Charlie Rose

Shaniquah  05/14/2008 09:01 PM Report

I just loved Moulitas. He be so intellegent. He know all about those evil Republicans.

It is so refreshing finding out what all theys be do to us.

With men's like he and Rev. Wright the World going turn around.

Good for you for having hes on you show. That show you be smart man.

Keeps up the good work.

Keep ons telling the truth Markos.

Barbara Tantaros  05/14/2008 08:40 PM Report

Mr. Moulitsas is a disgrace to the Greek-Americans of this country

and also to his ethnic ancestors

Shea Conaway  09/14/2007 08:12 AM Report

I don't see how Mr. Moulitsas's ignorance of the candidates' platforms is defensible. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Moulitsas claims to be involved in political media and has plenty of time to explore the minutia of their policies. I think this interview draws a stark contrast between real journalists (like Charlie Rose) and Mr. Moulitsas, a blogger. I am not saying that all blogs are not useful sources of information, but it does appear that Mr. Moulitsas is only capable of espousing other people's ideas without knowledge of the facts that back up those policies or concepts.

As always, great interview Mr. Rose! It is dangerous to come on this show if you don't know your stuff.

Art Minds  08/18/2007 08:02 PM Report

Charlie, as fellow Duke law alumn, I was very disappointed with your approach to Markos Moulitsas, treating him as if he were a man of substance. He made it clear very early on in the interview that he was merely a web site operator, giving a platform to those whose opinions he supports. You questions to him about policy or philosophy were positive in one respect: you gave him the opportunity to reveal just how much of an opportunist he is by pandering to the blindly-following leftists or progressives, without the ability to explain or argue the merits of their positions. The one underpinning of the philosophy of the leftists of progressives seems to be that it is sufficient to only firmly hold a belief in a position, without need to explain, elaborate or sell others on the merits of your position, much like a religious belief. In my view, the failure to offer substantive reasons for supporting any particular liberal or progressive position has always been the weakness of those on the left. They seem to believe it sufficient to merely denigrate those with differing opinions, including the ridiculous claim by Moulitsas that Bush caused the bridge failure in Minneapolis. Love your show, and glad to hear your not taking money from the government.

Sameer S.  08/17/2007 01:07 AM Report

Terrific interview, as usual.

Though you pushed Mr. Moulitsas on certain questions, you certainly provided much desired direct answers.

Keep up the brilliant work.

William Jensen  08/16/2007 11:10 PM Report

Markos scares politicians. He scares liars. He scares those behind the currtians. He scares those who depend upon irrational thought. He scares those who don't want to face the facts. If you don't spend on infrastructure, bridges fall.

snz  08/16/2007 04:11 PM Report

Thank you for the informative and thoughtful interview with Markos Moulitsas of dailykos.com -- the trend toward a democratization of the public discourse to which Markos referred is very real, and it augers well for the future health of our democratic republic. One request: if you have Markos back (do!), perhaps allow him a bit more breathing room for answering your questions. Again, many thanks!

CitizenE  08/15/2007 11:08 PM Report

I've always liked Charlie Rose, and even though this segment was preceded by some extreme softball in relation to Karl Rove, think it's interesting how this particular blogger has become a kind of cult figure for the mainstream and the rightwing when in fact other netroots blogs are doing so much work, and even on his own website, Mr. Moulitsas, is not the featured poster.

As far as philosophers go, those in this thread who either bemoan Marcos only coming up with Thomas Jefferson, who was more than an agrarian, but someone who spoke of repeated political revolution, or don't accept Jefferson's bonafides, it's to bad he didn't say Nietsche, as that would have scandalized the whole bunch of you.

What's important for the elitists in the crowd here, who think that it is incorrect to criticize the Bush administration for its cavalier corporate welfare, gutting of the infrastructure, lack of concern for the environment, and disasterous foreign policy that has gutted national treasury and spirit, is that Marcos is just one of millions, an ordinary guy, whose views really are more mainstream than you are yet willing to acknowledge. What he did was simply open the door for all the rest, and that's the real message.

Travis Simpson  08/15/2007 08:27 PM Report

If you're honest with yourself, you have to admit that one of the reasons we enjoy this show is because the producers allow various aspects of the broader cultural conversation to show itself of the culture to appear on its own merits: unfiltered, uncensored and uninhibited. DailyKos is a part of the puiblic discourse and Charlie Rose is a lens on American culture. Any argument in the subtext that Markos' appearance on this program lends credibility to his venture was completely obliterated by the performance he gave on the show. Critical viewers saw that Charlie had his fun with this guest and that sense of humor about political naïveté, even if it comes across as slightly superior, is something we should encourage as a society. Perhaps Markos will be worked into the fold. As can be seen from this interview, whether he recognizes it or not, he has already indicated his detachment from the "netroots" political agenda.

All in all, there is something extraordinarily refined and honorable about Charlie's open approach to culture that is a political philosophy in and of itself. If you missed that much: wash, rinse and repeat.

Grace  08/15/2007 07:24 PM Report

Markos, as he said, simply built a website to allow millions of people to express their opinions and organize. It doesn't really matter whether or not people agree with what he says; he's not trying to push his opinions. He's trying to push dailykos and an exciting netroots movement that allows anyone to become an active part of the important discussions about our country's issues. Is that not what being a part of a democracy is all about?

Rick Andriole  08/15/2007 01:20 PM Report

Mr. Moulitsas is a nice young man who made my life a lot easier. You see on Monday morning I was going to play golf and it was raining (obviously Karl Roves's fault) but as I got to the course the radio reported that Karl Rove had announced his resignation that day AND IMMEDIATELY THE SUN CAME OUT and I and my friends were able to play golf. If I hadn't watched the show Monday evening I probably would never have understood what happened that morning but thanks to Mr. Moulitsas I do now.

Thanks for another great show

Rick Andriole

J. Reel  08/15/2007 12:49 PM Report

Here's my take on Mr. Kos.

First of all, he's young. Give him time and support and he may improve.

Second, he does not have a strong liberal arts background. (Charlie, that was not really fair of you to ask him what philosopher(s) underly his ideas: most people in America can't answer that question. Should he be required to be able to just because he runs a website? Well, I might wish it, but I am not holding my breath.)

Third, I liked his point that there are fewer gatekeepers now. Of course, there are good and bad things about that, but it is an important new reality, the implications of which we will tease out for years. (Too bad Charlie didn't ask about that!)

Fourth, I think his "redefinition" of Libertarianism is an important thing to understand. This younger generation does not fit into the same old categories as has been assumed for the past couple of generations. The implications of *this* is even more important, and gives me hope.

Fifth, one doesn't always need to simply give a thumbs up or thumbs down on a person. I long ago reached the stage where I am happy to learn just one good, new idea from a whole book, a whole program, or a whole conversation.

Thanks, as always, Charlie!

Steve  08/15/2007 01:37 AM Report

Mr. Moulitsas, whose segment disgusted me enough that I had to switch the channel, clearly showed his ignorance of politics, history, and philosophy. When someone defends the stock points of a group of people, regardless of that group (whether it be Republican=Bad, Democrat=Good on all issues or Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad on all issues), squirms uncomfortably when asked a Philosophy question (all he had to do was name one Philosopher and defend his decision, which he did not do), and then continuously makes associations that are not sensible and have little evidence, it is hard for me to take him or her seriously as an intelligent person. Nuanced and educated opinions are better than the Group Think that a lot of these political boards foster - Charlie asked him if anybody could post at that site, and he responded by saying that he was committed to the sharing of ideas, and anybody could post there... as long as they were a progressive. That, right there, says a lot (and I consider myself a Liberal).

Mike Cohen  08/14/2007 09:50 PM Report

Reading the above comments makes me think of Rashomon (although I imagine you're used to it); and reinforces for me my general admiration for that rare bird, the sincere politician who is able to articulate a position which gets people like the above commenters to agree on something for the common good. Based on his poll numbers and record of achievement (in the face of the most vicious, albeit substanceless, smear opposition which makes one realize that riding prejudice to political success will not be dead in this country for a long time, if ever), you have to count Bill Clinton. Obviously, both Roosevelts as well, and even Eisenhower, who spoke as much with his character as with his words. Finally, it would be nice to know why you canceled your interview with Mr. Ferguson, and whether you will expose the public to him in any time period in which his extremely well researched and knowlegeable work could bring badly needed information to a sadly mis-informed debate on Iraq in which the administration is still able to get away with the big lie that the War on Iraq had anything to do with fighting terrorists, except to create another battleground and more motivation for them without diminishing their abilities to create terror in other places in the world including here.

Minnesotan  08/14/2007 07:28 PM Report

The first time Markos blamed the 35W bridge collapse on Bush, I thought he was smirking, maybe even laughing. Then he made the idiotic statement thAT this bridge would not have collapsed under a Clinton administration. (good question Charlie) Then he again blamed Bush. The second time he clearly laughed about it. THEY ARE STILL DRAGGING BODIES OUT OF THE WATER YOU INSENSITIVE ASS. Come to think of it, it seemed like more of a nervous laugh like when you make a very inappropriate joke and then you kind chuckle so that nobody breaks your jaw. If I had been in the room, the nervous laugh would have been justified. This guy is a pathetic little wiener.

Jim Morrison  08/14/2007 04:37 PM Report

Mr. Moulitsas brought your dismal show to a new low. For example, why did you let him get away with saying he has "no doubt the Clinton administration would have funded the Corps of Engineers to the level necessary to withstand a Katrina-like storm"? Clinton's history of under-funding the military is amatter of record. Kos is clearly a nut job.

Diane Thompson  08/14/2007 04:05 PM Report

Please ask Markos Moulitsas back on your show and then let him speak without being interrupted so very many times. He may take a little longer than some to answer your questions, but he still deserves more courtesy and patience from you during his interview.

I think he is very thoughtful and I do not see him as either Republican or Democrat, but someone who wants the best for the people of this country. I liked what he said about getting around the gatekeepers in our country so that the greater population can have more influence in the decisions that are made at the top. I also agree that I don't want either government or business usurping the rights of the people in any way. Government is supposed to be "for the good of the people" and that does not mean just the wealthiest and most powerful in our country, but all of the people who have a right to be here. Thanks!

Marjorie Sunderman  08/14/2007 03:51 PM Report

I cannot tell you how utterly disgusting it is to hear you blabbing away when one of your guests is trying to express their point of view. I have observed that you only do that when you see an opportunity to bully someone who does not share your political perspective. I also am annoyed when you haul out the guy from ABCnews again and again. If I wanted to hear ABC's point of view, I would listen to them direct not warmed over on your show.

Kathleen Richardson  08/14/2007 01:52 PM Report

Poor Mr. Moulitsas isn't quite sure what his label is as well as his beliefs. How about "dense Socialist" - excluding his money, of course.

Patrick  08/14/2007 01:39 PM Report

Charlie asked what is "left." The term is vauge to say the least. But one important feature of the left today, in contrast, to its historical meaning, is that it does not necessarily entail being against "free market capitalism." This may seem like a very very academic point. But it is important, because the Republican party is suffering from its inability to talk about the role of government and the economy. Republicans of the Milton Friedman libertarian type love the "free market." And the Republican Presidential hopefuls still talk about minimal government, etc, so that the free market can work its magic. The Democractic Third Way politics via Bill Clinton etc made its peace in part with markets. That has given Democrats a way to talk about the relationship of government to markets that the Republlicans lack today. When the Soviet Union fell everyone thought the left was done, free market capitalism libertarian style would rule the world - but the Washington Consenus failed, economists realized that institutions and government were the key to making markets work, and the Democratic Party's left wing began slowly - but not completely of course - to accept the idea that market capitalism might not be the end of the world. Democrats have thus moved on, while Republicans are still using old Cold War ideological rhetoric to discribe the relationship between government (bad) and markets (good). The "left" thus has an advantage the "right" no longer does.

Patrick

N  08/14/2007 12:04 PM Report

Charlie Rose: Who is your favorite philosopher?

Moulistsas: (After repeating the question to himself) Er, uh, I am Jeffersonian. (Nervous laughter ensues after Rose bails him out by making a joke, clearly seeing that he is clueless)

This guy is overrated to say the least.

Poncho & Lefty  08/14/2007 11:39 AM Report

Markos was trying to present the viewers with the Grover Norquist dilemma of cutting taxes to the point that the basis of infrastucture that Democracy must have in place to exist is being eroded in the budget legislatures.

Yes, like it or not mostly Republican legislators as do some Democrats do not want to maintain bridges safely. To do so would require raising taxes as the infrastucture ages and must be replaced.

This is not hard to understand and not difficult to place the blame.

Who you gonna believe.... Governor Pawlenty or your own eyes?

Carol Fowlkes  08/14/2007 10:07 AM Report

I have watched the show for many years and love the intelligent conversation. I just need to express my frustration with the Markos Moulitsas interview; I actually wanted to hear what he was saying and grew frustrated when you continually interrupted and almost badgered him. This was so atypical for you. It came across as condescending and dismissive. Please have him again and give him more of a chance to express himself.

Andrea Johnson  08/14/2007 04:11 AM Report

Thank you for having Anthony Cordesman on the program. He has given us a much too rare intelligent discussion of the risks and consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. In addition, he talked about our responsibility as a nation for the mess in Iraq and what the long term results of withdrawal would have on Iraq as a country and our own reputation in the world. Too many politicians and citizens view withdrawal of our forcs in Iraq as a quick and easy answer to a very complex question without looking at the long term consequences. No one in the Bush administration gives the public intelligent answers about what is going on militarily or politically in Iraq or what the important issues are. It is refreshing to hear someone who has studied the situation and given serious thought to the issues and proposed solutions. I am tired of getting simplistic answers from our president.

joared  08/14/2007 03:46 AM Report

Thanks for the intelligent interview with Markos Moulitsas. I can certainly appreciate his description of his own political evolution. Increasing numbers of citizens are disillusioned with traditional political parties, that I have come to view as having betrayed their own political values. Aligning with any specific party today is difficult since some issues require a conservative approach, some even a libertarian view, and others a position that might be considered liberal. I think it's unfortunate when people lock themselves into rigid narrow views dicated by any one party machine. Thinking citizens should read and give consideration to his blog as well as others on issues of the day to gain all perspectives. Thanks, Charlie, for having this guest, from an appreciative viewer of many years.

William Sherman  08/14/2007 12:29 AM Report

Good for Marcos! Susan and Daniel, please tell us what this administration has done to improve our national infrastructure. New Orleans is still a mess. Port security is a nightmare waiting to happen. At some point, of course there is a connection between tax cuts and failed infrastructure. Welcome to Grover Norquist's nirvana. I don't think Mr. Moulitsas would agree that Democrats=Good (look at the hard time he's given Sen Clinton) and Republicans=Bad, but heck, any person on the street can see that Republican=Really bad public policymaking (war, debt, foreign relations, health care, civil liberties...).

Chris Baker  08/14/2007 12:27 AM Report

Anthony Cordesman was excellent and thanks to Charlie for having him on for a much too brief interview.

Daniel Hoicowitz  08/14/2007 12:03 AM Report

I completely agree with Susan. I am trying to figure out how the tax cut's and a bridge falling connect. How is it solely the Bush administration's fault for the bridge's collapse? In the words of my father "you can't argue or have an intelligent conversation with an idiot." Especially, in the case of Markos Moulitsas who apparently describes himself as a libertarian.

susan cronin  08/13/2007 11:47 PM Report

Your guest, Mr. "Daily Kos", shouldn't be given the time of day by you or Meet the Press[yesterday\ I had to stop watching. If he mentioned the falling down of bridges one more time and blamed it on Republicans one more time I was going to start screaming so I just had to bail out. And then Mr. Charlie Rose gives him the ultimate baited question by asking if Clinton was president the bridge wouldn't have fallen?.......what do you take your viewers for?? We are not idiots. The only idiot was sitting across your sacred table. Let me sum up the segment for you:

Democrats=Good

Republicans=Bad

Does that make you wish you hadn't wasted your time and mine....it should!!!!!!