It's been a bad year for conservatives. How bad? Not only has the post-Reagan free-market conventional economic wisdom been killed through the myriad bailouts, but so many of the architects of the small-government, anti-communist, values coalition that comprised the conservative movement have literally died during the last twelve months as well. National Review founder William F. Buckley, Nobel Prize-winning novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Senator Jesse Helms, Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich, Fox News's Tony Snow, actor Charlton Heston, and, most recently, Father Richard John Neuhaus have all passed away over the course of the last year. The movement that several of these men dedicated their lives to building expired sometime before they did. When something dies, something must fill the void.

A measure of these folks' success will be how people react long-term to economic crisis. Government, and those who would turn it to their personal agendas, certainly made this mess, and its solutions will deepen it as they did in the 1930s. We'll see if someone in government speaks up.

This is shaping up to be the ultimate decade of greed. Greedy businessmen, greedy Wall Streeters, greedy farmers, etc. But worse: Greedy politicians.

Again, why does a guy spend millions on a job paying thousands? Power and access to big dollars has circumvented the notion of public service for the public good and both parties are in the bag for the dollars that are just waiting to be plucked.

They will say anything and do anything to insure that they maintain their lofty powerful and lucrative positions even if it means completely compromising their ethics and political philosophies. The 'Parties' are that in name only as they have blended into the perfect combination for the ultimate goal of bi-partisanship: show me the money.

The void has been filled.

"Again, why does a guy spend millions on a job paying thousands? "

One word, Haliburton.

I just hope that it is several years down the line before the populus gets duped again by either party claiming moral superiority. Bush pulled the evangelical vote with the 'party of values' claim and then dicked them over. Scum bags on both sides, but the question remains (well posited by South Park) it is a choice between turd sandwich vs douche bag.

You will make fun of me, but I vote for someone like Charlie Rose who has a broad knowledge base and no real ties to either side R/D. I am all for an everyman as long as they have a knowledge of world affairs and history. (i.e. not Palin) Its too bad that those people are smart enough not to run for office.

Yeah, brainiac Charlie Rose who along with Brokaw didn't know who (or what) Obama was two weeks before the election. But, hey, you can't be to inquisitive can you?

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

All those are very valid questions from Rose, in my opinion. What is Barack Obama's world view in terms of foreign policy? What does he think of China? What books have influenced his thinking? None of those are questions that we have answers to.

That's the easy part isn't it Ben? Of course they are (and were) valid and important questions.

So why didn't these media geniuses know the answers? Was it too difficult for the MSM potentates to find out? Or were they just covering for the Messiah by feigning ignorance?

what's your point asdf?

"Was it too difficult for the MSM potentates to find out? Or were they just covering for the Messiah by feigning ignorance?"

In the interview you write from, Rose was independent on the subject, and was frank about his knowledge or lack there of. If anything they were asking the same thing the 'right' was asking, which is hardly feigning ignorance. He never had an agenda through the election. Stop the conspiracy theories.

Did Rose ever sit down with Obama? I don't think so but I may be wrong.