Yesterday’s news that the Obama administration had applied undue pressure on senior, secured creditors was bad enough. Now it’s apparent that that was just the tip of the iceberg:

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats. Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

It gets worse:

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet…and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

I’ve long thought that President Obama is a narcissist and a ruthless Chicago machine politician. That’s why I find these accusations totally credible. Captain Ed thinks that way, too:

The story now has more than one source, and mounting testimony — albeit understandably anonymous testimony, at least at this point — that the White House tried threatening senior creditors instead of doing their job in enforcing the law. Not only do they not realize that their responsibilities do not include building business plans for private enterprises, but also don’t include assuming the role of Michael Corleone and acting like organized-crime thugs. Actually, the way the White House made Obama sound, maybe Sonny Corleone is a better analogy … or perhaps Fredo.

I’ve said that this administration has created a new cliche. In decades gone by, the cliche was “I’m with the federal government and I’m here to help you.” That’s since morphed into “I’m with the federal government and I’m here to make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

Such is the way it is with the Obama thugocracy administration.

I’m interested in is finding out who were the Obama administration people in the room when the threats were made. Was Timothy Geithner in the room? Was Rahm Emanuel? Certainly, it isn’t unreasonable to think that senior Treasury Department people were involved in the negotiations. It definitely isn’t a stretch to think that Rahm Emanuel was incapable of making that type of threat.

Unfortunately, there’s no chance that Congress will lift a finger to investigate the Obama administration.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

7 Responses to “The Thuggings Continue”

  • joseph says:

    For years I was involved in politics in a 3rd World country and the tactics used by the Chicago Thugs in the White House are no different than those I saw in that arena. I am sorry to say it but the same liberals in the business world who blindly supported the narcissist Obama are now the ones facing the firing squad of socialist strong arm goons- and they deserve it.

    And it will get worst. Only the cover up by the MSM is causing Americans to turn a blind eye to a 6.1% drop in GDP for the first quarter, the definate prospect of a further 2,000,000 jobs being lost by December 2009, the further decline of the automobile industry, the coming fall in house sales and all exacerbated by the horrendeous anti capitalist policies of Obama. The economic and foreign policy birds will be coming home to roost shortly and you can only hope that he damage done it not so severe and that a clear conservative champion can be identified before it is too late.

  • eric z says:

    Why do you guys suppose Bush is studiously keeping quiet, and has willingly moved far back in the public view? Bush and Paulsen – they were key TARP engineers. Cheney is the former administration person making the most noise. And not about finance.

    Also, a Google search =

    Presidential Task Force on Automobiles ptfoa members

    yields an idea of who the presidential players at the table are; see these two returned links:

    I hope that helps identify who is at the table, directly or by surrogate/delegate persons?

    It looks as if it’s the econ team that’s pushing and playing hardball.

    Any idea why Cerberus gets little mention these days? What’s with the TARP and non-TARP divide? Wall Street banks get by, pension/retirement funds do not?

    That sounds very GOP in priorities for Obama people; or am I wrong?

    What about that Goldman-Sachs guy that got the key staff job at Treasury? Mark Patterson – he goes onto the Obama team and Pease from Frank’s committee goes to Goldman Sachs to take Patterson’s former job; and we ask, so who is asked to fall on the sword re Chrysler? Not the Wall Street investment banking interests; the pension funds and/or speculators left standing and now holding Chrysler bond debt.

    Are animals on Animal Farm unequal, pigs walking on two legs?
    Who exactly are those players????

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, President Bush is old-school. He’s been taught that presidents don’t interfere with their successor, especially while their successor is busy getting their administration put together.

    As for why there’s a difference between TARP & non-TARP corporations, reading this will give you the proper insight:

    Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people’s money.

    People aren’t even being asked to fall on their swords. The secure bondholders, who by bankruptcy law are supposed to get their money first, are being thrown down on their swords by the Obama administration.

    I’ll have more on this later this afternoon. Suffice it to say for the time being that I think President Obama’s actions aren’t that different from Hugo Chavez’s.

  • eric z. says:

    Hugo’s not been bad for the rank and file in his nation; only the top one percent are really resentful there; the running dogs; he is popular and liked by his nation.

    And Obama is different – less fluent in Spanish.

  • eric z. says:

    Sorry – I forgot to say thanks for the link.

    Isn’t there a great deal of flexibility in bankruptcy court, to fashion a remedy?

    And it is not as if there’s a cramdown for those speculators who bought Chrysler bonds near the end – the federal offer of cents on the dollar of face value is greater than the cents on the dollar of face value paid in some of those transactions.

    Finally, what good would be bone-picking the assets when Fiat is ready but not wanting to be bent over? Isn’t that why the bondholders tried their best to squeeze more, then backed down because bone-picking would yield less than taking a generous federal offer?

    Or why else back down – quaking in the boots seems unlikely if there were more money on the table the other way. It was like the jock wanting the better contract but taking the best he can attain.

    How’s it different?

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, The judicial branch is where bankruptcies should be handled. The executive branch shouldn’t involved. What’s worse is that President Obama threatened Chrysler with political retribution.

    Eric, you know that I measure my words pretty well. Still, I don’t hesitate in using the word evil in describing the President’s actions.

Leave a Reply