Charlie Rose

ForumPoliticum  11/09/2012 08:29 AM Report

I did it again yesterday. The sadomasochistic part of my-self overruled my brain and I sat down at 7:00PM local time to switch to channel 609 to Bloomberg TV to watch Charlie Rose election special’s after-the-third-debate chat. It’s always been love/hate relationship with the programme. I like the format. I like it is long and thorough. I like how Mr Rose relishes his host status. I like how he never rushes his guests (and their brains) anywhere. Read the rest here - http://www.forumpoliticum.com/2012/10/24/my-sadomasochistic-session-with-charlie-rose/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/28/2012 04:08 AM Report

Romney: "This nation is the hope of the earth."

Lots implied with that statement.

Mitt-a-fest Destiny.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/28/2012 04:06 AM Report

To say you will create 12M jobs and then turn around in the same debate and say the government does not create jobs requires the Apple 5 Etch-A-Sketch.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/28/2012 04:04 AM Report

The big story on both Colbert and Moyers was employers telling employees to vote for Romney or risk losing their jobs.

I guess the voter fraud bs got stuck in the courts.

Tammany Hall with a new variation of "walking around money"--your paycheck.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/28/2012 03:53 AM Report

At the second debate they arrested the Green Party candidates for trying to be heard so it seems fitting to look at these quotes from "Frontline":

Sen. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), Presidential Candidate: Global warming demands our urgent attention.

MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), Fmr. Governor: The risks of climate change are real and that you’re seeing climate change. I think human activity is contributing to it.

Rep. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Fmr. Speaker of the House: We don’t always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?

NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), Fmr. Speaker of the House: No, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.

SEAN HANNITY, Fox News: Why would you ever do a commercial with Nancy Pelosi?

NEWT GINGRICH, Presidential Candidate: I was really stupid.

SEAN HANNITY: Do you believe global warming, man-made global warming is real?

NEWT GINGRICH: I— I believe we don’t know.

MITT ROMNEY, Presidential Candidate: We don’t know what’s causing climate change.

RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), Presidential Candidate: There is no such thing as global warming.

Gov. RICK PERRY (R-TX), Presidential Candidate: The science is not settled on this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/

quotes88  10/27/2012 08:43 AM Report

QUOTES&NOTES http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au/

A periodical of reading notes By James Farmer

Knowledge, while it is in aphorisms, is in growth. (Francis Bacon 1561-1626 ).

If you would like to support No-Commercial press, please

email this periodical to your close friends and work colleagues.Together, let's build a better civil society.

All rights @ James Farmer 2012.

MotherLodeBeth  10/24/2012 10:57 PM Report

One of these days I would like to see Charlie Rose have an actual balanced group of talking heads. Not one person was a conservative or Republican leaning in any way. All were left of center.

Never mind that President Obama doesn't seem to know that ALL men/women in basic training have bayonets. And that a submarine is a boat NOT a ship. Something a Mom with sonS in the military knows.

And Romney looks and acts like a President, and will make me proud when elected President. Have never felt proud with Obama as President or GWBush as President.

Bottom line is we need jobs jobs jobs, because folks who have a well paying job are able to buy their own birth control, and have medical coverage via work. These folks will buy homes and other goods which will also produce taxes which will help with the debt as well as fund needed programs.

MotherLodeBeth  10/24/2012 10:57 PM Report

One of these days I would like to see Charlie Rose have an actual balanced group of talking heads. Not one person was a conservative or Republican leaning in any way. All were left of center.

Never mind that President Obama doesn't seem to know that ALL men/women in basic training have bayonets. And that a submarine is a boat NOT a ship. Something a Mom with sonS in the military knows.

And Romney looks and acts like a President, and will make me proud when elected President. Have never felt proud with Obama as President or GWBush as President.

Bottom line is we need jobs jobs jobs, because folks who have a well paying job are able to buy their own birth control, and have medical coverage via work. These folks will buy homes and other goods which will also produce taxes which will help with the debt as well as fund needed programs.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/24/2012 07:57 PM Report

You have to be a complete idiot and anti-American to vote for Mitt Romney, just look at the list of the puppet masters that will...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=d8a0664d23b65ba1c756184719b4faab&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=516

.

richard-lipscombe  10/24/2012 05:05 PM Report

I have changed my mind on John Dickerson... He could become a future star...He is intelligent, articulate, sensitive, and sensible...I might well become a Dickerson fan...

Mark Halperin is already a star...because he is a professional...

The only thing that matters at the end of the day is that Romney is going to win the election by a comfortable margin... The reason he will win is that Obama is and has been a failure... Obama sold out to Pelosi, in the early days of his term, and for him it was all downhill from there...History will probably be kinder to Obama than it should be for one reason and one reason alone - he was the first black President....

For all who believed in Obama in 2008 - and I was hoping he was going to do what he promised - the failure of this President is enormous...Add to that the simple fact that Obama has no new ideas for a second term and one has to conclude that this Presidential race is truly depressing...

Cheers, Richard.

PS Again I say Al Hunt should retire, he has nothing to add to these discussions...Was he ever any good??? I doubt it but the world has moved on...

REMant  10/24/2012 03:59 PM Report

Whatever might be said about the content of this debate, if you want to know if I'd follow either of these gentlemen in combat, the answer is no. And that diminishes considerably my confidence in their ability to make decisions affecting ppl's lives as well. Particularly if they have, as Romney appears to, little acquaintance with the map;-)

Cuban missiles, incidentally, never posed a threat to American anything. The threat was continued American covert action against that island, and the placement of intermediate range missiles able to reach Moscow. After Khrushchev traded missiles, Kennedy renewed his attacks on Castro. Which, it would seem, is what got him killed, and which, now that these facts are known, should no longer surprise anyone.

It is indeed peculiar for ppl to think countries, particularly large ones, can be overrun or controlled by others if the populace is unwilling, and one has to come to the conclusion that if they ever have, it was because the ppl didn't care, which makes sense when it is remembered that central govts have always been weak, and mostly a matter of egotism. The only ppl worried about security seem to be the insecure.

Now, while I do think Romney is more likely to build up arms than use them, and Obama, vice versa, because of their public pronouncements, I think it unlikely I'll vote for either of them. But I also think, as Ron Paul says, we just marched into the Middle East and numerous other places, and we can just march out again. I think we should end aid to both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and if those guys want to fight it out, we should let them. We can certainly do without them. And the world doesn't need policepersons.

Romney has contested the aid the current administration wants to give to the new Egyptian regime. But I have equal contempt for Obama's crusade to liberate Middle Eastern women. We need neither Condoleeza Rice's nor Susan Rice's. Neither American exceptionalism nor American indispensability. When I see the kind of politics played in this country regarding these issues, I'm reminded how much of a disservice the hijackers did us. The reason the French, Italians and British went into Libya, and are now interested in places like Mali, is oil and other resources. It's neocolonialism, just as those Zionist subway posters imply. And that's why they are being opposed.

Commentators, as well as events in the region, have amply shown that the "Arab Spring" was no such thing, but rather escalating economic distress, and the reason for that is traceable to profligacy in the more developed portions of the world along with their grasping financial policies. To argue that we need to promote democracy there, by "increasing opportunity," is utter and complete hypocrisy. Ditto China, with whom we are engaged in a currency war. Neither of these men has a workable business plan. Nor will any such plan work, if the people of this country refuse to.

The president cannot in good conscience continue to blame the previous administration. He has done nothing different except to pander to other interests. The evidence is perfectly clear. There's no point to hiring more teachers. There's never been a point to pouring more money into the educational establishment. Those statistics are overwhelming. And replacing infrastructure is fine, if we could afford it. But it doesn't spring for itself, and wheelchair ramps certainly don't.

In addition, in the past decade there's been an enormous escalation in domestic spying and encroachments on the rule of law. By both administrations. Which only third parties, excluded from these debates, and arrested or made the object of ballot contests, have made a point of. Very "democratic" that.

The number of ships in the Navy aside, what does distinguish these parties in the area of military strength is that the current administration, despite all its bluster about democracy is embracing a doctrine of stand-off warfare, and wants to reduce expenditures on traditional close-combat weaponry and personnel. If it works it might prove as beneficial as nuclear weapons in the 1950s. It is, however, certainly at odds with counterinsurgency and all that. Unless you consider drones nation-building. And, again, it is undermined by financial policy. (I think the panel missed the point here entirely.)

For a while after the assassination of Bin Laden, the administration argued we could now withdraw from Afghanistan. But according Foreign Policy, Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, at the annual meeting of the International Stability Operations Association in Washington last week, said that "the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014." So much for that.

But I congratulate Schieffer for his deft handling of this debate, and the two candidates, too, I presume, for seeing that there's little point in slur slinging, not that Kessler didn't find some.

I think Democrats like Heilemann imagine changes in the Romney positions that don't actually exist, and the president has, as I've pointed out, his own problem with multiple personalities. I certainly can't agree with Todd, Dickerson and Halperin either. The administration itself dithered about whether to support Mubarak, and Kissinger reiterated we can't go around throwing old friends under the bus on this very program. Romney clearly came across to those who agree with the general GOP position, and, to those who don't, many times declared that we aren't, four years later, any better off in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. (Tina Brown IMHO should just go back from whence she came.)

As with the other debates the Dems would seem to have preferred seeing more tumult, and that may point to a central political difference. Dems just don't trust ppl. They always want regulations, interventions, something done, etc, and they don't understand self-control anymore than they do self-reliance. That's why they've started or entered almost all of America's wars: War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War (Southerners in this case), WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. The exceptions: McKinley was pushed by Democrats into the Spanish-American War, while, arguably, H W Bush's involvement in Kuwait was limited to defense of our interests, and his son is no Republican. Two of our eminent former general-presidents, both among the opposition, counseled against adventurism, and Grant avoided conflict with Britain and Spain.

Re polling, it may be wise to consider that voters in 33 states have chosen a preponderance of present Congresspersons from the GOP: Ala, AK, Ariz, Ark, Colo, Fla, Ga, Idaho, Ill, Ind, Kan, Ky, La, Mich, Miss, Mo, Mont, Neb, Nev, NH, ND, Ohio, Okla, Pa, SC, SD, Tenn, Tex, Utah, Va, WVa, Wisc, and Wyoming. Furthermore in only a few instances has a president won a second term with debt increasing faster than GDP and those were situations where business conditions were thought to be improving: TR, FDR, Reagan and G W Bush. State-level economic modeling, which has a very high correlation, is overwhelmingly against re-election.

tabs  10/23/2012 03:50 PM Report

After the debate CNN interviewed Mr Axelrod in the Spin Room. His parting comment was that, "ROMNEY WAS IRRESPONSIBLE AND RECKLESS." This is hard for anyone to imagine as being an accurate appraisal as Romney agreed with President's policies so many times. Yet this shows that this was how Obama and his friends were planning on using Romneys own rhetoric to cast him as being in the same mould as the Neo Cons of the Bush administration. But more importantly this also showed the Obama administrations INABILITY to adapt to changing circumstances in REAL TIME.

So what went wrong for Obama, the answer is simple Romney didn't play their game. Romney like Ali in the "Rumble in the Jungle" "Rope a Doped," leaving Obama to frustratingly flail away at thin air. To which Mr Romney said, "Attacking me isn't an agenda." The rest gentleman is sound and fury.