Charlie Rose

TABS  09/08/2008 10:03 PM Report

Geezus Sock: We can get ya a soap box in Hyde Park. The only reason people are "clinging" to their guns is that the government is trying to take them away. People in America have had guns since the first settler stepped off the boat from Europe nearly 400 years ago. People hunt, target shoot and even protect themselves with guns. Religion well that is as age old as man himself. Those two items have a long historical tradition in America from farther back than even the government of the USA. So exactly how in the world is the Governments failed promises have anything to do with peoples attitudes towards guns and religion. Son you have put so many things in the mix that it would take a week of Sundays just to get them all sorted out. Now here is the bottom line for ya folks stop watching the Charlie Rose program put your head out the window and yell, "I am mad as he11 and won't take it anymore." After that head on down to your local city council meeting and start getting involved. Within one to 2 election cycles the people will have taken back their government and be able to redress all the perceived wrongs they want. That was how the Christian Right came to power. One office at a time.

sock puppet  09/08/2008 11:21 AM Report

TABS - u said, "Does he not know that even if these people were doing well economically they still would be "clinging to their guns and religion." Doesn't he know that history, tradition, and human values are the reason for these beliefs and not what the government does or does not do for people? Is he that far off the mark?"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

The key word is "clinging." The well to do indeed have guns (they have butter as well) and religion. Can't prove this but betting that the religion of the rich is more symbolic and of less (real) importance in their daily existence than the poor (their last resort). Guns (the other last resort?) are doubtless a natural offshoot of drug turf wars, convenient store robberies and a culture of desparation generally.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

And this, "Doesn't he know that history, tradition, and human values are the reason for these beliefs and not what the government does or does not do for people?" That's particularly rich and fraught with irony coupled with today's Fed takeover of Fannie and Freddie and the 'deregulated' financial industry generally. How many more repossessed and dispossessed will end up under a bridge clinging to their guns and religion SOLELY because of what the "government does or does not do?" Your staw-man certitudes have the typical I've-got-mine-where's-yours Republican ring to them. Damn their human frailty, damn their too-easily exploitability, damn their (public) deprivation. Quoting Russians as you do, does the 'opiate of the masses' substitute for NOT removing the governments foot from the neck of the poor? A la rapacious interest rates, too stringent bankruptcy laws, corporate welfare, deregulation to a disastrous fault. Yes, government can be and in our case is culpable on many fronts for people to cling to guns and religion. Obama was spot on!!!

TABS  09/08/2008 06:24 AM Report

It was Lenin that did not want to listen to music as he thought it would make him soft. It was Lincoln who cried every time the news of one of his friends deaths reached him during the Civil War.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________

Lincoln's greatness came from the great emotional despair that he felt. It taught him humility and to have empathy for other people sensibilities. Lincoln didn't try to be great it emanated from within his core being. Lenin and Hitler by contrast both saw what a great man might do and tried to emulate those characteristics. In that sense they were both flawed as they lacked a humility about themselves, because they were detached from their own emotional cores. Which in the end caused them not to have any empathy for the people they were governing. To which I give you Barrack Obama's statement, in which the question is asked where is his sense of history, tradition and human values as the driving force behind these peoples feelings? Rather Barrack blames these peoples feelings on his own preconceived notion of a governmental failure to provide an economic salvation for them?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

"and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

You be the judge and draw your own conclusions.

TABS  09/08/2008 05:42 AM Report

Dear Sock:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Whoa...this makes it even worse!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

"and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________He is laying the blame for these beliefs at the failure of a government to deliver some sort of economic salvation? How presumptuous can Barry Obama be? Does he not know that even if these people were doing well economically they still would be "clinging to their guns and religion." Doesn't he know that history, tradition, and human values are the reason for these beliefs and not what the government does or does not do for people? Is he that far off the mark?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Your right Barry Obama is "too dam Liberal" for this author. He wants to create a populist Round Head Revolution in government that once and for all can "ruin America" according to Jamie Dimon. It is not what Barry will do on his own but with a larger majority in the Senate, the Democrats can pass all the legislation they want without challenge, without restraint, or without any sort of reality check. That is the danger. For example Nancy Pelosi has already tried to push the "Fairness Doctrine," what else will lay in store for America next? Cancellation of the Bill of Rights for the common good of the people.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________It is a sad thing to say but it was the "bitter" comments that finally showed this author that Barrack Obama is a prisoner of his own ideology (vision) and will not be able to set it aside to be truly inclusive of everyone's interests. Until that moment he was given the benefit of the doubt, even if this author was in opposition to his "socially conscientious." political adherence. This author had thought he had made himself clear in previous entries on this Comment Board as to his position with regards to Liberalism and the "Bitterness" statements. What does amaze is that sarcasism of the "Little Barry Obama" comment passed without comment from the left wing fringe element, maybe they are just in awe of a literate conservative?

sock puppet  09/08/2008 01:31 AM Report

TABS - For someone that has a studied eruditeness in your comments, your volunteered rational against Obama cited the 'bitterness' reference. So to see it's portent, I pulled it up. Here tis in part, ". . . and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

That's so innocuous, you're close to being guilty of disingenuosness. Admission on your part that your position was set sans the comment would be more (intellectually - your wont) honest.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Here's a major rational for me against Palin. She recently said God supports the U.S. war against Iraq. And she recently told followers to pray to God for a natural gas pipeline to be built through Alaska. Invoking God for such things compared to offering guesses as to why people might be frustrated is hands down no-contest. It's fine for Sunday school in an evangelical church, and perhaps a mayor in podunkville. Beyond that it's fatuous and conceivably dangerous. Opposing religious zealots will write our epitaphs ultimately. Obama's (poor?) social guesses may be lame but they're not as egregious as claiming God wants us in Iraq. Pick a more credible reason. Like he's too damn liberal, and then full steam ahead.

TABS  09/07/2008 10:54 PM Report

Symbolic imagery is very important when political campaigns are largely mass media driven. For instance in the old days a candidate would travel from town to town on the railroad giving speeches at every stop. By doing that people got to see and hear the candidate and get a feel for his strengths and weaknesses first hand. Today seeing a candidate in a small venue almost never happens. This is why symbolic imagery has become so important in mass media campaigns.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Barrack Obama picked an older man as his running mate partly for the symbolism. The Obama thinking was an older man who was more experienced in an area where he was seemingly weak would cover his bases as being mentored. However in light of the John McCain pick, who basically instinctively picked Palin, failed to choose the right candidate in Joe Biden. Obama just didn't think of all the possibilities as to who McCain would pick. The correct choich would have been an older woman other than Hillary. It was not an impossible decision to come to. On the very face of it without delving any deeper than a cookie sheet an older woman would have grabbed the women who voted for Hillary.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

What does this indicate about Obama himself. It reveals that he doesn't have any sense of what a father son relationship is. Why, because he would have realized that virtually any pick of a younger person by McCain would play into that symbolism. Picking a younger woman was pure instinctive genius by McCain. Obama simply didn't see it coming. If he did he would have chosen the only possible counter that would resonate on stage as VP candidate, and that would be an older woman. Insurmountable advantage McCain.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

The question now arises, what about Barrack Obama and his lack of knowledge about a father son relationship. It creates a deep emotional sink hole, which he avoids by keeping himself intellectually engaged. This keeps him in effect from coming back down to earth and makes him appear to be aloof. To what point does this intellectual aloofness cause Barrack Obama from being an effectual person in day to day matters. From what one can tell through the mass media, he can't hold a conversation that is grounded without a Mother of a teleprompter telling him what to say. That fact alone also will cause to come into question exactly who ties Obama's shoes in the morning, his wife Michell "MAMA" Obama? Is she the practical brains behind the operation? Does she help little Barry Obama do his homework at night so that he gets A's from the media? One thing is for certain the people of the USA better find out the answers to those questions before they pull the lever to elect Barry Obama to the Presidency of the USA.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

BTW: If one hasn't figured it out, this author is not a Barry Obama fan. The "Bitter Clinging" statement is what started this author to thinking. What is behind such intellectual arrogance? Why is he so intellectually arrogant? Nothing to bring him down from his intellectual aloofness. He tries to stay in a state where nothing tugs or will move him emotionally. Icarus tried to fly too close to the sun and fell to earth as a consequence.

sock puppet  09/06/2008 03:31 PM Report

More Republican disaster, namely we the taxpayers now own Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. That oughta bout finish our treasury off. How you bettin that the CEO's instead of going to jail will get millions in golden parachutes. The laissez faire deregulation-loving Republicans can't even run government supported operations. GM, Ford in the toilet (mileage standards would've saved them). Financial industry wise-guys broke the system with the subprime egregious greed (where regulation would have saved themselves from themselves - and us). _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ None of this will change until we neuter the lobbyists. That wont happen until congress is reduced to one-term limits. Fat chance. In short we will consume ourself with greed. Cannabalizing ourselves. Tantamount to slicing off a piece of ham from our own butt.

Phil  09/06/2008 12:16 PM Report

Here we go again with lies and subtile disinformation!!

TABS  09/06/2008 04:19 AM Report

Barrack Obama illuminated a major psychological stress point that he has when he failed to correctly analyze the symbolic nature of his VP candidate.

Yohan Chu  09/06/2008 02:24 AM Report

As I see this video clip, there is no remorse or respect at all in this political season from Republican party. Absolutely no democracy. At least there was no such chaotic scene from DNC from Denver CO. We all have to fight back for our democracy. This is a torture toward its citizen: torture from St.Paul MN.

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Here is the full story:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/amy-goodman-arr.html

tevo d  09/06/2008 12:36 AM Report

I am concerned that the "zest" of McCain/Palin vs. Obama's cool confindance is a great distraction from the issues...we all want to "like" our president- .....it is worth noting that Republican nominee Mccain was never referred to- by himself or others at the convention (not journalists)- as the "Republican" nominee....I am also concerned that the known dislike between Bush and Mccain helps to support the Maverick title he seeks to siride into the oval office....we must be accurate and vigilant...this is not a super bowl....this is our country

RE Mant  09/06/2008 12:07 AM Report

McCain's speech was apolgetic if not defensive, distancing him from the present admin, and also aimed at heading off potential slurs, such as that he is a war-monger. But it was also an attempt to make younger ppl more familiar with his life and personality. I think both were necessary. I have to say that I was a little astonished at the video interjections from his mother. I think he has a clear advantage over Obama in control of his party making it more likely that he can deliver on his promises even if the Demos control the Congress. With respect to WaPo, all newspapers and magazines have seen in this campaign a sales opportunity, which, under the circumstances, they are determined to make the most of. WaPo included everything except paper hats and pom-poms for both conventions. I think Sarah will attract more Hilary supporters than might be supposed. I think you can expect a few Reaganesque moments in the debates. My general feeling tho about this subject is that the pundits have been talking for almost 2 weeks now nonstop and they clearly need a nap.

Hist Ory  09/05/2008 11:20 PM Report

It seems to me this election is about the direction the country will head: Towards a right-wing theocracy (Palin is obviously the star of the ticket for the repub base) or towards a secular, diverse, and more respectful society. The RNC motivated me to fight them, as pitbull Palin has set the tone of the debate. It seems only reasonable to kick back what seems to be an aggresive lunge into the political race. _____________________________________________________________________________Charlie, please ask Palin tomorrow to explain her flip-flop on the "bridge to nowhere," her flip-flop on supporting special needs programs (she cut funding over 60% from the Alaska budget, one that rakes in $$$ of oil revenue (I guess too much went to bribe the people of Alaska with their oil windfall government handout, there wasn't enough to help needy kids)) and why she can't reason that human pollution is indeed changing the climate. Perhaps she has a huge conflict of interest, though, seeing as she is using oil to increase her political power.