Author: Gatemouth

GATEMOUTH (1/27/10): The proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of Wall Street is their inability to learn. Rescued in the thirties from the depths of their own self-created degradation, they spent the next decade cursing the President who’d rescued them, and possibly capitalism itself, as “that man in the White House.”

What Wall Street cursed FDR for was his temerity in insisting upon setting up some rules to ensure that Wall Street’s man-made disaster would never occur again, and that the third-party victims of their depravity were allowed the basic sustenance necessary for survival. The rules Wall Street so objected to save them from disaster for more than a half century, until they were rendered obsolete by new technology and more advanced and clever forms of self-destructive avarice…

As I noted last fall while sifting through the vat of offal known as the Comptroller’s race, Councilman (as he was then) David Weprin, never bunched my panties. He reminded me of Rupert Pupkin in “The King of Comedy;” and came off as a parochial outer-borough pol, utterly lacking in vision, who appeared poised to restore the model of Abe Beame.

PAUL MCCARTNEY: …Too Many Reaching For A Piece Of Cake
Too Many People Pulled And Pushed Around
Too Many Waiting For That Lucky Break
That Was Your First Mistake
You Took Your Lucky Break And Broke It In Two
Now What Can Be Done For You
You Broke It In Two

That Was Your Last Mistake
I Find My Love Awake And Waiting To Be
Now What Can Be Done For You
She's Waiting For Me”

RESHMA SAUJANI: This is a new decade and we need a new direction…We need to put aside the policies of the past and start building the future because we are the future. That's going to take new ideas, new leadership and new bridges.

Translation of message to Carolyn Maloney:

MARLENE DIETRICH (in Orson Welles’ “Touch of Evil”): …Your future is all used up. Why don’t you go home?

or maybe

ROGER DALTREY: Why dontcha all f-f-f-fade away…talkin bout my g-g-generation  

Back in October, I published a pretty comprehensive piece outlining in detail the monumental stupidity, hypocrisy and irresponsibility of nearly every politician, writer and advocate who’d made a public comment about the Monserrate case.

As I’ve documented at various times, this is a problem which has been present from the case’s inception and persisted throughout on all sides and even among those who’ve taken no side.

Since the sole reason for the existence of this Department is to make sport of such people, I am happy to report that the problem continues unabated.

It is perhaps emblematic of the depths of despair currently implicating those of us to the left of center that not only have our factions begun firing upon each other, but among themselves.

A dedicated fan (except when I am writing about matters affecting Carroll Gardens) writes:

SHAMES: I think it is generally good to remind the "progressives" that progress is taken in successive steps and that incrementalism is a related concept of increase and no more a dirty word than progress. They don't seem to understand that they share their country with a lot of people who don't agree with them on everything and who also believe that they are right.

BERNSTEIN: Thatcher! That man was the biggest darn fool I ever met. 

THOMPSON: He made an awful lot of money.

BERNSTEIN: It's no trick to make an awful lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.

—From CITIZEN KANE

The proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of Wall Street is their inability to learn. Rescued in the thirties from the depths of their own self-created degradation, they spent the next decade cursing the President who’d rescued them, and possibly capitalism itself, as “that man in the White House.”

It is quite clear that the New York Post’s Charles Hurt thinks his readers are stupid.

Certainly, he has good reason to believe this–after all, they do read the New York Post.

On Sunday Morning he published the following:

“Call it smear by association.

It appears to be — literally — the only hope Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has to pull off a slender victory here, in one of the most Democratic states in the country, for a seat so long owned by one of the most beloved liberal lions America has ever known.

Yes, people really are still saying stuff like that. The nonsense about reconciliation proceeds from a total misunderstanding of the Senate rules. Reconciliation can only be used for budgetary adjustments in existing programs, not to create new ones. While reconciliation does create some opportunity for bootstrapping, using reconciliation still only makes sense if one is advocating passage of the Senate bill as is, and then fixing it through this process. But since Reconciliation cannot be used to create new programs, I'm not even sure that using it to add a public option to the Senate bill would be permissible after it passes.

If it passes.

Sadly, I have major doubts that after last night, the Senate Bill can win a majority in the House. First, with or without last night, doing such a deal would require a level of trust that may be lacking under the best of circumstances. Secondly, a lot of balls got shrunk last night. Finally, there are still the Kucinich types who will vote to kill Health Care Reform in order to save it, even though starting all over again will not result in a more liberal bill, and probably won’t result in any bill at all.

The sad effort of the Democratic Party establishment to lay the blame for tonight’s devastating defeat, reflected in the efforts of bloggers including myself, to lay the blame for the disaster on Martha Coakley is aided and abetted by the fact that she was her campaign proceeded without an effort or a clue.

How did this woman ever win a statewide election?