[speechlesstx]

I answered your question. Are you slow today? :)

No you swerved around the first part of the question.

Can you show me how "libs celebrate their perverts"?

Gee, I guess you missed the point of that kind of "festival" in a major American city.

[ETWolverine]

Can you show me how "libs celebrate their perverts"?

The best example of all: They elected Bill Clinton.

But there are plenty of others.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

It's being reported that the Obama administration is using the threat of the White House press corps to intimidate Chrysler investors:

An attorney representing several Chrysler bondholders accused the Obama administration of intimidating his clients by issuing threats of public humiliation if they opposed their brokered deal to resolve the automaker’s debts. Speaking to WJR, Thomas Lauria said that the White House called the bondholders “vultures” for insisting on their rights as senior creditors and told them that the Obama administration would use the White House press corps to attack them in the media. Corky Boyd has the transcript (also via HA reader Geoff A):

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

Glenn Reynolds wonders how the White House press corps will feel about being used as an arm of the administration to beat its opposition into submission. My guess? Enchanted, with just a couple of exceptions. He also wonders whether they will show the slightest inclination to ask about these allegations. So far, it looks like the Sounds of Silence on the WHPC dial rather than We’re Not Going to Take It.

Bear in mind that this is one attorney operating in his client’s interest, and attorneys do like to make media waves by fighting cases on the evening news and the front page before they fight them in court. However, the WHPC should be asking whether they’re getting played by the Obama administration — and consider the strong possibility that they’ve allowed themselves to be put in that position.

Update: Jake Tapper reports the allegations and wants an answer from the White House:

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration’s Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration’s Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.

Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit’s WJR-AM radio.

The White House now denies the allegations, claiming that there’s no evidence of it (via Geoff A):

The White House said the story was false.

“The charge is completely untrue,” said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, “and there’s obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way.”

No evidence? What about Lauria’s personal testimony?

Meanwhile, Tommy Christopher — who actually reports from the White House — dismisses the charge:

As far as the “threat” Lauria alleges, it sounds an awful lot like someone told his client that public opinion would not likely be favorable to people who would obstruct a fair deal to save Chrysler. That’s not a threat, it is a reality. It’s no more a “threat” than John McCain’s campaign promise to make earmarkers “famous.”

Apples and oranges. McCain threatened to make public officials “famous” for wasting taxpayer money. The Obama administration allegedly threatened to use the WHPC to destroy the reputations of private citizens as a punishment for not relinquishing their contractual rights for having helped float Chrysler. There’s a huge difference between the two.

Isn't that special? Where's this adversarial press I keep hearing about? Is Jake Tapper the only White House reporter left with any integrity?

[speechlesstx]

Good news, we're going to own GM.

NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Corp's (GM.N) plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The source, who would not be named because he was not cleared to speak with the media, did not specify a purchase price. The new company is expected to honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly in full, according to the source.

The remaining assets of GM would stay in bankruptcy protection to satisfy other outstanding claims.

GM has about $6 billion in secured debt, including a secured revolving credit and bank debt.

The government's plans include giving stakes in the new company to GM's union and bondholders, although the ownership structure of the company is still being negotiated, said the source who is familiar with the company's plans.

In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said.

"Initially owned" by the feds? Is that only until the ownership structure negotiations conclude with the UAW as the majority owner?

[excon]

Good news, we're going to own GM.

Hello again, Steve:

Bummer. If only the dufus hadn't broken it sooooo bad... Ok, OK. It wasn't JUST the dufus. He had a lotta help.

We DID get ripped off, you know. The country WAS looted. Somebody wasn't watching the store when that happened, and there's a price to pay for that mistake.

But, you should stop blaming the FIXER, and start blaming the BREAKER.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Good news, we're going to own GM.

Oh, goody. We now own a car company, several banks, a major insurance company and soon the hospitals. All we need are Park Place, Boardwalk, and Short Line railroad and we win the game!!

Hat tip to Roe Conn (The Roe Report), from Chicago's WLS radio.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Bummer. If only the dufus hadn't broken it sooooo bad.... Ok, ok. It wasn't JUST the dufus. He had a lotta help.

We DID get ripped off, you know. The country WAS looted. Somebody wasn't watching the store when that happened, and there's a price to pay for that mistake.

But, you should stop blaming the FIXER, and start blaming the BREAKER.

Do you really think Obama is fixing it?

[excon]

Do you really think Obama is fixing it?

Hello again, Steve:

Nooo, not really, but I'm an optimist. I'm also buying gold.

But, if it DOESN'T get fixed, it's the guy who BROKE its fault - not the guy who tried to fix it. Your fix - to let it all go in the dumper and lower taxes - ain't a fix.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Steve:

Nooo, not really, but I'm an optimist. I'm also buying gold.

But, if it DOESN'T get fixed, it's the guy who BROKE its fault - not the guy who tried to fix it. Your fix - to let it all go in the dumper and lower taxes - ain't a fix.

excon

Let's see... that would make it the UAW's fault for stupid, unrealistic contracts that no company could pay and remain profitable. It's management's problem for having made those agreements. It's management's fault for having a poor business model. It's management's fault for poor quality control for so many years. It's the UAW's fault for not allowing bad performers to be fired for poor performance (thus leading to poor quality, liability issues and wasted money).

What has any of that got to do with Bush?

GM started as a company in 1908, and Rick Wagoner became CFO of GM in 1992 and President in 1998. Wagoner's mismanagement predates Bush's presidency. UAW was started in 1935, and Ron Gettlefinger has been on the executive board of the UAW since 1992, Vice President since 1998 and President since 2002.

I don't see any connection between the bad business policies of these guys, which predated the Bush administration, and George Bush. How is any of this Bush's fault?

Furthermore, you keep referring to Obama as the fixer. How is the nationalization of GM going to fix anything? And how is cap in trade designed to fix any of it? In what way is Obama "fixing" anything?

Elliot

[galveston]

I'll say it again.

What 'Bama broke is confidence.

Without that, no fix is going to work.

[inthebox]

GM started as a company in 1908, and Rick Wagoner became CFO of GM in 1992 and President in 1998. Wagoner's mismanagement predates Bush's presidency. UAW was started in 1935, and Ron Gettlefinger has been on the executive board of the UAW since 1992, Vice President since 1998 and President since 2002.

I don't see any connection between the bad business policies of these guys, which predated the Bush administration, and George Bush. How is any of this Bush's fault?

Furthermore, you keep referring to Obama as the fixer. How is the nationalization of GM going to fix anything? And how is cap in trade designed to fix any of it? In what way is Obama "fixing" anything?

Elliot

It is so easy to just blame Bush - you don't have think, or rather just blaming Bush for whatever, demonstrates that you don't think :rolleyes:


About Obama being the fixer?


Obama Achieves Much-Needed Victory with CAFE Standards Plan


He is putting the nail in the coffin.


Was not the price of gas enough to guide consumer choice and as the free market proves, gas price up, gas guzzlers down - the gov did not have to now demand it.

But wait - who does this benefit - those who already make fuel efficient vehicles. Certainly the Big 3 relied on SUV and trucks for profitablitly. With probably the exception of Ford, GM and Chrysler do not make appreciable amounts of either hybrid vehicles or diesals [ which can get as much mpg as hybrids ] . Oh, by the way the free market has already decided to buy Honda and Toyota more than the big 3.





G&P

[speechlesstx]

Oh, btw the free market has already decided to buy Honda and Toyota more than the big 3.

I'm sure Obama has something up his sleeve to penalize those two.