51 Responses to Brooks on Jindal’s Response: Zombie Republican Party Fights Nationalization

1. selise February 25th, 2009 at 8:08 am «

   a zombie political party that is hell bent on avoiding nationalization.

   is there a party that’s not hell bent on avoiding nationalization (and by that i don’t mean nationalization of the debts and a subsidy for shareholders and bondholders)?
2. ThingsComeUndone February 25th, 2009 at 8:29 am «

   Why is Fox News taking sides have they seen their stock price lately? You would think they would be all for government bailouts.
   After all Rupert bought the WallStreet Journal with NewsCorp stock as collateral a healthy bank might give him time before asking for more collateral since his stock is down.
   But the way the banks are now there is no chance of that.
3. egregious February 25th, 2009 at 1:26 pm «

   Dugg
4. dosido February 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm «

   I’m glad they don’t get it. It would scare the beejeezus outta me if they changed their tune now.
5. Petrocelli February 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm «

   Krugman: A Jindal Meditation

   Sorry Paul, but Jindal is as far from meditation as you can possibly get.
6. egregious February 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm «

   “Zombie Republican Party Fights Nationalization” – lol

   Thanks Scarecrow!
7. Leen February 25th, 2009 at 1:47 pm «

   Who said? ” The Treasury is nationalizing the economy faster than you can say Hugo Chavez”. …
8. i4u2bi February 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm «

   Capitalism is genuis…capitalism without rules and regulations is ‘wingnuttery’ on steroids. Who can’t understand this? Oh yah..wingnuts.
9. eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm «

   Jindal on Leno. The “Bobby” story.
10. selise February 25th, 2009 at 1:53 pm «

    jindal, gramm, summers, geithner, bernanke, paulson…..

    hmmm….. could we create a “bad bank” for all the zombie political and gov players? we could isolate all the ideologically bankrupt people in the current system so that the rest can operate without being dragged down by the zombies.
• egregious February 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pm «

  Bad bank – lol – don’t forget to include all those helpful people in the media who cheered our country on to destruction.
• selise February 25th, 2009 at 1:57 pm «

  good call. we’re gonna need a really big bank to hold them all.
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 1:57 pm «

  Could we call it jail?
• selise February 25th, 2009 at 1:58 pm «

  fair trials!
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm «

  I thought indefinite lockup with no trials had been ratified by the Obama administration. Only for terrorists, of course. Economic terrorists.
• selise February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm «

  heh. but i’m a liberal so i think even economic terrorists should get fair trials.
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:15 pm «

  I’ll go with you there, even though my commander-in-chief would disagree. The evidence is sooo overwhelming, I’d greatly love it to be fully vetted in an open court. However, will never happen.
• dosido February 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm «

  my fave tee shirt is

  “even Bush deserves a fair trial”
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm «

  My favorite T-shirt (totally OT)

  Top Ten Reasons to Procrastinate
  1.
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm «

  And here it is.
• Leen February 25th, 2009 at 7:18 pm «

  good one

  Love this one especially after going through what I referred to as “mental pause”

  BACK OFF – I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun. …
• i4u2bi February 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm «

  I could…don’t egg me on I’m not on stable ground.
• foothillsmike February 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm «

  Better off calling it a country club – just string razor wire around it.
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm «

  Works for me.
11. egregious February 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm «

    things you’d want your government to do if it were run by smart, mature people dedicated to rescuing the country from a hydra-headed catastrophe

    We’ve lost 8 years. Lot of work to do.
12. puppethead February 25th, 2009 at 1:57 pm «

    I can’t believe that anyone thinks that Jindal’s rebuttal “read better than it was delivered” or that it was a good speech. It was a jumbled mess of GOP talking points rooted in Reaganism, with no coherence or even any decent structure. And when he ridiculed volcano monitoring after trying to extoll how Hurricane Katrina proved how awesome the GOP is, wow. Finally, he invoked “magnetic levitation” trains in a way that reminded me of his exorcism days, like he saw that as some sort of witchcraft. Fits right in with his deep belief in creationism.

    Nobody who rejects science can be considered intelligent. If you go to school (supposedly as a Rhodes Scholar) and non of that learning sticks, what does that say about you?
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm «

  I’ll bet certain educational institutions wish they could do an excommunication, like the RC church.
• egregious February 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm «

  I’ll bet certain educational institutions wish they could do an excommunication, like the RC church.

  It’s worked pretty well for Stanford and Berkeley so far this year.
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm «

  Don’t know what you mean. Yoo to Chapman? What about Stanford?

  I wasn’t thinking about current faculty. I was thinking they might want to disown certain alums. Can they rescind degrees for stupidity after the fact?
• egregious February 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm «

  Rice
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm «

  What does Stanford have to do with Asian food?
13. oldtree February 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm «

    I don’t follow the description of Jindal as “
    Bobby Jindal is reported to be an intelligent, highly educated man, articulate,”

    Someone that both does not understand the levy and river causality, nor vulcan causality, is quite ignorant as far as it could be thrown. There are numerous active volcano’s that directly impact the US due to being in our territory. Many others that affect the air flow to our territory, an many other that affect our trading partners all over the world. He perhaps doesn’t realize what ashfall would do to the Mississippi River, and thus his drinking water either. He appears not to understand basic meteorology to see that these environmental factors can directly affect his state.
    He is clearly highly educated. He believes himself so educated as to be able to perform exorcisms. This by definition, shows he is not educated, but deeply ignorant. There is but one type of education that would value or mention exorcism, a religious one. Since religious education is ludicrous to all outside parties, who in the world would make such a statement about a man clearly not functional in his job title at all?
    Is he smarter than Sarah Palin? Who knows. He hasn’t had as much chance to make and accumulate stupid, and I mean stupid, not ignorant, statements of fact not in evidence.

    his speech was pointless drivel and the best that they have. But calling this guy sharp makes GW a college graduate.
14. dosido February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm «

    OMG. the bugman is on tweety calling BO a hypocrite. gah!
• eCAHNomics February 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm «

  Delay looks like shit.
• EvilDrPuma February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm «

  And he talks shit. So at least he’s consistent.
• foothillsmike February 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm «

  It is only fitting.
• AZ Matt February 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm «

  That comes easy for him.
• EvilDrPuma February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm «

  Hmph. And here I thought (and hoped) that the Bugman was permanently off the guest list.
• dosido February 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm «

  haha! “first of all, take David Brooks off the list of conservatives” or some such!!! hahahahahaha, he’s only a guy who worshipped at the foot of WF Buckley. WOW.
• Bluetoe2 February 25th, 2009 at 3:29 pm «

  When is that motherf@#ker going to trial? Which lobbyist/s is paying for this fascists legal bills?
• dosido February 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm «

  well I hope Nancy Pelosi prevails and is successful in moving prosecution forward. thank goodness someone thinks that’s a good idea.
• Leen February 25th, 2009 at 7:13 pm «

  sure took Pelosi long enough. Just do not trust this woman. Remember she is the one who took “impeachment off the table”
15. selise February 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm «

    btw, there was a good interview – amy goodman and joe stiglitz – on democracy now! this morning.

    here are two bits from it that are on topic:

    AMY GOODMAN: President Obama on Tuesday night. Joe Stiglitz, is he holding the banks accountable?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, so far, it hasn’t happened. I think the more fundamental issues are the following. He says what we need is to get lending restarted. If he had taken the $700 billion that we gave, levered it ten-to-one, created some new institution guaranteed—provide partial guarantees going for, that would have generated $7 trillion of new lending. So, if he hadn’t looked at the past, tried to bail out the banks, bail out the shareholders, bail out the other—the bankers’ retirement fund, we would have easily been able to generate the lending that he says we need.

    So the question isn’t just whether we hold them accountable; the question is: what do we get in return for the money that we’re giving them? At the end of his speech, he spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. And yet, if we don’t do things right—and we haven’t been doing them right—the deficit will be much larger. You know, whether you spend money well in the stimulus bill or whether you’re spending money well in the bank recapitalization, it’s important in everything that we do that we get the bang for the buck. And the fact is, the bank recovery bill, the way we’ve been spending the money on the bank recovery, has not been giving bang for the buck. We haven’t gotten anything out.

    What we got in terms of preferred shares, relative to what we gave them, a congressional oversight panel calculated, was only sixty-seven cents on the dollar. And the preferred shares that we got have diminished in value since then. So we got cheated, to put it bluntly. What we don’t know is that—whether we will continue to get cheated. And that’s really at the core of much of what we’re talking about. Are we going to continue to get cheated?

    Now, why that’s so important is, one way of thinking about this—end of the speech, he starts talking about a need of reforms in Social Security, put it—you know, there’s a deficit in Social Security. Well, a few years ago, when President Bush came to the American people and said there was a hole in Social Security, the size of the hole was $560 billion approximately. That meant that if we spent that amount of money, we would have guaranteed the—put on sound financial basis our Social Security system. We wouldn’t have to talk about all these issues. We would have provided security for retirement for hundreds of millions of Americans over the next seventy-five years. That’s less money than we spent in the bailouts of the banks, for which we have not been able to see any outcome. So it’s that kind of tradeoff that seems to me that we ought to begin to talk about.

    AMY GOODMAN: Tomorrow, President Obama is going to announce plans to cut the deficit in half. Do you think that’s the right way to go?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What we have to remember is we are in for almost like—most likely a long and extended downturn. Now, we will eventually recover. That’s not a question. But in 2011, 2012, will we be in a sharp recovery or in a more slow recovery?

    One of the lessons from Japan was that in 1997, when they were in the beginning of their recovery, they increased taxes because they wanted to get rid of their deficit, and the economy sank down back into a downturn.

    The way to look at it is the following. Right now, in 2009, 2010, we’re talking about, per year, something like a stimulus bill of $350 billion per year. To cut the deficit in half, with a deficit as we go into—without the stimulus is one-and-a-half trillion dollars, so we’re talking about pulling out $600, $700, $750 billion. That’s the reverse of an expenditure, taking out the stimulus and cutting back expenditures by another $600 billion—we’re talking about a turnaround of a trillion dollars. Do you really believe that by 2010, by 2011, 2012, our economic recovery will be so strong that it can withstand that kind of taking out of expenditure? I don’t think so. And so, if you went ahead and did that, we will go back into a downturn.
• Scarecrow February 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm «

  thanks for the Stiglitz interview link.
16. foothillsmike February 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm «

    The clowns in the rethug party are running around saying we need to shrink government so what is one of the first things they add to the budget? They demand, despite going from 49 to 41 senators, that they maintain the same number of staff on the rethug side of the aisle. DUH
• dosido February 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm «

  And they have double the number of plaques! :]
17. selise February 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm «

    great t-shirts. here’s mine – even have it and wore it starting in 2002 (ie when bush and the WOT were still popular).

    http://www.internationalterrorist.com/btshirt.html
18. Badwater February 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pm «

    In one sense, Republics are correct. Government is the problem…but only when the government is controlled by Republics.
19. jurassicpork February 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm «

    The Freepers are coming, the Freepers are coming!

    Those would be same Freepers, of course, who think that another Civil War is imminent because of Obama’s identification with Lincoln.
20. Bluetoe2 February 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm «

    Oooow, nationalization. So very scary. Republicons and their dead enders are trembling. Oooow nationalization.
• Leen February 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pm «

  have you heard” our economy is being nationalized faster than you can say Hugo Chavez”