Charlie Rose

Mark Packham  09/16/2008 07:51 AM Report

Thank you for putting on this interview. Mr Rove is certainly a man I wanted to know more about considering how many myths & caricatures surround themselves around him.

Matt Dougan  09/11/2008 02:30 PM Report

Mr. Rose,

Just wanted you to know that their are those of us out here, who are educated and aware of all the fascist, Rovian politics the GOP is using. It is apparent they can't win the presidential election without subverting our democracy and what it stands for. Rove is the sickest, lying piece of trash our gov't. has ever had to include Bush and Cheney under that same title. God help us if the steal this election as they have in the past. It will take a true and possibly armed revolution to get this country back.

John V  08/21/2008 04:55 AM Report

I think I am a pretty observant person, but... I have some close male friends that I have known for a long time. I can't recall the first moment I met them or what any of them were wearing. The girls I have fallen for...I could probably tell you what they were wearing and the moment I first met them.

Patriot  07/29/2008 12:55 PM Report

Charlie, the next time you have Karl Rove on your show, could prepare a little bit ... and ask him about the interplay between the Bush - Cheney - Rove - Libby - Rumsfeld - Rice privatization of once-predominantly American institutions such as the armed forces ... in this case, how private armies (such as Blackwater) outnumber US forces in Iraq ...

http://www-tc.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/BMJ-1128.mp3 ... also, for a change, when you interview the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, and their minions ... could you ask some hard questions ... and get some concrete answers?

Alan H.  07/29/2008 12:54 PM Report

They've said it better than I can:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/22/rove-lies-iraq-war-vote/

Gina  07/18/2008 07:24 PM Report

As Karl Rove fades into the background of never-never land where he belongs. His 15 minutes of fame has passed. Let dead dogs lie.

Respectfully Right  06/18/2008 02:03 AM Report

Charlie Rose,

Thank you and PBS for airing your interviews.

I think at this point I should note that I happened on this comment section by chance, while looking to re-read your interview with Sandy Weill, and was not directed here.

Maybe to contrast the derision, or air what begs voice, the quality of your interviews and the comfort level and accomodation afforded your guests, allowing for relaxed rapport, and leaving discussion open, creates the refreshing distinction in your show.

horos  03/30/2008 06:02 AM Report

please subscribe news letter thank u god bless

jim  03/06/2008 10:43 PM Report

Listening to Mr. Rove clearly illustrates the critical principle that when reading "history" one must always be aware of who wrote it.

Independent  01/11/2008 12:25 PM Report

As Rove's non-answers show, he/his administration enjoys following the money. It is interesting to note, that post-Rove (The Base fatigue?), "Smart Money" top 16 of 20 political donors in 2008 are leaning heavily towards the Democrats: Goldman Sachs (73% for Dems), Morgan Stanley (65% for Dems), UBS (61% for Dems), Merrill Lynch (50% for Dems), Lehman Brothers (70% for Dems), Credit Suisse (47% for Dems), Bear Stearns (59% for Dems), FMR (46% for Dems), Bain Capital (55% for Dems), SAC Capital Advisors (96% for Dems), Investment Co Institute (61% for Dems), National Venture Capital Association (54% for Dems), Fortress Investment (92% for Dems), Blackstone (47% for Dems), Citadel (98% for Dems), Citigroup (51% for Dems), Securities Industry and Financial Mkt Association (53% for Dems), Renaissance (98% for Dems), New York Mercantile Exchange (57% for Dems), and Capital Group Companies (47% for Dems). Hmmm ... maybe Newsweek will analyze what percentage of their base is the same as Karl's?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=F07

Eduardo  01/01/2008 01:28 PM Report

History will judge, I predict, Rove to be America's Goebbels, who made fascist policies a reality through propaganda and take-no-prisoners strategy. Sadly, Charlie is usually quite deferential to Americans in power, no matter what the horrific consequences of using that power might be. I wish he had been more rigorous in his follow up questions; but then the tragic trajectory of the Bush administration -- the squandering of hundreds of billions of $, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, the fall in the moral standing of our nation -- has been aided and abetted by journalists not asking the tough questions.

cookie  12/18/2007 10:16 PM Report

Michael G - I just realized you may be a writer and take my jibe seriously...I was being playful albeit with a heavy hand. You did not commit any cut and paste illegalities and I am over and outta here.

Cookie needs pepto  12/18/2007 08:26 PM Report

Michael G - you cant epxect me to continue on this thread can you? See you somewhere else under another persona cause every I see Baby Huey up there I feel a little queasy.

Happy holidays to you, too. Ta ta toots!

Michael G.  12/18/2007 08:18 PM Report

Hi Cookie,

You still haven't answered my question. How did I "cut and paste" and what comments did I make that are someone elses? Perhaps you, me and Ms Wong should start our own "Point Counterpoint"....probably more interesting than whats on Cable!

Happy Holidays

Cookie   12/18/2007 01:30 PM Report

oh my it sure does! But wouldnt that mean you would be more respectful of intellecual property? ;-P

Michael G  12/18/2007 01:02 PM Report

Cookie....no I am not Michael Gambon....but I have worked with him.....does that count :-)

Michael G  12/18/2007 12:58 PM Report

Quick note to Ms Wong....actually is was a major campaign issue in the '92 Presidential election!!! Perot warned about NAFTA!!! Remember now? But, don't take my word for it....look it up....or get an historian to do it for you.

As For Cookie....you say that I cut and paste....put your money where you mouth is....show where I did.

Sarah Wong  12/16/2007 12:14 PM Report

Michael G -- I refer to the campaign issue that Senator John Kerry made in the presidential election of 2004 because there was an uproar against outsourcing. It was never made into a campaign issue in presidential elections prior to 2004. Perhaps a historian could be able to clarify this point.

Gina  12/16/2007 11:30 AM Report

LOL Cookie, Now there's we can agree upon! (Karl Rove)

cookie  12/15/2007 06:40 PM Report

Btw, this thread is about that lump of lying mashed potatos named Rove. Too bad we couldn't find a way to export him somehwere. His head is already in lala land.

Cookie  12/15/2007 06:38 PM Report

Michael G - clearly you are the type who cuts and pastes from other people without attribution. It is only forgivable if you are Michael Gambon. Otherwise, it is just sad. Especially if you ARE Ms. Wong.

Michael G  12/15/2007 06:31 PM Report

To Ms Wong,

Where have you been. Outsourcing has not been around or an issue since 2004!!! It has been an issue since the 80's!!!! That is when President Reagan decided it was time to dismember the middle class and destroy the Unions. You really need to study economic history. Outsourcing has led to lower prices and greater profits for a select few Corporate Execs and doesn't always filter down to the shareholders. But, at what cost. Jobs that allowed people in the US to support their families and provide health insurance have greatly diminished. Instead, outsourcing has lead to millions of recalls for defective and deadly materials; child and slave labor; in certain places including US territories; sexual crimes and forced abortions....if you like that form of Capitolism....well, what can I say...but, it speaks volumns regarding your understanding of economic matters and perhaps what you think is important. Mr Rose never confronts those issues. He pretends to be a jounalist....he is not....he is a conversationalist....much like Larry King. Can you imagine an interview with Hitler.......Mr Rose would focus on the stength of the economy, his hobbies; but, would he have the courage to ask him about the camps......I doubt it.

Cookie  12/14/2007 01:54 PM Report

I'll help. Journalism and conversation are not interchangeable whether Charlie is pleasant or not. I know you are ignoring me becuase the basic premise of your "dialogue" is faulty. Seems like someone needs to look up the terms being used and it aint me.

T  12/14/2007 12:45 PM Report

Gina/Sarah, i guess this is one of these re-occurring interviews where there is a disconnect between the mission statement and reality. Charlie practices "journalism" with those he fundamentally disagrees ... and with those people he challenges in a conversational/nuanced tone ... which lends itself to intelligent minds. However, with those he fundamentally agrees with (George W Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld ... take a look at the 1998 Donald Rumsfeld+Paul Wolfowitz interview ... where is the challenge to back up their creative intelligence/CIA bashing? ... then fast forward to Karl Rove 2002 and 2007, let alone the GWB interview) ... am I mistaken, or is there an "eager to please, preaching to the choir" series of amens coming from Charlie? That is not journalism; that's Council of Foreign Relations hawkishness of a Kissinger-wannabe.

Cookie  12/14/2007 09:22 AM Report

Is journalism and conversation the same thing to you?

Gina  12/14/2007 07:00 AM Report

I agree with Sarah Wong, well-written comment. Journalism is an inherent part of the conversation. The keyword here is (conversation) and Charlie states that at the top of his website. QUOTE: (I believe that there is a place in the spectrum of television for really good conversation, if it is informed, spirited, soulful. -Charlie Rose) It says it all right there. Charlie has kept to that promise. It is a conversation, a dialog between two people, four, five, whatever the number may be who sits at the round table. You cannot deny that each time he sits down with his guests to have this (conversation), whatever your disagreement is with him on his style, what you like or do not like, he brings us the knowledge, with insight and delves into the story his guests have come to tell. Charlie Rose delivers. And his guests return again and again. So it is good conversation that makes people comfortable to talk, and he is a consummate conversationalist unlike no other in this forum of television (journalism). It is from that in which we derive what we have come to watch, learn and be informed. I get something out of that. And that is also why (we) keep coming back again and again.

embarrassed  12/13/2007 11:50 AM Report

I thought Paul could spell.

Paul Wolfowitz  12/13/2007 11:45 AM Report

Karl, thank you for rising the strategic questions about reaching out, especially to minority voters. You are the most creative political thinker alive today. History will no doubt show that our policy work (whether yours at the White House or mine at the World Bank and Defense Department) was strategically in America's best interest. On a related tangent, Charlie, in case your viewers missed my security conference at the American Enterprise Institute about U.S. interests in Africa, and what forms of security partnership will protect them most effectively ... please visit the following AEI homepage: http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1571/event_detail.asp

Mike  12/12/2007 08:35 PM Report

Carl Rove ate my puppy, and PBS helped!

And here are 249 links to articles about why Bush is worse than Hitler, and why Iran is a great benevolent country that we should all love and cherish...

Oooh, gotta go, Homeland Security is at my door and want to send me to Guantanamo..... ....How dare you trample my sacred copy of "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives." Fascists!!!!!

Cookie  12/12/2007 06:41 PM Report

George - I feel your pain. But answer me this -if these people thought Charlie would give them a quiz would they show up?

Cookie  12/12/2007 06:36 PM Report

sarah - poutsourcing was an issue way before 2004. Where were you in the late 90's?

Sarah Wong  12/12/2007 06:30 PM Report

Michael G -- If you ask any corporate executives about outsourcing of jobs, you might get similar answers. That is a result of free trade and technologically possible. The uproar of job outsourcing occurred during the presidential election of 2004. Senator John Kerry used job outsourcing a campaign issue. He would impose tax on those corporations that outsource jobs. But unfortunately he didn't win the presidency and the tax issue didn't fly. I'm not an expert of free trade or outsourcing. But you might get better results by writing to congress on how to deal with job outsourcing. Now turn to the subject of paying for one's clothes. It is common practice for a fashion designer to promote a line of clothing by providing a TV personality a wardrobe. If you look at the credits at the end of a TV program, oftentimes you see ... (the host)'s wardrobe is provided by ... a fashion designer... or a fashion brand name. It's all about advertising, sponsorship. America is a capitalistic society.

Cookie   12/12/2007 05:07 PM Report

Finally! The answer the question: what does Charlie Rose have in common with Winona Ryder?

Michael G  12/12/2007 03:08 PM Report

This is a response to Ms Wong. PBS is a terrific and treasured entity. But, my comments had little to do with PBS except that over the years Mr Rose has turned to Corporate Underwriters.....Coke, Energy and Financial Services. And, I don't know about you...but, I pay for my clothes...which he does not. Also if you are really a Rose Watcher how can you not see his interviews; especially with Corporate Moguls and not note the absence of truly important pointed questions? Example. His interview with Jack Welch of G.E....not one single question regarding the outsourcing of jobs. Welch was in the forefront of exporting jobs. He couldn't have fawned more over him and his wife. Questions regarding corporate responsibilty and corporate patriotism are sorely lacking from Rose. I still think Mr Rose is a great interviewer and goes many wonderful interviews...usually with Artists, Humanitarians etc...but, when it comes to politics and corporations....he needs to be more than just polite....he needs to be more of a journalist.

Anonymous  12/11/2007 03:21 PM Report

For a better understanding of the dirty tricks used by Bush's Brain ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7138225.stm ...

BBC's HardTalk program

Why isn't Karl Rove facing legal charges of treason?

Ex Rose viewer  12/10/2007 03:37 PM Report

One more thing...you might want to watch last Sunday's Meet The Press hour with Giuliani and learn something. Tim Russert stayed to the point with non-partisan questions. He didn't have to resort to fawning over OR attacking Mr. G. He simply allowed Giuliani to expose himself with his own track record. Although Giuliani tried to filibuster his way through the tough questions, it was very apparent that he is a mony-grubbing opportunistic shyster, dealing with the worst of America's enemies.

Tim Russert was prepared. You might learn something from that show.

Ex Rose viewer  12/10/2007 03:24 PM Report

This interview with Rove is probably the nadir of your journalistic achievements. You gave him a free walk and that is unforgivable - especially with your track record. Shame, Shame.

PS: Do you even read these comments?

Sarah Wong  12/10/2007 02:34 PM Report

To Michael G -- As a viewer of the Charlie Rose Show, I would like to comment on your first comment posting. The Charlie Rose Show has been on PBS for many years. Over the years, the show has covered a wide range of topics that viewers who tune in for enlightenment, intellect, knowledge, diversity, humanitarianism, and much more... His guests are ranging from the powerful to the little guys, from the very famous to the unknown. The Charlie Rose Show should not be judged by one program, one guest whose viewpoints are the subject of controversy. PBS has been funded by the government, the public, and corporations, which comprise of the democrats, republicans, independents, and so on. The PBS programming should not gear toward one party line. By the way, Charlie Rose often uses props (newspapers, magazines, even old magazines) when relevant.

Michael G  12/09/2007 09:47 PM Report

This is a follow-up to my previous comments.

First.....Why was Rove on in the first place?

There was no book to promote. Seems like this was a chance to promote Rove.

Questions that should have been asked and pursued:

1. The South Carolina primary that sunk McCain.

Using tactics to suggest that McCain and/or his wife we engaged in interacial affairs that produced their daughter. Those charges were grotesque and yet....they worked with the public. Did he orchestrate them and does he condone them ( I think we know the answer...but Rose should have brought it up)

2. Jeff Gannon...remember him.... the gay escort that got a press pass from Rove and had access to the White House over 100 times and he didn't have to sign out? How did that happen and what was Rove's connection to Gannon?

3. The outing of Valerie Plame...wasn't that treason?

well, I could go on and on.

Again, Mr Rose with all respect. You need to answer your critics........or perhaps go on Fox where maybe you really belong.

Michael G  12/09/2007 08:23 PM Report

I must add to the comments of those that found themselves in total disappointment with Mr Rose's interview with Karl Rove. It was in my estimation the most unprofessional, fawning, set up interview I have ever witness. When I say "set up"....wasn't it convenient that Rose had a New York Times newspaper that Rove used to make a point. Mr Rose usually has his notes printed on paper and rarely uses props...How convenient!!! If it wasn't a set up why then didn't Rose use that same issue to refute Rove's claims?

Also, did anyone notice that Mr Rose never challenged or followed up on Rove's assertions; some that we blatently false!

The average informed person could have refuted most of Rove's claims....and Rose has a Staff!

Either they are totally incompetent; or, he chooses to become Larry King Lite!...or maybe he just chooses to give passes to the republicans and the right and the neocons. Look at the interviews over time and you will see an obvious bias to Big Business and to the Right.

I, for one, have taken a radical step. As a fundraising host for a local PBS station; I have told them I will not do a Charlie Rose promo nor will I incorporate him in our fundraising describing our diversity.

My question to you Mr Rose...not that you will read this or the other comments or care about them....but.....why are you on PBS? You clothes are given to you free.....your show is underwritten by Big Business....COKE...for one.

Why don't you get your show on Commercial Television and leave open a space to someone who is not in the pocket of the corporate interests; who will give The American People a real interview show that treats everyone the same; asks the tough questions and shines in the light of what public television was, is and should be all about.

MR Rose....I am soooooo ashamed of you.....I only wish...you shared some of that sentiment.

datadave  12/09/2007 07:43 PM Report

Could it be that Charlie just gave Rove rope to hang himself with? I didn't see it...but the contention that the Democrats caused Bush et al to go to war...is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while...so Mr. Rose just let Karl make a full of himself.

Iqbal Faizer  12/08/2007 01:06 AM Report

I am thrilled to see so much criticism of the Karl Rove interview. To those who say it's Mr. Rose's interviewing style to passively allow the interviewee to express him/herself, then such a style should have been used with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. It was not. This is not to say Charlie should not have challenged the president of Iran, but he should have done the same with the far more egregious members of the Bush administration (given the liberal culture and greater options life afforded them in the West), President Bush and Karl Rove included.

Laura Davis  12/08/2007 12:00 AM Report

I have been a fan of Charlie Rose and his show for many years. It was with great dismay that I watched his recent interview with Karl Rove. To describe Mr. Rose's attitude to Rove as sychophantic would be understating what happened. Where were the tough questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, the dirty tricks of the campaigns, the despicable and successful attempt to portray Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee war hero, as a terrorist sympathizer and many other matters? The only place where Mr. Rose brought out the monster in Karl Rove was to draw an oblique analogy between Rove and the late an unlamented Lee Atwater, but I assume that went over most heads. To allow Karl Rove to portray the Democrats in Congress as pushing a reluctant Bush administration into an unwanted Iraq War will have to go down in history as the most egregious error Mr. Rose has ever committed in his distinguished career. I understand that the program is a bastion of civility and politeness and this is most welcome. This does not, however, excuse Mr. Rose from asking tough questions. Can anyone explain what went wrong in this disastrous interview? Was Charlie just having a bad night or is he as intimidated as the rest of the media by the malignant Bush/Cheney administration and their penchant for getting revenge on those perceived as their opponents?

Linda P.  12/07/2007 05:08 PM Report

Charlie, Usually you're pretty direct and ask the tough questions, but in an eloquent way, of course. But, it seems like there were some opportunities to dig a little deeper to some of Mr. Rove's answers. He basically just rewrote the story of going to war - again - on your show, without much of a challenge from you.

Barry Goldwater Jr  12/06/2007 09:37 AM Report

Charlie, You are a sycophantic fraud of a conversationalist ... you are the Neville Chamberlin of television. Where are the onions when it comes to interviews with those in power? "A really good conversation" is not what you offer ... the Charlie Rose show is a platform for the military-industrial complex and its minions to edge public opinion. Shame on you, Sir.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson  12/04/2007 06:45 PM Report

Charlie,

In addition to the aforementioned PBS Frontline special focusing solely on Karl Rove, you/your audience might enjoy the following other PBS Frontline specials on the Bush administration:

ENRON: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/view/

FBI Agent John O'Neill: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

RUMSFELD Commission: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/

BUSH Doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/

CHALABI et al vs Truth: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/

BEYOND Petraeus: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/view/

NEOCONS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

PRIVATE Contractors: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

ABU Ghraib: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/

CHIEF Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

NIXON and Cheney: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

IRAN and Neocons: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

Anonymous  12/04/2007 05:05 PM Report

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/1998/7/20/1/a-conversation-with-donald-rumsfeld-and-paul-wolfowitz-a bout-nuclear-weapons#comment

vs

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Charlie, could you have Kenneth Duberstein (Armitage's political adviser) and William Taft IV discuss.

Thank you.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson  12/04/2007 05:05 PM Report

Charlie,

Before your next interview with Karl, may be you/your viewers should see:

http://www.pbs.org/frontline/rss/redir/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/

Bob  12/03/2007 10:34 PM Report

Every tyrant needs a propagandist. Adolph and Joe. George and Charlie.

Mark R  12/02/2007 11:41 PM Report

Don't know if anyone caught this one, but on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, he did a piece on recent acts of revisionist history where he played the tape of Bill Clinton saying he was against the war in Iraq at the outset and Karl Rove blaming the Democrats for getting us into the mess in Iraq. Obviously the word is getting around. There was also mention of this on Washington Week. I'm sure there must have been other places.

I can imagine that Charlie was in the same mind I was when I heard Rove say what he did. I thought - did he just say that? I recorded the show and had to play it back to be certain. I was in total shock - and if Charlie had the same reaction, he was probably in shock too. It's one thing to be prepared to debate a point of view or fact. It's another to have to argue over a fairy tale.