Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/26/2012 02:39 AM Report

Yes, how did we get a 24 point shift in the polls in 10 days without a major scandal.

Are the pollsters having problems?

Are the Republicans so easily swayed en masse?

Gelles  01/25/2012 09:25 AM Report

On 24 January President Obama delivered a great speech promising an industrial strength continental power BUILT TO LAST and continuation of indispensable global leadership in the march of civilization from interminable wars to lasting peace.

He promised to PAY for these necessities in a reserve currency protected from more inflation than necessary and more debt than our systems of production ought to issue.

The problem with the speech is the debt he promised to reduce. That debt is a function of the uses to which it's put. And such functions are determined by political elections in which voters have more power than know-how about money, banking, debt and distribution of incentives and rewards that can lead to "built to last".

We are brain-washed to see debt and taxes as a good source of money when WORK is the real source of money with which to buy a "built to last" economy -- and debt and taxes are impediments.

Just "plain" hard work, however, is not enough. The President must understand and explain how to guide a monetary system of production to avoid deflation, inflation, stagflation and failure.

Our American voters have invited the failure of the past decade. If they want a magic bullet to recover from deflation and build lasting prosperity they must fashion it from work-based money and develop the tools we used in WW II to build in time of peace a system that is fair from top to bottom and side to side. It must merit the consent of labor and the respect of those within chains of responsibility and authority who are positioned to shun and prevent corruption, crime, waste and shame.

Experiment, feedback, science and imagination are all elements necessary to avoid the error of repeating what fails because we don't know any better.

Fast-talking, multi-tasking, work environments are in vogue. They can mask failure when misused. Bloated text and ugly design are also common. Do not accept them.

I liked the State of the Union Speech. I want its results to to form a more perfect union.

tabs  01/24/2012 02:32 PM Report

Now comes Part 2:

It is a stretch to think of Mr Gingrich as the contemporary Nixon. Mr Gingrich is far too free wheeling to be a Nixon. Nixon was loath to to express his true feelings to anyone out of the strictures of his Quaker upbringing. Mr Gingrich could care less about what anyone really thinks of him.

Mr Gingrich has more flaws than a whole 1/2 dozen of the characters in Shakespeare's plays. Yet as stated previously he is very smart and sophisticated. One could just see Newt strap on the 6 shooters Clint Eastwood style after the Iowa Caucus. Newt had the glint in the eye of a man who is now focused on the realities of the political game and is going to add new meaning to the vocabulary of playing hardball .

So how would a President Gingrich play itself out. The problem with Obama and Romney is that they both lack the inner fortitude to confront the status quo.They are in essence subservient to the status quo of business as usual. This is not true with Mr Gingrich, he has not only the intelligence but the political savvy to achieve the ends he sets out to achieve, and those character flaws just makes him unpredictable enough to confound his opponents. Moreover Mr Gingrich is not afraid to be bold and rock the boat of the status quo if it serves those ends. That is why Mr Gingrich would be a far better President than the bland flavored Pablum of Obama or Romney. America needs a man who can think and act outside of the box, especially at a time when politics as usual has not only become dysfunctional but is a good part of the problem.

JJGelles  01/24/2012 02:22 PM Report

For REMant~ "Cosey" UP and "cotton" ON to what you have in mind.

The notion from Dowd that Obama LOSES if economy is trending down at the end of summer was not bracketed with its opposite -- Obama WINS if the trend is UP.

I would like to believe trends are too hard to be sure of: after enough time they may be sure. At the moment whatever is the trend is too small and short-term to spot.

What will be sure in November is PROMISES MADE and PROMISES AVOIDED.

Both parties will promise middle class TAX CUTS for a while. Both will promise fiscal (budgetary) caution and a sincere DESIRE FOR GROWTH.

Both parties have failed the American People. Both should be abandoned for cowardice, corruption and congenital lying.

Global peace and growth need full employment systems based on money for investment AND consumption (of more output expected to reward such investment.)

We must rule TAXES out of bounds -- they slow private investment to a trickle. We must not take on interest burdens because taxes are out of bounds. QUANTITATIVE EASING is the affordable way to invest.

You say QA equals hyper-inflation. NONSENSE.

SAVINGS and inflation-protected savings accounts are an important part of the answer.

Subsidized automated supply systems are also a required part of the answer.

tabs  01/24/2012 02:17 PM Report

Through the proscenium arch we see three characters huddle around a table with a Moderator. The character Meachanm is an intelligent man who like all aging Lotharios, star is fading now that his fresh young face has revealed a dull unimaginative blade for an intellect to his NY patrons. For where in the world did he ever think to conjure up that Newt Gingrich is a contemporary Nixonian character? Then we have the Dowd character who bows pleasantly to the audience with his "authentic Romney" and then proceeds to dazzle us with an astute rendition of political adroitness. Only to utter the words that the Republican Party wants to "return to the past." Just because Ron Paul is an atavistic throwback to a classic 19Th century American politician; who had Great Britain's rule of the seas as a cover for their isolationism is no reason for Mr Dowd to make the assumption that the rest of today's Republican Party wishes to follow Mr Paul's brand of delusion Perhaps Mr Dowd should stick with being pleasant instead of being oh so smart. Then we come to Nate who carries so much weight that one can neither remember what he said nor his name. Finally the Moderator chimes in much to the astonishment of the three characters that he believes that the US and world are in a transitory period where the US is going to have to adjust its expectations and stance in the world to meet the new paradigm. That just blew ones mind that a long haired leaping known could be in agreement with the star of a TV news show.

john_q_public  01/24/2012 01:33 PM Report

Last week the experts on Charlie Rose all said that Romney would win. Now it's Newt.

I feel like I am watching commentators at a baseball game. The experts trigger their opinion based on the last result. Last in, first out.

Why can't the experts see that their opinions change every week? Why do have such confidence in their opinions when their opinions change so often? Why should I take them seriously?

Now my opinion: I just don't see Gingrich beating Romney because 1) I don't think the American population can relate to someone as mean and hypocritical as Gingrich, even if they want to use him to vent anger and 2) Romney is a much more serious person who has real accomplishments. He's stable. We may not relate to him, but I think most people want someone who is a lot smarter than they are to run the country.

I am not a Romney supporter. I wouldn't vote for either of them. Mostly I am complaining about how fickle the expert commentators are.

REMant  01/24/2012 12:52 PM Report

Well, I'd like to point out that the name of the PAC behind Romney is Restore Our Future, so the idea is not so Newt. But he certainly wants to invoke Reagan more than Romney apparently has. Dowd is certainly right about this. Some are calling him an Andrew Jackson. That may be true, but it is by way of Ronald Reagan. The problem is that Reagan never lived up to his billing, and neither in fact did thanks to the New Yorkers, did Jackson. IMHO therefore it would help him a lot if he would get a little closer to the libertarians. But I have never thought the electorate would cotton up to someone portraying himself essentially as another Bush. That really shouldn't puzzle Karl Rove. One of the nice things about all this debate business is that it gives candidates without a lot of money and organization a fighting chance, even without the aid of sex scandals and so forth. Despite what Executive Vice-President Meacham said I can recall Reagan as well making fun of the press during his campaigns, for instance the retort about paying for this microphone. Jan Greenburg I believe, yesterday evening remarked that Romney has based his campaign on his business credentials and his electability, that Gingrich had attacked him hard at just those points, and I don't think this simple fact can be discounted in his SC win. I doubt, too, BTW, that Henry Adams ever used the word "narrative." In any case, I would certainly think Newt can come up with a vision for the future. If not he can always call up Alvin. And unfortunately Rick Perry had the line Meacham is looking for: "Are You Better Off Today Than You Were $4 Trillion Ago?"