Charlie Rose

Steverino  01/09/2012 10:11 PM Report

I don’t watch this program to listen to Charlie Rose or his guests sing the praises of Ron Paul. But to not mention him at all when reporting on the results of the Iowa Caucus is shocking! What a waste of time listening to these alleged analysts. Why is it that Jon Stewart has the only objective coverage of politics on TV?

roman2011  01/07/2012 03:18 AM Report

Charlie! You forgot to mention Ron Paul! What happened? Were you ordered not to mention his name?

Gelles  01/07/2012 02:04 AM Report

Over the next few years Obama or a Republican will be charged by our system to lead America from its present shortage of demand, jobs, income, and positive estimates of future success, etc., to a better place.

Many of us who comment here believe we, ourselves, ought to be elected leader. We know more and would do better than any of the few who are actually positioned to be elected.

Of course, when we say this in these words, we deny it. We say, NO. We know we would do worse than the worst of these guys (like Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum,etc.) -- because they have some experience in the political world and we have all got none.

It is true that listening to these candidates explain how they intend to find the money and the people to solve our problems leaves most of us angry and amazed at their ignorance. But that may reflect our own subjective feelings more than it reflects objective conditions.

This nation has a government and 300 million people whose habits persist from day to day and ensure that there will be very little change over time that is today predictable or likely to be accomplished on purpose by people who know the most or have the best intentions.

We are prisoners of legacy systems that resist change for the better without even trying. If this is our fate, we may expect China to lead the world to more hellish conditions than we have today. Yet, this paragraph sounds somewhat dubious. Maybe things are now so bad, they have to get better in a few years. Maybe we will lead the world to a better place and China will be glad to follow. Maybe the more we study the less we know. Maybe the next great war will be in cyberspace between our hackers and theirs. Maybe up is down and black is white. Maybe you stopped reading when I stopped making sense. When you had reached my second word.

tabs  01/06/2012 06:46 PM Report

So nobody could figure out who Barrack Obama would be in a classroom of children. Barrack Obama is a spoiled little boy whose Mommy told him his duty didn't stink.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/06/2012 03:06 AM Report

All the Republican candidates think God has called them to the race.

The Daily Show takes a shot at them:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-4-2012/indecision-2012---gop-almighty?xrs=share_copy

Funny thing, none of them think God made Obama the President.

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

So do they use God in vain?

Gelles  01/05/2012 06:55 PM Report

Related CR shows are at www.outputbasedmoney.info/.crs.htm

"Keynes Without Debt" is at www.outputbasedmoney.info/kwod.htm

Gelles  01/05/2012 06:42 PM Report

Charlie Rose is 70. He's learned plenty on the job, and at the "table" -- where he holds court: He sums it up -- "If you would be president, KNOW YOURSELF and KNOW YOUR COUNTRY.

David Brooks adds: "Get off your horse and on the ground. Eat a little dirt with the white working American men who do not OWN the WEALTH but who do HAVE the votes to keep things nearly as they are -- and not as scholars may say they ought to be."

Obama proved these working white voters could be split to join the black, brown and liberal voters who wanted change to improve the wages and chances of people below the very rich.

Now the ground has shifted from under the feet of all of us. Homes are under water. Unemployment exceeds 4 percent. Manufacturing is half or less than what it has to be. The American era may be at an end. A new era of shared nuclear power may replace the Russian-American duopoly: If China, Japan, Germany, France and Britain arm up to prevent a nuclear holocaust, America will have to partner with the strong to discipline the crazy.

Who is saying the facts as they are? Romney says more ships for the Navy, men for the Army and Marines, and missiles for offense and defense. He does not invite the EU, Russia and Japan to help unite all the big guys on the block to prevent WW III.

Other than Romney, I look only to Obama to say something relevant to a solution to our problem. (Rick Santorum may yet win, in which case I will look to him.)

Our second problem (after preventing WW III) is re-industrialization of America. This will follow "Keynes Without Debt" federal investment of fiat money to re-inflate America to pre-crisis levels and re-employ the middle class at twice or higher wages to re-ensure prosperity.

"Keynes Without Debt" can zero our debt and taxes. Nothing else can dot that. Debt is an accounting trick subject to re-valuation at current realistic sell prices. Taxes are a joke when you own the only bank that counts: create money enough to go around but not too much so that it's no more acceptable than Confederate or counterfeit notes.

What no one is considering is the power if Information Technology to help us manage our way out of trouble. This power is unique to our time. We better use it now. If we do not, China will. And they will make monkeys out of we who showed them how.

machngunjoe  01/05/2012 06:37 PM Report

uh wait one second. At around 16:00 Matt Dowd says, Sarah Palin has a gut check ability to detect how the country feels. As an Alaskan that feels like I have had my fair fill of Palin...Sarah Palin does not have anything close to having that ability. And if you want proof of that just listen to her speak. You will only hear sound bites, catch phrases, and taglines. Literally that's how she speaks. She is incapable of connecting to anyone that has a GED or better. I was floored hearing that from Dowd.

SirD  01/05/2012 06:22 PM Report

Astonishing, literally not one mention of Ron Paul who received almost as many votes as Romney and Santorum.

What a disgrace.

Is there a secret memo going around requesting commentators not to mention the name 'Ron Paul?'

Makes me sort of sick and then distrustful of shows like this that are normally so well done.

tabs  01/05/2012 05:36 PM Report

There ain't one of them candidates of either Party that is worth a warm bucket of spit. Perhaps we should embark on building the perfect candidate, by taking the best features of each one and incorporating them into one. The point here is that there never has been a flawless, perfect candidate from Washington to BO as each is a human being. We are simply going to have to make do with warts, limitations and all. Maybe the man we choose as a nation will rise to the occasion as some thought BO WAS going to be able to do.

Or just maybe the man we choose will match the times where the best and brightest have all run away. Perhaps the dictates of the Arc Of History will give us the man we deserve, one that is the embodiment of the political and economic system that we have built. Flawed men with feet of clay. Here one is reminded of the last scene in the movie "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" where the various men of power were bidding for the position of being Emperor.

One thing is certain, and that is that this discussion about this Presidential election cycle was as myopic as the rest. For they have failed to see the Arc Of History where we have embarked upon a new post 2008 era where the old power structures are giving way and a new paradigm is being formed. Here one has to be aware of the fact that power abhors a vacume and various combinations of new and old factions are going to be vying for power to fill that vacume. If one looks beyond the American domestic scene we can see that the same fragmentation and attending chaos is on the increase as the status quo of American political and economic hegemony is waning in power. From Europe, to the Arab Spring in the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan/India, China, South and Central America we can see that the winds of change are blowing on a global basis.

Saultxyca  01/05/2012 04:44 PM Report

HAPPY BIRTHDAY (01/05), Charlie! Seventy must be the new 45 or what?!

Cheers!!! Bravo! Kudos!

Fan since Nightwatch ...

*

Ricardo_Amaral  01/05/2012 02:10 PM Report

Charlie, happy birthday and have a happy and healthy New Year!!!!

Ricardo

REMant  01/05/2012 12:39 PM Report

Santorum seems to have inherited if not the mantle of Reagan at least his bi-polarity, because it seems he can't make up his mind whether he wants to be conservative or compassionate, fiscally responsible or a moral crusader, for freedom or authoritarian. He just talks out of both sides of his mouth the way Reagan did. We know how that turned out. And we've seen it exhibited by the current executive. See http://support.ricksantorum.com/issues and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

His economic plan really changes nothing except to cut or eliminate corporate income and inheritance taxes, de-regulate and de-subsidize. He has adopted phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but not eliminating mortgage deductions. He says that he wants to audit the Federal Reserve and return it to managing inflation, but offers no plan to stop printing money. He wants to balance the budget, too, but offers nothing except voodoo economics to accomplish that. It appears he simply wants to devolve power onto corporations, not individuals and families, despite what he says, and is not a populist so much as a demagogue.

I've heard it being put about that Rep Paul is to the "right" of Romney and Santorum. If that's so, I must have no idea of what right means.

If you ask me, Santorum stands for a sort of religious/moral crusade masked as welfare reform, civil society, and so forth, whose only real difference from the campaign for political correctness lies in whom it benefits. In any case, he openly opposes individual rights.

Fascism, too, thought it was restoring the middle class, and glories past. What it did restore was corporate hegemony and a military-industrial complex. Both Santorum and Romney are for American exceptionalism and American supremacy, the euphemistic "War on Terror," Zionism and the oil sheiks. And despite paying it lip service, against free trade. Both advocate starting a war with Iran. Romney apparently with China, as well. But neither has served in his country's military. We know Karl Rove and the Bushs are behind Romney as much as the liberal media; Rupert Murdoch endorsed Santorum. And he, himself, backed Romney four years ago, citing his "big tent" appeal.

Now Santorum tries to argue he's "a tea party sort of guy," but during his time in Congress he was directly involved not only in Bush's wars, but the repeal of banking laws. The only scandal he exposed was in the Congressional post office. Member of a fistful of Catholic orders, he even tried to blame the fuss over pederasty on Boston's liberals. He's never been much of anything but a politician, his evident ambition reminiscent of a Tom Delay.

The contrast with Paul is clear. With either of the above this country risks not only losing its constitution and values, but also its freedoms. It is not as though there are no legitimate criticisms to be made of liberalism, but these gentleman's are scarcely legitimate. Neither really invokes individual responsibility and self-reliance, and I'd say neither really believes in God anymore than we enjoy saying a Jihadist believes in Islam. And given their paucity of principle, their candidacy raises the specter of machine politics and America as the tool of foreign influence. And those who elevate winning above principle are, IMHO, beneath contempt.

Personally, I would not vote for either, and frankly I'd just as soon see them stretched out in a meat locker somewhere, if not hanging upside down from the Capitol. But I doubt either will get that far. No one in the country - not even in the GOP - wants to go right back to where it was four years ago.

Speaking of four years ago, Mr Rose would then wax eloquent about "change" and Obama's appeal to young ppl. Paul has them today, so where's Charlie, now?