May 1, 2009

Taking The Hunt To The Witches

They said that if you voted for McCain, dissenters would be targeted by the White House - and they were right!

“A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none,” Obama said.

“I don't stand with them,” Obama said. “I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars.”

I heard this over the car radio yesterday, so didn't blog about it then, but my thoughts were similar to Stephen Spruiell's;

Does that mean he doesn't stand with the thousands of Americans who have retirement plans with Oppenheimer Funds? [...] Not everyone showed this kind of backbone. I don't know about you, but knowing that Oppenheimer's managers were willing to stand up to immense political pressure on behalf of their investors kind of makes me want to open an account there.

Politico - "It’s clear that the White House thinks the politics of battling unnamed “speculators” works in its favor."

Last month he sparked the Great National Rile-Up over AIG bonuses, now this.

The hopey-changy agenda becomes clearer by the day - what Bush did for terrorism, Obama will do for witches.

Posted by Kate at May 1, 2009 3:35 PM

Hey, Harper stands side by side with the Obamanator. And 'ol Steve was pretty happy to cut some major league cheques on your behalf to buy Chrysler (although, our Cons ain't as good a negotiators).

C'mon Canada! Be Patriotic! Buy a Chrysler Car, and support you!

Brought to you by the Canadian Peoples Car Company (CPC)

Posted by: hardboiled at May 1, 2009 3:45 PM

One question hardboiled:

In YOUR opinion, is the McGuinty/Harper move a good thing or a bad thing for Canada?

Posted by: set you free at May 1, 2009 3:53 PM

Yup. And not a single CAW worker will vote for him. I don't get it either.

Posted by: Kate at May 1, 2009 3:54 PM

Wasn't Obama in his BP days (Before President) protesting with the unions which were striking at the time against one of the Big 3, trying to squeeze them from every last cent which it turns out they didn't have?

So on one hand, he helps push them over the edge, and then later he uses taxpayer funds to pull them up out of the abyss he pushed them into, all the while basking in his own gloriousness?

Posted by: grok at May 1, 2009 3:58 PM

Well I for sure won't buy a Chrysler now!!!
...or any other government motors pile of crap.

Posted by: FREE at May 1, 2009 4:00 PM

The management and Board of Directors of a publicly traded company
have a definite and indeed strong duty to maximise shareholder returns.
It is not greed - it's the law! Asking them to do otherwise, no matter how
"virtuous" the reason, is asking them to BREAK the law.

Posted by: John Lewis at May 1, 2009 4:08 PM

My view is that if the governemnt is going to be an "owner" or capital provider then they have the right and duty to act as any other captial provider...everyone tries to exercise their rights to their maximum and when there is a clash it ends in this one will.

I do not buy the argument that the government shoudl just be a silent provider of money, IF it provides cash or guarantees it gets a say. That doesnt mean I think government SHOULD be providing money, jsut that if it does you only compound the error by making it completely costless.

At the end of the day the only thing the government should have done is provided Debtor in Possesion financing if because the credit crunch meant the normal market wasnt functioning. We are kind of there now.

The saw about the Oppenheimer being virtuous is as tired as saying Oppenheimer are evil. They are neither, they are doing their job, but so are the majoity of the other debotors who agreed as did the government.

What I do object to is the alleged pressure that the government is placing by making threats....the lawyer for Oppenheimer claimed the government rep said they would sick the White House press corps to shred their reputations. If that is true then a real investigation is required.

Oppenhemier may win, they may lose, but it is now in Bankruptcy Court which is where we should have been 3 months ago.

Once again, businesses and people shoudl all learn that there are costs to asking the government into your business. remember the government was ASKED in, it didnt force its way in, on either side of the border.

It shouldnt have happened, and government needs to exit as fast as it can. Cant wait for the first question in question period about Sally Smith in Oromoncto whose transmission isnt working and what is the Minister going to do about it.

Posted by: Stephen at May 1, 2009 4:23 PM

Well hardboiled it wasn't for the CAW. It was for the thousands of people that work for parts suppliers that do not belong to unions. The people that sell them groceries etc. It was the best of a bad lot. I don't like it but that is the way it goes. Look to the Lib. leadership annotation this weekend. There is no reason for anyone to bother showing up so unlike the zealots..who cares. I don't think they are going for Iggy and it sure isn't to honour Dion which is the HIGH point of the coronation. Policy..none. Interest..none.

Posted by: Speedy at May 1, 2009 4:23 PM

john lewis - yes, it's the duty of management to maximize shareholder investments. It's basic reality. Both in public and private enterprises.

After all, it's the duty of a lioness to maximize the capacity of her cubs to survive; this duty is to the lion species.
It's the duty of a farmer to maximize the return on his wheat crop; this enables him to grow the next crop, feed more people, and supply all his other needs.

But Obama doesn't 'think' this way. His view, which I maintain he accepts as Truth-Without-Analysis, is that ANY return over and above the minimal equation of input and output EXACTLY mimic each wrong.

His view is that any output that is MORE than the input, is wrong; it is due to a sinful psyche. You are greedy. And you must be punished and this 'extra' taken from you and given to someone else. Who doesn't work.

Strangely, of course, Obama doesn't analyze this equation of output-must-equal-input. He doesn't expect it of himself. So, the fact that he 'reaps far more than he sows'..just doesn't occur to him, because..he's a narcissist.

But Obama is directly and viciously attacking the middle class in America. He's denigrating them, calling them psychological aberrations (greedy people); he's doing everything he can to take away the results of their hard work and hand it over to those who don't work..but who will vote for him.
He's destroying incentives to independence, to freedom of thought and speech. If you question or reject him - he'll either attack you (personally or by his minions)..or..he'll ignore you.

Posted by: ET at May 1, 2009 4:26 PM

Obama has created a real mess with the Chapter 11 Chrysler bankruptcy.

Far from being the one to bring all the parties to the table he has labeled the bondholders as essentially bandits for refusing to go along with the Obama dictated terms.

This is quite extraordinary as in a bankruptcy , the bondholders are first in line , but Obama has given the union (UAW) 55% ownership in Chrysler and essentially told the bond holders to "get lost" ... I guess labour got results from their $100 million + contributions to his election campaign! Obama ( who has never been in business) seems to think he can dictate new contractual law and naively seems to think the bankruptcy issue will be quickly resolved in 30-60 days , but the realty is the bond holders will sue in court and will drag out the bankruptcy hearings, and if it goes on too long Chrysler will vanish.

Also ... It hasn't been generally published by the Obama loving MSM , but when Obama was dissing the banking community , it got so bad that the bankers sent a formal letter to Obama telling him to back off !

Posted by: Brian at May 1, 2009 4:27 PM

From the Coyote

"In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated — because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim — the bondholders — get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin."


Posted by: Fred at May 1, 2009 4:29 PM

I am going to be in Ottawa this coming week. I will attend a meeting where the prime minister will take questions in an open forum. There are no media in the room. What question would you ask if you had the chance? Discuss

Posted by: Brian Mallard at May 1, 2009 4:33 PM

Did he just openly vilify investors?

Posted by: grok at May 1, 2009 4:36 PM

Yup. And not a single CAW worker will vote for him. I don't get it either.

I happen to know a whole wing of the CAW that en masse votes CPC... Granted, that particular local doesn't make cars, but still.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at May 1, 2009 4:43 PM

Fred I think pension commitments have priority in bankruptcy. Not sure though. Then bond, bottom is common shares below preferred shares. The UAW has 40% of the bonds as a pension obligation. Bambam screwed up the system, it hasn't made it through the courts but I don't expect big changes.

Posted by: Speedy at May 1, 2009 4:44 PM

Another one has some steel to his spine. Author ('Willful Blindness') and government lawyer, Andrew McCarthy write to Eric Holder:

"Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading."

" is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States)."

"...I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop."

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government."

There is more at the link...

Posted by: BB at May 1, 2009 4:46 PM

May I posit a collusion theorum explaining what the hell is going on here?

Here's a hint: The IMF "suggested" in the fall that G8 countries spend 2% of their GDP on "stimulus". That is exactly what Harper and, near as I can tell, every other major industrialized spent, to the dollar, $32 billion in Canada's case. I believe most of the rest of their "recommendations" were dutifully implemented too.

Hint #2: After the coalition was formed, a coalition formed for the specific reason that Harper wasn't spending the $32 billion "suggested" by the IMF, we all saw the polls: Harper would have won 200 seats, minimum, had he run on a "F*ck you, IMF" no-panic platform if he called an election. He didn't drop the writ, and I doubt the GG could have stopped him.

I'm not able to identify a G8 leader, or G20 leader for that matter, who didn't spaz out fiscally subsequent to the IMF's "suggestion".

So where does that leave us? I'm not saying don't blame him because everyone else is doing it, I'm saying Canada didn't have a choice to begin with, on stimulus or this bailout crap. Our sovereignty and our democracy would both appear to be mostly an illusion.

I might have preferred that Harper just hand the keys to Dion rather than have the CPC's outstanding fiscal record over their first 3 years flushed down the tubes, the Conservatives will be wearing this for years. That's not good.

I see no political will or payoff for the Chrysler bailout to make it worthwhile, which raises the question we began with, the answer being, near as I can tell, that Harper, and we, don't have much choice in the matter. Harper is acting like a guy who won't be around next week let alone next year, that may also help explain what is happening, he doesn't care what will happen when he's gone.

Harper deserves every bit of criticism he's getting on this, I just wish it wasn't coming from the clowns who were slagging him when he was producing thirteen billion dollar surpluses and giving us twelve billion dollar tax cuts, simultaneously, while also providing the cleanest government in at least a generation.

Posted by: theoretician at May 1, 2009 4:50 PM

If PMSH does not help Canadian Chrysler is toast. That in itself isn't good but look at the scenario if he doesn't and gives aid to anyone else. Libs will vote it down, NDP will vote it down and Iggy is PM. I would sell your mother to prevent that. Mine has passed but if she hadn't I would have to think about that.

Posted by: Speedy at May 1, 2009 4:50 PM

Given that Obama is doing what he wants rather than what the law states he must do, is he then a tyrant, or merely a brazen thief?

Regardless, Lex Rex has again been consigned to the flames.

Posted by: Tenebris at May 1, 2009 4:52 PM

I still don't get it unless the US has a president who knowingly violates his oath of office.

There should be outrage - complete outrage - from Republicans (and anyone else who has the courage to stand up for fundamental laws and rights) about his blatant disregard to law.

Again, I don't get it - why are Harper and Dolton giving money to Chrysler now? Shouldn't that money simply go to pay off Chrysler's creditors (much as AIG's money went to pay off its debts with UBS, Goldman Sachs et al)? How can the union get 55% of the company? Doesn't a bankruptcy judge determine all this? Shouldn't Chrysler take actions which result in settlement with all creditors or be forced to liquidate?

Where are our legislators' respect for legislation? The hypocrisy is mind-numbing even for politicians.

Posted by: Dave in Mississauga at May 1, 2009 4:54 PM

BTW - can we buy Oppenheimer Funds in Canada?

Posted by: Dave in Mississauga at May 1, 2009 4:55 PM

brian, ask him why he is not a conservative.

Posted by: old white guy at May 1, 2009 5:10 PM

Posted by: set you free at May 1, 2009 3:53 PM

Bad thing.

Arbitrarily transferring wealth from one to another by gov't fiat (get it?) is wrong. It's confiscatory and by definition, arbitrary.

The bullshit about '500k jobs lost' is really, really sad to hear from Harper.

As I see mentioned, he is governing as if he don't care. I think he doesn't. I think he's had enough. It shows in his lack of courage.

Posted by: hardboiled at May 1, 2009 5:24 PM

Posted by: theoretician at May 1, 2009 4:50 PM

Haven't Con staffers got anything else to do than troll websites posting fluff?

Posted by: hardboiled at May 1, 2009 5:26 PM

Does it really come as a surprise that the "hold-outs" were the banks that DID NOT receive TARP funds? Everyone of the banks that agreed to the $0.30/dollar deal had taken TARP funds. Am I the only one who thinks that Obama TOLD the TARP banks that they were going to take their $0.30 on the dollar, or else? I just hope somebody has a video camera in the room when the UAW starts negotiating wages with the UAW.

Posted by: MBDawg at May 1, 2009 5:27 PM

If the bondholders wanted to stay first in line they should have put up more money when the car companies went looking for more funding earlier.

They didnt.....he government terms put them ahead of any previous holders....ooops they got screwed...the bondholders deserve it along with the quity holders, the unions and mgt. The companies were never disciplined by capital providers as weak mgt fed a rapacious union.

There are no angels here, there are no innocents. Conservatives would be a mkaing a mistake by lining up behind some of these guys. Some are greedy....but so what....let it all play out.

Union members have been shown to voite more for parties other than the NDP and a significant number do vote CPC. But it isnt about CAW it is about the non unionized car parts mfg workers. That is the major employer in Southern Ontario. Assembly workers are the chosen and pampered few.

I would rather harper do what he is doing and ensuring that canadians get a say, we get a board seat, rather than seeing the industry taken away. Leaving money as a loan doesnt do the company or the taxpayer any good.

What you really shoudl wish for is that the government starts doig the same thing with its other teat sucking children like Bombardier. Wouldnt they just freak out if the federal government did what it should do with them.

Once again, if you give businesspeople costless money they will take it. That includes farmers, fisheries and forestry workers and companies.

This will go in front of a bankruptcy judge and then Oppenheimer and others can decide once that result comes through if they made the rigth bet. they might get more, they might get less, they might get the same.

There is a good chance that the governments proposal will be passed by the judge because the majority of creditors agreed to it.

The bigger worry is the additional pressure government can bring to bear; threats of tax audits, publicity, investigations, things that go far beyond the norm. I dont doubt those are being used if you believe Oppenheimers lawyer. that is worth objecting to, that is abuse of power.

Posted by: Stephen at May 1, 2009 5:30 PM


Yup. And not a single CAW worker will vote for him. I don't get it either.

Oh, foo. C'mon, Kate, look at the electoral map - Oshawa/Whitby, Oshawa, Durham - all Tory. Yes, downtown Windsor went NDP, but all the surrounding ridings were blue. Had to be a few CAW workers voting for Steve.

Posted by: KevinB at May 1, 2009 5:34 PM

Today, as we watch the collapse of Chrysler unfold...

I have an overwhelming urge to phone a Chrysler dealer, any Chrysler dealer and ask for Tony in Service.


Well Fix It Again Tony!

I guess in a way it's a bit of black humour, a GM dealer isn't exactly a job safe place either.

Posted by: the bear at May 1, 2009 5:34 PM

Stephen, I believe we ain't seen nuthin' yet. If these Oppenheimer guys and the other objecting investors hadn't folded, I think its entirely possible groups of protesters/rioters would have appeared in front of their homes.

They tried it once already, they may do it again but better organized.

We may end up seeing that. Pretty soon too.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 1, 2009 5:40 PM

Dave in Miss,

The union, with the pension fund liability, are the biggest debt owners, relieving the company of that cash obligation is what gets them the equity.

As I pointed out earlier, there is no breaking of laws here. Chrysler signed away the existing bondholders position when they took the government loans. If they wanted to prevent it they shoudl have put their own money up.

This is going to court, it is following normal process. The objection should have been to the government loans in the first place, but now that they have happened, well at least they are showing spine this time. Previous times let the companies, shareholders and bondholders off the hook...socializing the losses. IF you are going to do this, then this is the right way to do it.

But doing it the right way doesnt justify the decision in the first place, to be clear.


Merkel of Germany has been relatively responsible, if you want the name of a leader who has spoken up and maintained some discipline. Harper has as well. Cpmpared to others Canada has spent what it arguably needed to, not more.

The Libs and NDP are already asking for more, now that they feel the spending constraint has been loosed. Would I have preferred smaller or less stimulus, sure. Woudl we have got it in a majority situation, likely. Is there a difference between Harper spending and the others, definitley If you cant see it then you havent been listening to the other guys or taking them seriously.

It is as much about what you spend it on as opposed to how much. Obama's issue is his spending leans more toward permanent program spending....Harpers is temporary with sunsets built in. You dont think the Liberals wouldnt have used this to ram through childcare and some other program monsters?

One other prediction, the US will have a GST like tax within 7 years. Its the only way they can pay off the debt. The question is will they lower income taxes at the same time.

Posted by: Stephen at May 1, 2009 5:44 PM

Please ask Harper as I have said before on a couple of blogs to think outside the box. If we are going to invest billions of taxpayers' money in car companies, then let us at least get something out of it and convert to diesel as they fuel their cars in Europe. Despite the dirty reputation of diesel on this side of the Atlantic, this would be much better than the fraud of ethanol and the limitations of hybrids. If we set the example, maybe the Americans will think outside the box too.

Posted by: Nicola Timmerman at May 1, 2009 5:46 PM

Kate, Yukon Gold,

The federal ridings of Whitby-Oshawa and Oshawa are both conservative (Jim Flaherty and Colin Carrie). In fact almost all of Durham is conservative. I can only speak for GM workers in Oshawa - most of them vote conservative. Can't speak for Windsor, Brampton or Oakville.

According to the guest on tech ticker on Yahoo! Financial today, Oppenheimer, etc., picked up these bonds at 15cents on the dollar. If they had gone with the deal they were looking at a possible 100% profit. He said that these hedge fund guys are supposed to be sophisticated and should have known that anytime federal, state, unions, pension funds, etc. are involved the bankruptsy rules as applied to simple bankruptsy go out the window and it is the judge who will decide based on 'common good'. These guys gambled and are gambling that they can make a far larger return.

Posted by: cconn at May 1, 2009 5:51 PM


I agree. But I think this is where they will overreach. If the Oppenheimer lawyer was accurate when he said that the government rep, "threatened to sick the White House PRESS CORPS on us to shred our reputations"

If true...

1) I am sure soem members of the corps would be disgusted that they are assumed to be in the pocket. not all of them are.

2) Most Americans would find that kind of oddly Nixonian (Obama as the anti nixon :-)) comment to be deeply disturbing.

But it is just an allegation right now and no names were used, and the allegation doesnt have any legs for the moment....maybe SDA could get results.

That is what I object dont see HArper issuing those threats....tells you something.

Posted by: Stephen at May 1, 2009 5:52 PM

From the amusingly named "Tyler Durden" at

But all is not lost - now that uncle Obama is personally guaranteeing the installation and the bimonthly oiling and dusting of mufflers, hubcaps, and transaxle scotch tape for all hedge fund managers who buy Chrysler cars, it is only a matter of time before the millions of unsold Dodge Rams fly off the cargo docks faster than they can be sent to China to moderate Beijing's anger over holding millions of rapidly devaluing metric tons of one-ply U.S. treasury paper.

Posted by: KevinB at May 1, 2009 5:53 PM

et something out of it and convert to diesel as they fuel their cars in Europe

Nicola, why would we want to make a diesel fuel shortage worse than it already is?

Posted by: the bear at May 1, 2009 5:57 PM

I think chrysler should just switch to making septic tanks

It wouldn't be much of a change for them, and better than building italian ladas

Posted by: GYM at May 1, 2009 6:10 PM

Michelle Obama stands with Americans- in $540 shoes.
Well- she doesn't really stand with American because they're just little people and boy does she hate little people! But she does have really expensive shoes. It's okay, though, because the shoes are "utilitarian" in purpose. Unlike that dreadful Sarah Palin!
What has this world come to?!

(the link is long- sorry)

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at May 1, 2009 6:19 PM

Haven't Con staffers got anything else to do than troll websites posting fluff?

Well we're all having a good laugh at Kate's post on German spies who gave blankets with smallpox to the humpback whales, resulting in the Y2K bug, or whatever the f*ck that nonsense was all about; does that count?

Not quite the reaction I was expecting at the "Best Conservative Blog".

Posted by: theoretician at May 1, 2009 6:20 PM

Even the "Best Conservative Blog" has its resident trolls. You've merely engaged one that's having difficulty finding someone to play with.

As for Harper, did it ever occur to you that perhaps he's doing what he's doing because it's for the good of the country? I realize that it's a difficult concept for Canadians to grasp, having been so rarely exposed to it. Ideology sucks. True leadership rises above it.

And Brian.
Ask Mr Harper when are we going to have some justice for the little thug from Shawinigan. In the 2006 election campaign he claimed that if we re-elected the Liberals, we would never find out where the money went. Well, we didn't elect the libs, and we still don't know where the money went. Until there is some closure on this issue, it remains a festering sore for many of us. And as such, my confidence in this country remains shaken.

Posted by: Pd at May 1, 2009 7:13 PM

theoretican, I theorize you did not read the stories posted as you are grossly misrepresenting them.

Posted by: No-One at May 1, 2009 7:20 PM

Looks like the taxpayers in the US and non taxpayers - welfare receipients, will have to pay back the stimulus money they recived due to a change in IRS laws.

Posted by: No-One at May 1, 2009 7:27 PM

theoretican, I theorize you did not read the stories posted as you are grossly misrepresenting them.

Yeah, whatever, at the end of the day you're trolling a conservative, at a "conservative" blog, and you're not the only one doing it.

I think I speak for all 12 remaining conservatives on the North American continent when I say getting trolled at "conservative" blogs is starting to piss us off immensely.

Posted by: theoretician at May 1, 2009 7:48 PM

Next up: Frank and Belinda Stronach....

Chrysler shutdown pushes suppliers closer to edge
Fri May 1, 2009 3:01pm EDT
Uh oh. Dang. Planned bailouts didn't quite see this coming. Guess that's the problem about selective bailouts of selective parts of the selective economy.

Tar babies aren't selective.

Chrysler shutdown pushes suppliers closer to edge

DETROIT/NEW YORK (Reuters) - With all 30 of Chrysler's plants idled through the automaker's bankruptcy process, its cash-strapped parts suppliers will have no new revenue for the next 60 days -- or indefinitely.

Posted by: hardboiled at May 1, 2009 7:58 PM

Ask Mr Harper when are we going to have some justice for the little thug from Baie-Comeau.

Hey gerbil, as for Harper, did it ever occur to you that perhaps he's doing what he's doing because it's for the good of the party? That maybe giving billions of dollars to favored constituencies versus others is wrong?

Posted by: hardboiled at May 1, 2009 8:00 PM

It's cold war, it was just brought over onto our own territory, if you haven't noticed. This time the commies are winning.

If you have not been following what transpired over the past few decades.

1. The Western companies opened the first factories in China. Some western manufacturing workforce got laid off, some retired, some moved to service sector, which does not create surplus.

2. Purchasing power dropped.

3. Tax flow decreased. Investments decreased. Debt increased.

3. More Western companies felt pressure to open more factories in China responding to demand for cheaper goods.

4. More Western workforce lost their jobs, more retired, more moved to service sector which does not create surplus.

5. Purchasing power dropped even lower.

6. Tax flow decreased, investments decreased, debt increased.

If 1-6 is repeated enough times, there will be no cash left in North America and the West in general. The money that flow to the 3d world do not come back, at least not 100% or even close. Some of that money is used to buy American and Canadian companies, but great deal is used by Chicom to increase their military might - there is no return from there, military products can only be used or recycled.

As a result less and less money is spent in the West to support the infrastructure. The effects had to be masked, attention diverted. That's why AGW and other scams. But this cannot be masked forever, there will be a point where the West will collapse. Give it another 30 years.

Posted by: Aaron at May 1, 2009 8:24 PM

Ah and well the pandemic flu panic didn't fix things, so lets let loose in the USA, or should I say USSA the "innocents" inmates from Gitmo.

Beginning yesterday and continuing today, Obama administration officials are briefing key members of Congress on the release, which may happen as early as next week. There apparently has been no decision on where the Uighurs will be turned loose. Earlier reports suggested they could be released in Alexandria, Virginia or Washington, D.C.

Posted by: ldd at May 1, 2009 9:49 PM

I wonder if Obama and friends have done to GM and Chrysler what our liberal media have done to themselves: made it so conservatives won't buy their products. It will be fun to watch the sales numbers for each car maker in the next year or so. A guy at work who had been a Chevy man just bought a Toyota Camry instead. My next vehicle will not be from GM or Chrysler.

Posted by: Mike Kelley at May 1, 2009 10:02 PM

Oppenheimer made the best move. Their Chrysler debt was most likely insured against default with a Credit Default Swap (CDS). If they agreed to the deal their debt is worth say 15 cents on the dollar. If they refuse, Chrysler defaults and the CDS they bought kicks in to cover the default.

Guess who probably issued the CDS? AIG! With the US Treasury backing the AIG CDS, the US Gov't will has provided Oppenheimer opportunity to minimize their losses. Sorry, Owe, but I guess you didn't think through all the ramifications of the AIG bailout.

Posted by: Norm Matthew at May 2, 2009 1:27 AM

"My next vehicle will not be from GM or Chrysler."

Then perhaps consider a Ford product. J.D. Powers and Associates rated them as equal to both Toyota and Honda products for quality.

Consumer Reports gives the Fusion a 'recommended' rating and a lower frequency of repair rating than the imports.

The new Fusion Hybrid just went over 1200 miles on a single tank of gas (by 'hypermiling) and is designed to go 700 miles on a tank.

Ford has taken no government funding, yet will benefit from the same labour agreements negotiated by GM and Chrysler - without the gov't interference.

And my Ford stock has gone up from $2.74 in February to $5.68 yesterday.

What's not to like????

Posted by: No Guff at May 2, 2009 1:43 AM

The coded message from the Whitehouse chairman of Wall Street finance was that if you don't buy into the new collectivist economy you will be crushed like a bug. The Obama regime is on a buying spree in a depressed market Washington created, with a stolen taxpayer's credit card.

I would not want to be the CEO Of this new nationalized Washington corporation when the bill is delivered to the American tax payer.

Posted by: voltaire's bastard at May 2, 2009 8:32 AM


How are Alfonso Cashbagliano loan repayments coming along on his winery and will a future Liberal government mean another lawsuit by a former President of the Federal Business Development Bank?

ps Enjoy the veal.

Posted by: Manitoba Moose at May 2, 2009 8:42 AM

"I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars.”

Those people were called P.O.D.S. by Lee Iacocca and Chrysler many years ago -- the company that thought its own customers were rubes if they were dumb enough to buy their products.

Obama can pry the steering wheel of my Honda out of my cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Manitoba Moose at May 2, 2009 8:49 AM

I'm confused. Wouldn't a bankruptcy in the auto industry be GREAT for the environment and carbon emmissions? Less cars, less pollution, less drive by shootings?

Have you driven a horde lately?

Posted by: Manitoba Moose at May 2, 2009 8:53 AM


Etymology: Latin, let it be done, 3d singular present subjunctive of fieri to become, be done —
Date: circa 1631
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2 : an authoritative determination : dictate (a fiat of conscience)
3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree (government by fiat)

Sounds about right.

Posted by: Brent Weston at May 2, 2009 9:06 AM

"Next up: Frank and Belinda Stronach...."

Obama needs to bake a bigger economic pie.

Posted by: Hannibal Lectern at May 2, 2009 9:31 AM

Why is it better to loan farmers a billion dollars of taxpayers money over the next five years than it is to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, which would in turn generate over a billion dollars every year in extra revenue from the marketplace?

Posted by: Farmer Joe at May 2, 2009 11:10 AM


Great point of the CDS....if true then the government might want to rethink its position.

Once again though, the government might very get its way in front of the bankruptcy judge based on the majority of creditors signing off on the deal.

Its a no lose bet for Oppenheimer, if your supposition is corrcet.

Anyway, it is in a court. The law will prevail.

Now as for the matter about threats to unleash the White Press Corps...........

Posted by: Stephen at May 2, 2009 1:05 PM

There's MUCH MORE to this story which has not yet been mentioned. Please do yourself a favour and download this podcast. Then tune to 54:00 and listen.

What you'll hear is Mark Levin replay a segment from a Detroit radio station where a lawyer working on behalf of the financial lenders to Chrysler describes the Backroom Thugocracy that is the Obama Administration.

Just imagine that you lent, in good faith, a bunch of money to a company. And part of the terms of your loan were that you would be paid back first. Then one day the government comes along and threatens to attack you via the media, which they have de facto control over.

Do you think that's legal? Do you think it's remotely ethical?

Posted by: Robert W. at May 2, 2009 3:43 PM

Tell Stephen to get back on the Conservative agenda. Gut the Gun Registry and talk to the people. We need a Friday night fireside chat on TV paid for by taxpayers. The Media filter is not helping the CPC and no one knows what is being done or the wrong things to do.

Posted by: Gunney99 at May 2, 2009 7:13 PM

I would ask the Prime Minister how far is Canada as the primary trading partner with the USA willing to go in the form of trade retaliations for the numerous changes coming in trade policy from the USA, for example the carbon tariffs the DOE is considering, the thickening of the border for commerce from DHS and in response to the implications regarding Canada that have now become policy based on a plank in the US Democratic Party Platform surrounding trade and security?

Posted by: Illiquid Assets at May 2, 2009 8:16 PM

I am going to be in Ottawa this coming week. I will attend a meeting where the prime minister will take questions in an open forum. There are no media in the room. What question would you ask if you had the chance? Discuss
Posted by: Brian Mallard at May 1, 2009 4:33 PM


Mr. Mallard. Please ask Mr. Harper whether he has read Ezra Levant's book "Shakedown", and how he feels about the proposal of the Liberal party to expand the jurisdiction of the HRCs to "include discrimination based on citizenship status and socio-economic class." (as per their current platform)

Posted by: old Lori at May 2, 2009 9:09 PM

This question is in response to Brian Mallard's request.

I would like to ask Mr Harper " What are the shared core principles and ideas of the Conservative Party of Canada?"

Posted by: Steve Smith at May 4, 2009 8:36 PM

Mr Mallard. Please ask Mr Harper "What are the shared core principles and ideas of the Conservative Party of Canada?"

Posted by: Steve Smith at May 4, 2009 8:40 PM