Charlie Rose

Scarbro  01/24/2009 09:41 PM Report

@MotherLodeBeth,

Really? The antiChrist??? First, Rose has always been fair, he's one of the few objective journalist out there.

If Bush hadn't been president during the last 8 years we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. What, exactly, should they have said that was "nice" about Bush???

You simply can't get over the fact that Bush is gone. He's left the country worse than he found it 8 years ago. The reason this new President is getting the attention he is, is that it is a HISTORIC EVENT. The first black President of a country that was built by black slaves.

I don't think Bush is a bad person. I believe he's a good person at heart. He was just a bad president.

You cannot be a rational person to label a man who has been in office about a week as either a messiah or the anti-Christ.

Will Obama be a good president or a bad one? I don't know. But is he an anti-christ? Hardly.

Obviously, you'd be much happier watching the morons at Fox news.

MotherLodeBeth  01/22/2009 11:34 PM Report

I had to laugh as I expected to see candles being lit and everyone down on their knees bowing down to the new messiah. Such a biased panel. Cannot remember anytime these folks were nice to GWB. And now we read in the NYTimes that Timothy F. Geithner, who is now Treasury secretary on Thursday, told senators 'that President Obama believed China was “manipulating” its currency, suggesting a more confrontational stance toward that country than under the Bush administration'.

YIKES!!! You don't poke the dragon who is keeping the country afloat money wise, in the eye and not expect the dragon to burn your face when he breathes fire. If china is PO'd and they start taking their money out of the country it will make the Great Depression look like a light recession.

And this man who just was approved for Treasury Secretary is the same idiot who 'forgot' to pay four years worth of taxes because of the hired help.

God help us. We may not have the messiah but the anti christ.

ShalomFreedman  01/22/2009 03:14 AM Report

This was an excellent discussion. Al Hunt evaluated the speech correctly, understanding that it was not great in uplift or memorable historical phrase but that it did the job it needed to do. I believe each of the panelists contributed insight into President Obama's task and aims. The fact that he wishes to rebuild America, and to do this on the basis of fundamental values of hard work, sacrifice, concern for the communal well- being is made clear. He also is aware of the great global issues of environment and energy and too of restoring the American role as leader of the world. No one can answer the question however of whether or not these problems are so big (Especially the economic ones) that even one as competent as Obama will not be able to deal with them properly.

On the whole though I appreciated hearing the insights of all these panelists.

MadameDefarge  01/21/2009 04:39 PM Report

"What a difference a day makes... 24 little hours"

Like moving from Midland Texas to Maui!

Paulp_Nonfiction  01/21/2009 02:18 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose:

I really enjoyed yesterday's show mainly because you had a fabulous panel. I mean you had Mr. Friedman, Mr. Meacham, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fallows all fine commentators and analysts who offer great insight not to forget that Ms. Goodwin brings a lot of historical perspective.

Your panel model approach is very entertaining and offers an exchange of different points of view. You do the same with your science/medical panel.

Oh! BTW, I enjoyed last Friday's interview with Mr. Emanuel.

Thank you very much Mr. Rose and keep up the great work!

Sincerely,

Paul

REMant  01/21/2009 01:26 PM Report

Not really a great speech and delivered hurriedly, I thought. I think it reads much better. It was noticeable in my view mainly for the way it repeatedly drew on old sentiments, many found in other inaugural speeches, changing the wording, but without giving the author credit. It was almost as if the speaker was getting tired of giving speeches and all the hoopla and anxious to get on with the job. If so, I'd take that as a very good sign. The best part, tho, in my view, was about the old ideas. Let us hope someone was listening. However, the most high-flying rhetoric of the Revolutionary period are the literary productions of the youngest, some just out of college. George Washington was not one of these, nor Tom Paine, who is the author of the quote, which Obama said was ordered read, not written, by Washington. Doris will remember the first line of the piece from which it is drawn: "These are the times that try men's souls." It is from the first number of The Crisis by Common Sense dated Dec. 23, 1776. Read it here - http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/crisis/c-01.htm He details the retreat from New York through NJ during the fall of that year at which he was present, and lashes the Tories there and at home in Pa. In 1777 Howe was to recruit seven battalions of NJ Loyalists.

In full the para reads: "Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardour of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but 'show your faith by your works,' that God may bless you."

In passing let me note that Tory preachers argued from the start that the Revolution was against God's will. Sam Adams early on felt compelled to answer that God helps those who help themselves, and Paine does so here. It is aimed at some ministers appearing in the NJ papers at that time. At issue also was the terms of service of the Pa militia, and Paine was deeply involved in the Revolutionary govt in Phila. Congress moved to Baltimore Dec 12-20 and did not return to Phila until March, but was forced to move to York in Sep, when the British captured the city. Three days after Paine's piece appears Washington crossed the Delaware River with 2,400 Americans and captured 1,500 Hessians in a battle at Trenton that lasted about two hours, the Revolution's equivalent of the raid on Tokyo in WWII, but not its Midway, which was not to come until Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga later the next year. Since armies generally hibernated in the winter it was an audacious and apparently unexpected move. Had more troops been able to get across the river he would have pressed his advantage, but he did win several other small victories that winter, and militia forced the British back to NY. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trenton and http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-trenton.htm

Obama might have used this quote of Washington's instead: "A people unused to restraint must be led; they will not be drove." It bothers me is that he hasn't yet shown he really grasps the difference between a nation led by a national organizer (as it were) and one of independent citizens, between a monarchy and a republic. A republic has no call for an organizer. A monarchy has no really independent citizens. Anyone trying to straighten out a political system of parties is wasting his effort. That's part of the reason why no one is interested in politics anymore. Unfortunately the absence of example has left the door open for dictatorship. Beyond that, the Constitution did not create a monarchy, and is unlikely to produce one, since many have already tried. The Convention, no less than Madison, was quite well aware of the problem of getting the best to participate, while preventing faction and tyranny.

When I was younger I conceived that the way to improve the college curriculum was to get all the various social scientists in one room and make them sort it out, but I quickly realized that nothing can come of that because they can't even understand each other, having been reared in parochial environments with all the incentives going the other way. Such interdisciplinary synthesis is still very much needed of course, but the only way it will be achieved is for individuals to sit themselves down to learn the material and produce it. That's why I have misgivings about an administration that looks like a faculty senate.

Let us also hope that the Chief Justice took him aside later, before he had any time to make any decisions that could be challenged, and administered the oath of office specified in the Constitution correctly, which is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

On Monday "Art.Food.Hope" dinners, cooked by a dozen well-known chefs from around the country, were held as part of the inaugural festivities, and expected to raise $100,000 for local organizations and charities. That much of it at least is praiseworthy. I wonder, does the guy who did all the obnoxious introductions, also announce the Super Bowl?