "manage the decline of America" instead of providing bold leadership necessary to resolve its problems.

The Rick Santorum speech on the other hand was about Heart and understanding Blood, Sweat, Tears and Hard Work. Mr Santorum laid it out that he not only understands this truth but he will champion the Working Man where the Democrat Party of Obama only wants to keep them dependent on big government. The most telling statement of this was when Mr Santorum said, "That the Government wants to be the conduit of redistribution of the wealth from the rich to the poor and that the only ones who are going to be doing all right is the government." This Santorum stance in affect undercuts and GUTS the rational for the Democrat Party image of being for the Little Guy. Mr Santorum also understands as Obama does not that the road to a prosperous American people is by promoting business interests that provide jobs. All and all a very effective speech.

In flipping the channels around a bit during the coverage of the Iowa Primary one landed on CNN. Here one had an epiphany from the tone of the Romney coverage by the CNN Crew, that the reason why the Obama re election team is so worried about a Romney candidacy is that the Democrats are looking ANY Republican candidate that is PALATABLE to them so that they can DUMP Obama.

REMant  01/04/2012 02:31 PM Report

I didn't get much from this, and the only person I got it from was Klein, tho I think what he said about Romney is wishful thinking. Gingrich made it quite clear why no sane person can consider voting for him. I think even Romney would have more sense about foreign policy, tho I suppose Newt was grasping at straws. Santorum's right-to-life stance, which I have no real quarrel with, likely had something to do with the outcome, but I think there's much more involved. That evangelicals nowadays can identify more closely with a Catholic and a Mormon than a true Protestant, IMHO speaks volumes about the decline of the faith, and also about the decline of American values - good old WASP values. Romney won among older voters, who make up the majority of caucus goers. Paul, of course, got the fed up vote. I'm fairly sure he will run as a third party candidate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, since he has nothing to lose, and I don't think it is all a charade. When the other candidate(s) become reconciled to that, I think you may see something unheard of in American politics - a coalition ticket. New Hampshire, much of which is now a Boston suburb, is, BTW, a much different place than it was in Loeb's day.

Richard_DeBiase  01/04/2012 02:16 PM Report

In this broadcast Rich Lowry complained that Ron Paul brought in Liberals and Moderates to C-PAC and the Iowa caucuses. What Rich and many other Republicans do not understand is that you will need to attract Liberals and Moderates to beat Obama. I voted for Obama last time, and granted I'll never do that again. But now that Governor Gary Johnson has been forced out of the Republican Party, Ron Paul is the only Republican left that I would vote for. (Note, I will still vote for Gary Johnson in the general election if he gets on the ballot.)

Below are reprints of two points that I posted about Ron Paul to yesterday's show:

First, it has been the position of the Republican Party, ever since the Reagan administration, to cut taxes as a way of forcing spending cuts; the idea was to "starve the beast". Ron Paul seems to think that this strategy does not work, simply because we keep borrowing money to feed the beast. Ron Paul seems to think that the only way to kill the beast is to actually cut spending. What do Republicans think is the alternative? To continue to borrow more money? Or to raise taxes?

Second, Ron Paul's position on ending the drug war is obvious to anyone who actually follows the drug war. Mexican President Felipe Calderon's term is almost over. Mexico will have to legalize drugs within the term of the next Mexican president, or else the drug cartels will completely overthrow the Mexican government. The drug cartels already control 71% of Mexican territory. The United States lost 3,000 people to an act of terrorism 10 years ago; Mexico loses 10,000 people every year to a reign of terror that no government could survive . The only people who say Ron Paul is wrong are either idiots, or are making their living off the drug war.