Posts from — March 2008

No wonder Peter Roskam loves this guy. According to John McCain, de-regulation of markets is the answer to everything. Even to the problems caused by…er…deregulation of markets.

In a speech on March 25, to the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Roundtable, McCain had this to say about the origins of the present crisis:

“The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren’t particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments — which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets — were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren’t always managed wisely because people couldn’t properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.”

I’m good with this so far. Deregulation has led to complex new instruments that are poorly understood and lacking in accountability and transparency.

And so the obvious solution is more careful regulation of the kinds of transactions that got us into trouble, right?

Wrong! McCain’s answer: increased de-regulation!

“In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”

Also, get tough on homeowners, further reduce taxes on the wealthy by eliminating the AMT, and reduce the corporate tax rate leaving poor and middle class taxpayers to bear a greater share of the costs of Republican military adventures, oil company subsidies, and bailouts of failed banks. Yep, sounds like Roskam’s kind of plan.

Until recently, I told myself that I would be perfectly happy regardless of whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. I voted for John Edwards but felt certain that either Obama or Clinton would make a fine president. Now I’m having second thoughts.

Hillary Clinton seems to be doing her utmost to ensure that John McCain wins the presidency this fall, prolonging the Republican rule that has elevated bad government to such startling heights.

While sabotaging her own reputation with her lie about having had to dodge sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia, Clinton chose to toss more kindling on the fire surrounding Barack Obama’s relationship with his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright,

Then, of course, there was her now infamous remark to reporters in Texas:

“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

I’d like to be able to believe the best of Hillary Clinton; to believe that she has not decided to put herself ahead of her party and her country and deny Obama the presidency if she cannot attain the nomination herself, so that she could have another go at it in 4 years. I’d like to believe that but it is getting harder.

Hillary should shut the fuck up about Obama. She has a fine record to run on and she should just do it. She should save her attacks for George Bush, who has done his best to bring us to ruin, and for John McCain who will likely bring us more of the same.

I first ran this back in November. I have not received any responses. Could my theory be correct? I’m giving you another chance to prove me wrong. There are fabulous prizes at stake.

Peter Roskam is George Bush. At least that’s my working theory.

Have you ever seen a picture of George Bush and Peter Roskam together? I haven’t and I’ve really hunted for one.

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s wife Laura:

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s evil VP Cheney:

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s Puppet Master Karl Rove:

And I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s designated successor John McCain:

But I’ve never seen Roskam and Bush together.

Bush supposedly appeared at a fundraiser with Roskam and Denny Hastert in October 2006 but I can’t find a photographic record of it. Did anybody actually see them together or did Peter suddenly leave the room before Bush took the stage?

And look at Roskam’s voting record - he’s George Bush’s Congressional alter-ego:

So you can’t blame me for wondering whether they are one and the same person.

But to test my theory, I am running a little contest. The first reader to send me an undoctored .jpg image of George Bush and Peter Roskam standing next to each other will receive a wonderful prize: a copy of Paul Krugman’s book “The Conscience of a Liberal” and a copy of Barry Goldwater’s book “The Conscience of a Conservative“. (RSR is nothing if not fair and balanced.) The books are brand spankin’ new. Just ordered them from Amazon.

And, if the picture includes such public display of affection as shown in the photo below, the winner will receive a special bonus prize, the beautiful Greenpeace: Standing Up for the Earth Calendar 2009.

So get to work and prove me wrong. And don’t be disappointed if I am wrong because voting for Roskam will still be just like voting for Bush.

Send your entry to rubberstamproskam@gmail.com.

In an Op-Ed published March 19th on his Congressional web site, entitled “Keeping the Promise“, Peter Roskam blasts his colleagues in the House for having “incomprehensibly cut funding for Helmets to Hardhats by 80 percent, from $5.4 million to $990,000 last year – exemplifying the misplaced priorities for which Washington is infamous.”.

Helmets to Hardhats is a program that attempts to place National Guard, Reserve, and returning active-duty military personnel in union apprenticeships in the construction industry. A needed and useful program it would seem. And I’m sure Roskam is keen on it because it’s cost is negligible and it is liked by his contributors from the construction industry.

I can’t for the life of me find a record of how the funding came to be cut, but I’m sure there is more to the story than Roskam is telling.

In attacking the supposed funding cut, Roskam cites the high unemployment rate for returning vets and preaches that “our nation cannot look the other way while our veterans are in need.”

But Roskam did look the other way, just last fall, and, aligned with George Bush, refused to help veterans in need - twice! Democrats in Congress had proposed a package of aid for returning vets to the tune of several billion dollars. The money would have gone to programs for job training, employment programs, unemployment compensation, mental healthcare, and services for homeless veterans. Roskam voted against the package labeling it as pork. He then voted again to uphold George Bush’s veto of the package. This took place right around Veterans Day.

Roskam complains about his colleagues misplaced priorities but Illinois veterans must understand that they do not number among this man’s priorities. Peter Roskam has demonstrated again and again by his voting record that his only priority is reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans and serving the interests of a corporate elite. Roskam has quietly supported the efforts of the Bush administration to prolong the military occupation of Iraq at the cost of the lives of thousands of military personnel and he has then refused to fund badly needed programs to help the veterans of that conflict on their return home after honorable service to their country. Peter Roskam is not a friend to veterans.

I’m a little bit behind the rest of the country in considering the sermon by Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright that some are using in an attempt to brand Obama himself as racist and in considering “The Speech” in which Obama responded to these critics and engage in a broader discussion about race in America.

Thanks to Austin Mayor for drawing my attention to the The Truth About Trinity United Church of Christ where I was able to hear the words of Pastor Wright in their true context. After listening to him at length today, I don’t find anything objectionable about his words at all. I’d have to say he was spot-on accurate. I am not a church-goer but listening to him made me kind of wish I’d been going to his. This man doesn’t pull any punches but he is by no means a racist. He simply speaks the truth about the injustice that persists in our society and our world and for that he gets branded as racist and anti-American by those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

After listening to Pastor Wright, I listened to Obama’s speech in its entirety. Though not particularly energizing, it was eloquent, and I thought he did a good job. I do have qualms though about the Obama wanting to distance himself from Wright and his sermon. I have been frustrated with Obama for not having taken on the Bush administration more vigorously since his election to the Senate. I feel the same frustration when I hear him reject Wright’s words, which were angry but true.

But perhaps this reticence of Obama to speak the unvarnished truth to power that frustrates me so much is what, in the end, may make him a great President. I favor Rev. Wright’s approach but a leader like Wright can never be President. We need men like Dr. Wright out there to challenge us, to tug at our collective conscience. But we need a President who will be President to all people, who will actually work to heal the division in this country and help us move forward, someone who actually IS “a uniter and not a divider”. I don’t how know anyone can listen to Barack Obama and not believe that he has that potential.

This kind of bullshit really pisses me off. Illinois Review has no shame, propagating this stuff the way they do.

They are trumpeting some supposed connection, which they never describe, between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi, an AMERICAN CITIZEN of Palestinian descent and the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University.

Khalidi is an opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and has defended the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli Occupation.

Well last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States permitted Americans to express ideas contrary to government policy and the Republican Party platform. Mr. Kkalidi’s ideas do not make him a terrorist nor do they make Obama one by some hypothetical association. And furthermore, I happen to agree with Khalidi on those points and that doesn’t make me a terrorist either.

This is modern-day McCarthyism and it is reprehensible. It also makes IR look totally ridiculous.