Charlie Rose

curious1aboutpol  04/15/2012 11:36 PM Report

The future of American politics will be between the Liberterians and the Progressives. Federalism vs. Antifederalism. Otherwise known as Big Government vs. Small Government which has been the central debate since its founding. The "moral majority" will be seen largely as a fad like in american thought like the "great awakening"

It makes me sad to see NeoCons like Rick Santorum and demagogues like Newt Gingrich garner so much air time. They drown out rational paleoconservative/liberterian thought like that of Ron Paul. The older vanguard of the media fail to recognize Ron Paul seeks to change the agenda rather than win an election through "beauty contest" like tactics that offer safe answers but no new ideas.

There is a case to be made government institutions are too large, intransigent and inefficient. There is a case to be made that civil liberties have been curtailed. If the right centers around these democracy wins. If they circle around religion, corpratism, and ardent militarism we all lose.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/14/2012 03:18 AM Report

Right now Mitt Romney's favorable ratings, 34 percent; unfavorable, 50 percent. That is unheard of for a leading contender at this stage of the process.

Look back historically at what Republicans have enjoyed and if you look at the approval ratings that John McCain had at this point in the campaign, 53 percent; George W. Bush and Bob Dole, 49 percent. Again, Mitt Romney down at 34 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46915274/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-april/

Now it is Obama's turn:

If you look at the Gallup presidential approval numbers, only three presidents have been below 50 percent at this point in their re-election year: Truman, Carter and George H.W. Bush. Only one of them won.

So there you have it--nonsense.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/14/2012 03:09 AM Report

Nixon: also run as if you are running for Governor of Ohio. Followed by, Ohio is the new Ohio.

I bow to the all mighty Ohio where I should move if I really want my vote to count in this "democracy".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/14/2012 03:07 AM Report

Two agree that it is a 50/50 country.

Perhaps 30/30 with 40 independent is a better answer.

I know it is more difficult to juggle three balls but it makes the show all the better.

winter  04/14/2012 01:24 AM Report

Some of the more fringe hysterical right wing proponents would have you believe the reason for the high unemployment rate is because those unemployeds are simply lazy.

I know someone who heads HR at a midsized ins. firm. She tells me that for every position she offers she receives hundreds of resumes and applications from credentialed, experienced and overqualifieds. Opportunity has become musical chairs and alot hasn't even been discussed or explored anywhere as to how much opportunity of an entrepreneurial variety is siphoned off into too few hands.

NeilMacCallister  04/12/2012 04:18 AM Report

A "Circus"????? ..is that what Charlie Rose is calling anyone who votes against Obama's $15 TRILLION national debt???? ..Darn it Charlie!!! ..I guess you must be so God Damn RICH that you care not a single whit about anyone who has to still EARN A LIVING!! ..you, and Barack Obama! ..I Hope your "Dreams" die together, and soon, for the sake of our dying AMERICA!

tabs  04/10/2012 03:05 PM Report

A number of people think that the Obama "Class Warfare" rhetoric is a reelection campaign strategy devised to divide and conquer. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama himself has said that the greatest influence on this life was his Mother who was a "socially conscience person." Thus much, as a person who is brought up in a family that are sports fans and root for a particular team, Obama has picked up in childhood the ideology of being a socially conscience person as a core perception of the world. As such he truly believes his current rhetoric, and this is the REAL Obama. It was with the exit of William Daley as WH Chief Of Staff that Obama had decided to listen to his wife Michelle's advice about standing on his core principles. As such BO has gone to the bunker and primarily listens only to those old Chicago friends and associates who share his belief system such as Valerie Jarret and Mr Axelrod among others.

As a result of this going back to "principle" by President Obama there have been a series of political missteps that are driven by his intellectual over emotional decision making predilections. Even Axelrod was aghast at President Obama decreeing that the Catholic Church would have to pay for Contraception as part of their HC coverage. As who in their right mind would want to alienate a largely Democrat Party constituency like the Catholics in an election year? Further we have the leaking of possible Israeli plans to bomb Iran, the continuing venomous rhetoric about the Republican being "Social Darwinists" and his lecturing the Supreme Court about not messing with his "duly passed by a majority of Congress" HC Bill. Each of these moves is emotionally tone deaf as to how they would be perceived by not only the group that was mentioned but by the general public.

Mr Meacham should consider and reconcile the following after making his statement that Obama should get more credit for the Osama Bin Laden operation. On that Sunday President Obama went out to play golf and during the game was called away to return to the WH. Thus cutting his golf outing short. One would think that during such a critical operation that one would not want to stray too far from their command post in the WH? The standard WH reply to that train of thought would be that they wanted everything to appear to be normal. However cutting the golf outing short would raise the red flag of suspicion that something out of the ordinary was happening. This raises the question of why would President Obama be on the golf course when a critical mission was being launched, and then once there why cut it short? Mr Meacham any ideas?

cosmic_utensil  04/10/2012 02:24 PM Report

I am getting the Stephen Pinker interview on the video above, the page url is /view/interview/12285

matthewjharris  04/10/2012 01:27 PM Report

Good group and discussion. Always enjoy hearing some historical references and the perspective it offers us, rather than just the "poll talk" we hear on CNN and other 24-hour cable.

REMant  04/10/2012 12:38 PM Report

A better analogy than Etch-a-Sketch would have been an Indy driver configuring his car to win the pole, and then changing it to go the distance. Unfortunately tho politics is not really a race, and it makes no difference who wins if he cannot carry the country, or the country will not be carried, as the Obama presidency has amply shown. Romney has so far been consistent, not just in the application of force and publicity - they pulled out a lot of stops in Wisconsin - but also in appealing mainly to the wealthier and older. And he has not won any really important or traditionally red states, except perhaps Illinois. Many which he has won are likely to vote Democratic. I have never thought much of the idea that the best person to run against Obama is the man most like him, or whom the national media likes. Majority rules even less in elections than in governing. Santorum alleges the media is doing some screwy delegate accounting, too, and an attempt is clearly being made along these lines to stampede super delegates using the canards the party is hurting itself, the candidate needs to raise money, and so forth. A libertarian or evangelical veep would be a help, provided it isn't seen as just more proof of insincerity. As I wrote earlier I think that's unlikely to happen and he will pick a Quayle-type, or possibly a woman. Speaking of the presidential appearance, I'd not be surprised to find Romney uses Just for Men, and has had some cosmetic surgery.