Charlie Rose

blank  01/12/2012 11:34 PM Report

charlie rose from outer space

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/12/2012 01:58 AM Report

Yes, who is more likable Mark? Who do I want in my home (via some sized screen) every day, sometimes several times a day?

I have some comfort with Obama and think I could take another four years. With Romney I don't feel the sincerity.

Then again there is "The Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report" and perhaps Obama just isn't funny enough. He does not provide the Presidential comedy material of a George W. Bush. I think I could love to laugh at Mitt though.

Yes, who is the more likable?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/11/2012 07:27 PM Report

God bless you Charlie!

Your sneeze into the microphone may mean you are getting this terrible flu I have had for 10+ days.

I hope your new two-a-day schedule is not exposing you to more than your 70 year old immune system can handle.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/11/2012 07:23 PM Report

Yes, both Obama and Mitt have interesting backgrounds but you missed the David Brooks subconscious name game (Dennis becomes a Dentist).

Williard Mitt Romney is about the same level of presidential name as Barack Hussein Obama.

Williard is a name most associated with famous athletes:

http://www.babynamefacts.com/babynames/namesakes.php?name=Willard

Mitt of course reminds one of baseball.

So the subconscious is on athlete--not President--with Williard Mitt but then with Barack Hussein the subconscious is befuddled.

What is in a name boys? Watch out for that third party candidate later this year.

tabs  01/11/2012 03:12 PM Report

Mitt Romney is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Most Republicans let alone Americans in general are still very ambivalent about Mr Romney. However they are beginning to look and see if there is anything that they like about him, so that they can vote for him. As previously stated the Democrats including the Liberal media tend to like Mitt as he is palatable enough for them to vote for, so that they don't have to vote for Obama. In America there is an awful comeuppance for men who are made into heroes and fail to live up to expectations.

Mr Mant in his comments seems to have a handle on why Mr Romney really has the fire in the gut to run for President. Which is far more knowledge than the candidate himself has or has revealed. With Mr Romney the rational is either he wants to feel that his father would be proud of him and/or most likely to fulfill a dream that his father could not achieve. Here one has a sense of it being more of a gift than a competition. Which is akin to the JFK fulfillment of a dream that Joe knew he could not fulfill himself.

REMant  01/11/2012 11:27 AM Report

My guess is that Mr Romney liked NH's tax laws. He won however by less than 40% and the second and third runners-up together totaled more than that, both of them libertarians. The rest of the field can be said to be evangelical or Reaganite. But this is NH. It is highly unlikely he can do as well in most of the South and a good part of the Midwest.

Tho he is being backed by very big money, lives in the state, and was governor of a neighboring state to which many commute daily, or have retired from, he could do no better. If he should come away with the nomination, I think, therefore, it highly unlikely he will win the election even without a third party challenge. But in SC you can certainly expect a lot of negative ads from Romney (read Bush) supporters just as they have produced in previous primaries.

Huntsman showed a lot better than I feared he might, and I think he will continue to improve. I would not be surprised to see him eventually settled on as a compromise candidate, which Romney, it appears, can never be.

I am not sure I understand Mr Hunt's point about "common touch." I presume he is not talking about populism, but mastering the art of condescension and patronization, which FDR and Reagan had in abundance, and many ppl just eat up.

The Wash Post and other liberal media have been all set to anoint Romney since the race began. I suspect this is due in large measure because of their predilection for monarchy, but I'm thinking they've also largely given up on Obama over his failure to support Israel and invade or bomb as much of the Middle East as they'd prefer, or maybe not spending enough money. I am not sure just how liberal that is.

Too, Romney seems to share with George W. the feeling that he was not only born to the purple, but also that he must outshine his father. I don't think ppl strive for elected office or to be successful in any line of endeavor without having a sense that they must show someone up. That's really what all this campaigning and punditry is about, isn't it? A lot of ppl think its absence means, say in someone like Ron Paul, they are somehow spiteful and envious of "success," if not outright subversives. It's something I think very hard to get around, and this country today gives every impression of having been built on it. Some candidates mistakenly think they can, if elected, turn around and reform the system - Obama apparently one of these. But a "master" is always the tool of his "slaves."

In this regard kudos must go to Paul for scolding the press over Romney's "gaffe." Some of the other candidates may have been "acting like Democrats" in this case, but the press certainly was.