« Newsweek Celebrates Mad Pride | Main | Forced to Build £20,000 Home for a Bat »

Chicago-style politics on steroids!

"And if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken."
--Mayor Carmine DePasto

They both voted for him? Well good for them. There ya go boys. Have a little "hope and change". Morons.

Why is it another democratic adminisration so resembles the mob? Is this the due process you talked about in the campaign a-hole?

Why is it another democratic adminisration so resembles the mob? Is this the due process you talked about in the campaign a-hole?

OOPS How did that happen?

Oh well, if it's worth saying, it's worth saying twice.

Completely unattributed quotes. That's guts for you. And not at all a hardball tactic in and of itself, leaking that you're basically dissatisfied.

Step up and get a pair, folks!

"Completely unattributed quotes."

You mean like the ones that come from the NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc... ?

Like the one from the courageous but nameless "Anonymous?"

This is pure thug Chicago politics. No surpise here at all. Of course it's gangland mentality. It's the cesspool where the zero and his gang came from. Didn't people know what they were voting for?

Karin, I know of no Chicago mob or "gang"land mentality that threatens people with a White house PRESS CORP hostile to reputations. Yes it does sound like coercion, but what are the other alternatives for how to proceed? Can we examine in detail the debt restructuring that those who are "threatened" with bad press are offering? Let me guess, a straight up honoring of contractual obligations, followed by a notice to "look for work" for millions of American manufacturing workers?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/04/chrysler-and-coercion/

In an interview of momentous importance, WJR’s Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at top five law firm White & Case, in which the lawyer, who represents Chrysler hold-out hedge funds Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds, discusses on the record the amazing treatment by the White House of Perella Weinberg, which initially had been a transaction hold out but after threats by the White House (not my words) was forced to drop their objection and go with the administration. Says Lauria:

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight…That was Perella Weinberg.”

I'm going to go search now for what Perella Weinberg was too scared to voice in public, his lawyer was apparently not afraid to launch allegations of coercion. Sorry but its not a healthy company, and it employs and supports the employment of a lot of Americans. You want to sell it off and pay secured creditors? What is YOUR plan maestro? I will listen.

Yes it does sound like coercion, but what are the other alternatives for how to proceed?

At least you're admitting it's coercion. What to do? You already said it:

You want to sell it off and pay secured creditors?

Of course. That's why we have bankruptcy protection and proceedings. What do you think is going to happen to capital investment in this country if the government is allowed to step in, void contractual obligations on a whim, and force secured creditors to accept 30 cents on the dollar for their investment, all while calling them greedy hedge fund managers and threatening them as you stated above...?

Think about that and get back to me.

Now, I know, I know, GM and Chrysler accepted public money, so the public has a vested interest in the proceedings. That's why conservatives said the bail-outs were a bad idea. That's why we said it was a bad idea when GM and Chrysler, amongst others, accepted the money.

Somehow, "I told you so," just doesn't quite cut it in this instance.

To me it seems foolish for his voters to think he rose in the muck of Chicago politics and came out sparkling clean. Looks to me he learned a thing or two. Hopefully his arrogance will overextend the law in such a manner Congress has no choice but rid of him.

"cave ahht at May 6, 2009 1:28 PM"

I take it that you see NOTHING WRONG with Hopey McChange's strong-arm tactics? Pretend that it is George Bush in the SAME EXACT situation and circumstances. Tell us what you would think of it in that case.

By the way;
HISTORICAL COMPARISON:

In the twentys, Mussolini went to Rome with several thousand armed followers. He entered the Hose Of Deputies with a pistol on his hip and told them that he was "just showing them" that he COULD take power by force if he wanted. BUT, he would "allow" them to decide if they wanted his leadership.
They "elected" him unamanously.

cave ahht, it's obvious that you can't see that Hopey McChange is just as much shoving a PISTOL to the heads of these men. Remember the hatchet-jobs on "Joe the Plumber" and Gov. Palin?

"looks like" coercion does not mean coercion actually took place. e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e or its hearsay I can interpret myself thank you very much.

http://www.businessinsider.com/left-wing-losing-its-mind-over-perella-weinberg-threat-story-2009-5
from the above site:

Here’s the full statement by Perella Weinberg:

Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.

We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’ money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.

While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.

"looks like" coercion does not mean coercion actually took place. e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e or its hearsay I can interpret myself thank you very much.

Calm down. I was actually giving credit where credit is due. A lot of loopy Obamaphiles aren't even considering the appearance of coercion, so you should be commended. I'm guessing you pretty much agree with the rest of what I wrote, though?