Posts Tagged ‘Moron’

The impending death of Conservative Socialism

October 23, 2008 Leave a comment

Brad DeLong wrote a piece that just begs to be read. In it, he examines the reason why, as he so elegantly states:

The Bush administration, having entered office as social conservatives, leaves office as conservative socialists, proprietors of the most sudden large expansion of the state’s role in the US economy since mobilisation for the second world war.

For Brad, the question is why this happened:

Why did they decide to partially and quasi-nationalise America’s banks – to invest $250bn in preferred stock plus warrants and tell the banks that it wanted them to use the capital to expand their loan base rather than contract it via deleveraging? It is certainly not what Henry Paulson signed up as Treasury secretary to do.

The question for us, however, as election day approaches and the Party of Wall Street plummets to earth, like John McCain’s fighter jet over the rice paddies of Vietnam, Moron in the cockpit (Mission Accomplished!) for an extended stay at the Obama Hilton, we wonder of the fate of his successor.

That tortured metaphor in place, we can proceed.

The rush of the Party of Wall Street into the safe embrace of its chief rival, the Party of Washington – so completely and handsomely expressed in the endorsement of Barack Obama by that lapdog of the House of Bush, Colin Powell, this past Sunday – the conversion of social conservatives to the conservative socialism of the Democratic Party, no doubt, causes you to consider the possibility that this event heralds not simply the collapse of the former, but also the timely demise of the latter.

In this, you are indeed one step ahead of us, knowing, full well, that without Wall Street, Washington can not function in the old way.

Conservative or not, the faint socialism of Washington’s variety – itself the faintest reflection of the no less faint European reflection of 19th Century Socialism – rests on the most vibrant practice of full blooded Wall Street ponzi schemes erected from a stable base of dollar reserves, easy credit, and an ever lengthening social work day.

Until now, the Party of Washington‘s most convincing argument on behalf of its conservative socialism – read: Social-Fascism (Yes, we did use the “F” word, now clap your hands over your eyes!) – consisted almost entirely of its alleged role in protecting the rest of us from the predatory practices of Wall Street.

One of the intellectual apologists for this “function” of Washington is the economist Jared Bernstein, who wrote some time ago:

… we live in a complex world, where markets can provide only partial solutions to the challenges we face. Market failures abound, and government will unquestionably be called upon to repair these failures. For years, we’ve elected politicians who’ve railed against this reality, pretending that they can refund that fifth of the economy that we spend on government –”it’s your money!”– and still provide the services we want and need. To put it mildly, it hasn’t worked. We’re spending the same share as ever, yet we’ve squandered years when we could have been making progress against the challenges of globalization, of environmental degradation, of deteriorating infrastructure, of economic inequality, of costly inefficiencies in health care.

The only problem with this delusion of Mr. Bernstein: precisely at the time the Party of Wall Street has finally and completely conceded its bankruptcy – both ideological and actual – and turned to the Party of Washington for Bolsheviki Salvation, Washington is itself insolvent, and, under the grinding crush of an unprecedented post-War economic downturn.

Washington may not only be unable to help its retainers on Wall Street, but itself as well.

It is clear industry is faltering, state and local government are facing defaults, unemployment is rising, housing mortgage, and consumer debt defaults continue to increase, pension and retirement funds teeter ominously.

In January, the victorious Party of Washington will face this daunting environment, armed only with the treasury’s printing press, a somewhat fearful community of central banks seeking the safest possible investment instruments in a rapidly deflating economic bubble, and an extremely attenuated ideology to repair what are now being called the “excesses of Wall Street,” but really is a watershed moment for humanity.

Good luck, guys!

Conyers: “We’re not doing impeachment, but he can talk about it,”

July 15, 2008 Leave a comment

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has been forced by public pressure to hold a hearing on Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich’s article of impeachment against George W. (the Moron) Bush. He vows this hearing will not lead to an impeachment.

Full story here:

Conyers stalling on impeachment hearing

July 12, 2008 Leave a comment

From Real News:

Since June 9, when Rep. Kucinich’s introduced 35 articles of impeachment, the articles have remained shelved in the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Conyers has the ability to bring the articles to a vote in the committee, but he is undecided on a course of action. In a June meeting with Veterans For Peace, Rep. Conyers promised to present his decision on impeachment in early July. However, Conyers failed to present such as decision during a meeting held with Veterans For Peace (VFP) on Wednesday, July 9. Members of VFP believe that Conyers is deploying stall tactics and that he has no intention of moving forward with impeachment. Conyers, once again, has promised to present his decision in a meeting planned for July 25.


JOHN CONYERS, US CONGRESSMAN (D-MI): When will the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard B. Cheney commence? Answer: I don’t know.

MATTHEW PALEVSKY, JOURNALIST, TRNN: Veterans for Peace were caught off guard by Chairman Conyers’ reticence in regards to impeachment. On June 11, two days after Congressman Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment for President Bush, Veterans For Peace met with Conyers, asking him to pass the articles through his judiciary committee. Conyers told Veterans For Peace that he would unveil his plan to them at their next meeting—this meeting—which was held on July 9.

CONYERS: When will preparation of all papers for the impeachment of President W. Bush [sic] be completed? None have been started.

PALEVSKY: While Conyers didn’t say that he would move forward with impeachment, he didn’t write it off, either. In his recent book The Constitution in Crisis, Conyers justified the legal grounds for impeachment, and during the meeting he emphasized the importance of his decision.

CONYERS: So I see the consequences as being historic. I see them as having an immediate effect upon the body politic and America. I see them as shaping how impeachments will be held in the future in years to come.

PALEVSKY: Conyers offered only circular logic to justify dragging his feet on impeachment.

(OFF CAMERA): What is holding you back from beginning impeachment proceedings at this point?

CONYERS: Well, as I have said before, what’s holding me back is that I haven’t decided to do them. So I think there are enormous consequences involved in this decision, and that’s why I haven’t arrived at one yet. I don’t plan to give any excuse. I haven’t made up my mind. How can I tell you why I’m not going to impeachment? I came here, and the first thing out of my mouth was “I haven’t decided.”

PALEVSKY: Many in the room were outraged at what they saw as stall tactics and a refusal to act. Adam Kokesh, an Iraq veteran, described his frustration by drawing a parallel to his experience in Fallujah.

ADAM KOKESH, IRAQ VETERAN, ANTIWAR ACTIVIST: My team was called to assist in the medevac to get him to the field hospital at Camp [“dih-KA-toe-min”]. He was on a stretcher on the Humvee in front of me, and I watched the corpsman treating the external wound that frightened [inaudible] panic on the road. And when we got there, I was there to help unload him and carry him in on a stretcher, and he was moaning and writhing in pain, barely conscious, and he flailed his arm off the stretcher. And as I put it back on and put it by his side, I told him, “You made it. You’re going to be alright. We got you here. You’re going to be okay.” And he died only minutes later from the internal bleeding. And I get the feeling that what you’re doing and what the Democratic Party is doing is telling this country, as we are being bled dry by tyrants, that we’re just going to be okay, that the only promises we get from Democrats are Band-Aids over these far deeper wounds than anyone is willing to really admit to publicly. I hear one of the arguments against impeachment is that it would harm the Democrats in the upcoming elections. And I hope that you realize, because you didn’t communicate this when I asked you the question, that there are real consequences to not impeaching that are far, far worse than not having Democrats in Congress and the Senate or a Democrat in the White House. You said you’ve made thousands of decisions, many of them very respectable, many of them very courageous, but by your own admission it seems what’s holding you back from this one is your own indecision. You have said that I might be surprised by your plans. You haven’t put forth any, and, frankly, I’m not surprised.

PALEVSKY: After attendees voiced their frustration for over an hour, Conyers addressed the anger in the room.

CONYERS: You were an angry and disillusioned group when I first met you. And you may continue to be.

PALEVSKY: And they were.

ELLIOTT ADAMS, VETERANS FOR PEACE, PRESIDENT: I would have been open to anything that told them, “Move the process ahead,” told us where we were going. We didn’t get an answer to any question. As terms of impeachment, we don’t know when it’s going to happen. We don’t know what obstacles there are to impeachment. We don’t know what we can do. We don’t know what he’s going to do. We don’t know anything. He didn’t tell us anything at all.

Kucinich pushing ahead with Impeachment

July 10, 2008 Leave a comment

According to The Public Record:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, presented a single article of impeachment against President George W. Bush Thursday afternoon, alleging the commander-in-chief “deceived” Congress into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to get lawmakers to back a U.S. led invasion of the country.

The impeachment article, “Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq,” will be introduced by Kucinich on the House floor later Thursday and read into the Congressional Record. The congressman will introduce the article of impeachment as a privileged resolution, which requires lawmakers to act on the measure within two legislative days.

Full story here.