Charlie Rose

Demosthenes  03/07/2012 08:13 PM Report

Charlie,

I love you man, but this time I think you fell down a bit in making sure that everyone got equal air time. I was quite interested in what Jeanne Cummings had to say, but she seemed to get short shrift. This is particularly disappointing because the others, Al, Mike and Matt, are regulars and we are already fairly familiar with their insights.

What I am a little surprised about is that no one is entertaining the notion that Rick Santorum is running for the 2016 nomination rather than the 2012 nomination. There's no way he's going to still beat Romney at this stage, but if Romney wins and gets defeated by the President in November, that sets Santorum up pretty well for the next cycle. Your guests argue that if Romney is defeated, the Republicans will take the (mistaken) lesson that they chose an insufficiently conservative candidate and will rally around an even more orthodox conservative candidate in that next cycle. At this point, Santorum seems to be highlighting his conservative credentials in order to make use of precisely that dynamic. Given the Republicans' tendency to anoint the runner-up in the previous run, this would give Santorum pretty decent odds.

anne4444  03/07/2012 06:50 PM Report

When we look into the sky, we are all humble by the creation.

There are total 48 dimensions in our universe. 36 dimensions are inaccessible to us. Our souls can access 12 dimensions while this material world with plant earth limits us to only 3 dimensions.

Knowledge is limitless, so does intelligent being.

Our soul has no difference; we are united as one. Our differences in body, senses, sex, intelligence, power and wealth, is only the trap into darkness which prevent us to unite our other half soul in the lightness.

Gelles  03/07/2012 06:30 PM Report

Move 06:27 PM to follow 06:17 PM

Gelles  03/07/2012 06:27 PM Report

War will never be far away and out of sight. It may have morphed from blood and guts to cyber-space and only-money. That would be a blessing more precious than any other.

Gelles  03/07/2012 06:17 PM Report

We predict what we feel or want. Such prediction is no better than its opposite. I predict a Romney / Obama contest in the end. Thereafter I predict 50.5 for Obama and a 49.5 for Romney (adjusted for a total that will be less than 100.).

So close a race can easily go either way -- like the Kennedy / Nixon contest in 1960.

After the election there will be a race to the top (not the bottom wage) between the USA, Europe, Russia and China. The USA will win going away -- if we have a non-partisan cabinet. Else, if Romney wins we may lose as a nation to the plutocrats now in power.

How will Obama escape the plutocrats -- with the help of competition from high-tech firms abroad. They will see the urgency of full global demand and supply all the time.

Iran will have moved from a theocracy to something more practical in the new global commercial structure. Nuclear weapons proliferation will seem to have been put on hold. North Korea will be reforming to satisfy China.

Richard_DeBiase  03/07/2012 04:04 PM Report

I think Matthew Dowd is wrong about Ron Paul's showing in Virginia.

I think a lot of Americans want to see the Drug War ended; but anyone who says this is dismissed by the media. Earlier today, Chuck Todd (on his MSNBC morning show) was making jokes about Pat Robertson saying marijuana should be decriminalize.

I will be voting for Ron Paul in Illinois on March 20th. This is a vote for Ron Paul's position on the Drug War. I will vote for anyone who wants to end the Drug War, regardless of their positions on any other issues.

ShalomFreedman  03/07/2012 03:05 PM Report

The bottom line of this discussion is that Mitt Romney the likely Republican nominee is such a weak candidate that he has little chance in the General Election. There was unanimity in laughing at his narrow vote- counting strategy, his failure to be his 'authentic self' his being unable to 'think outside the box'. Al Hunt did indicate two factors that might make the President a one- term one, a large downturn of the economy and a war with Iran. This would seem to suggest that the President will do everything possible to keep his promise to halt the coming into being of a nuclear Iran, only after the election.

It was generally agreed that the Republican field is a weak one and will fight it out to the end and lose.

tabs  03/07/2012 01:51 PM Report

Mr Dowd is very good, one can hardly add anything to his commentary as he misses so little. He would get an A+ except for one little thing and that is that he has repeatedly missed the importance of what he has just said. Mr Dowd has defined the essence of the matter and doesn't even know he has done so. So he gets an A-. Mr Hunt just keeps on tripping over his Liberal bias, that colours his analysis so much so that one should only buy it at a Big Lots store.

Here is what the Panel danced around with all night and didn't even know the import of what they said. The Panel basically laughingly concluded that Mitt Romney is not going to make any changes to his campaign that would help him close the deal, that he is going to continue on doing what he is doing by the book and numbers. What makes that an important insight is that is what Mitt's LIMITATION is, that he is not able to adapt or think out side of the box. This is not only what is hindering him in pursuing the nomination but also is what would hinder him as Chief Executive in the WH. Mr Romney is a conventional wisdom, by the book and numbers, business as usual kind of guy with no apparent imagination nor courage to take the risk. Thus Mr Romney reminds one of Ron Popiele selling Turbo Convection Ovens on late night infomercial TV.

The reason why Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Barrack Obama etc can not change their spots (way of doing or thinking about things). Is that to do so would require a reexamination and revaluation of everything that one holds to be true about one self and how that effects ones perception of the world; and that is quite an existential undertaking which takes time and effort.

REMant  03/07/2012 12:17 PM Report

I agree with Hunt and the others that the results appear to argue once again that the Romney candidacy is not only in trouble, but also, altho they won't say it, FINISHED, winning handily only Va, where nevertheless Paul won 41% and no one else was on the ballot, Mass, Vermont, and Idaho, which has a large Mormon population, splitting Alaska, and also Ohio, as in Michigan. He is again winning only metropolitan areas in these places, where, suspiciously the vote was very late coming in, and it is very hard to see him winning them in a contest with Obama. My assumption is also that, without Gingrich, Santorum would have beaten Romney handily in those two states.*

Otherwise, Santorum took the border states of Tennessee and Oklahoma, and Gingrich his "home state" of Georgia. Santorum again lost the Catholic vote in Ohio as in Michigan, but this may have more to do with Romney's draw in manufacturing and urban areas than anything else. He has to be more concerned that he is losing these blue-collar types, but he took an overwhelming number of Ohio's counties and the next several primaries don't favor Romney. Beltway insiders will have little to say about it.

Too, Paul beat out Romney for second in North Dakota (as well as Santorum for second in Vermont). He continues to capture the young. In Va he won the county where Va Tech is located; Lynchburg, home to Sweet Briar and several other colleges; Charlottesville, the site of UVA; several counties near Radford Univ in the SW, as well as Warren County, which also has a college and, surprisingly, Norfolk and Portsmouth Cities. I can't see in these results any case for Paul's being merely a protest vote, because Romney won most of the rural areas. Paul is rightly delighted about what this may portend for the future.

The results show not only the split over faith, but also over liberalism, reflecting the normal tripartite division among traditional society, commercial society and republicanism. It has very little to do with attack ads, sound bites and the rest.

BTW, I thought Murphy's comment about Putin uncalled for, and in fact wrong, as well as, his back room politics suggestion and prejudiced plumping for his candidate. He must have thought he was on Fox. Winner-take-all based on the popular vote favors urban areas, and I can't believe should get anymore traction in the Republican Party than eliminating the electoral college. It, in fact, is Democratic.

Aside from such frat house sniggering this sounded like many sour grapes sessions on this program when Obama has fallen short of similar armchair QB expectations. And I'll say again that the exit polls DO NOT support these folks' perspective anymore than the results.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/primary-tracker/Ohio/