May 27, 2009
Is This True? Does it Matter?
Some rather spectacular charges have been hurled at the Obama Administration. I saw a little bit on this over the weekend, and now Gateway Pundit has a roundup:
** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.
** Last night it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated by Obama's task force.
** The closings also tend to be in "Red" Counties where Obama lost.Now this...
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida.
I'm the last guy to buy into a big conspiracy theory, and these are about the worst charges that have been leveled at the Executive Branch since our third VP had a little disagreement with our first Secretary of the Treasury, I expect they will not amount to much.
The problem is that they could be true. When you let gub'mint into something, you invite politics in. We have seen that in spades with the Chrysler bondholders -- why not the dealers? Just the fear that this could happen should be enough to dissuade people from seeking this level of Federal involvement.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Obama Administration Posted by John Kranz at May 27, 2009 2:52 PM
I always treat something with great skepticism when I first hear/read it. It's a healthy and scientific approach. However, we've already seen this administration at work. Look at the leverage exerted against Chrysler's creditors, a perfect example of the finest Chicago thugocracy. Obama & Co. couldn't possibly surprise me anymore.
Yet in the end, don't expect any accusations to stick. "Teflon Don" John Gotti must be burning with jealousy almost as much as from hellfire.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 27, 2009 3:39 PMPerry: I didn't think I'd ever quote from Wiklipedia, but:
"In the politics of the United States, a spoil system (also known as a patronage system) is an informal practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.
"The term was derived from the phrase 'to the victor belong the spoils...' by New York Senator William L. Marcy..." ("Spoils System," Wikipedia)
Gentlemen, we're now seeing the Administration restoring the spoils system ("I won...") as it moves the auto industry from the the private sector into the public sector and divvies up the carcass based upon campaign donations and party affiliation. Apparently both the legislature and the judicial branch are broken, since neither one is doing anything to stop our elected dictator.
By the time the midterm elections come around, we'll be too deep in debt to climb out of this hole, investing in whatever is left would be foolish, and any opponents the Administration has will have been intimidated or compromised - and no one would dare donate to the opposition candidates, for fear of losing their own livelihood, just like the car dealers.
What are our options, brothers?
By the way, as long as Perry brought up John Gotti, let me say we'd have been better off if we'd put the Mafia in charge of running the country:
* At least they'd be running it for a profit.
Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 4:52 PM* Hugo Chavez? Just another rival don. Tonight he sleeps wit' da fishes.
* There would have been no bailout; AIG couldn't afford the vig.
* Bouffant-headed pipsqueak in North Korea would abandon his nuclear weapons efforts as soon as he was told that Secretary of State "Hilly Cankles" Clinton is prepared to "go to the mattresses."
* All hostilities in the Middle East cease when news gets out that Israel is no longer receiving American foreign aid; instead, Israel is paying for protection.
Under the rules of postmodernism both of the questions you posed can each have different answers depending on who you ask, and even on who does the asking.
Under the rules of our grandfathers the answers would be "let's get to the bottom of the facts" and "you bet your sweet a _ _ it does!"
But in an era where an economics reporter for the New York Times spends beyond his means and ruins his credit rating because "the money was there, and I was in love" the popular answer will likely be "Who can know these things?" and "Pshawww!"
Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2009 12:32 PMKeith, funny you should put it that way. I've privately said that at least when you pay protection money to Tony Soprano, you can get something out of it. It's not always the case, of course, but it isn't entirely a romantic, exaggerated notion of organized crime. As I've elaborated a bit before, the Mafia, as odious as they are, had an origin of necessity. They were already and always murderers and bandits, yes, but there were enough people willing to "hire" them -- preferring to pay up to be left alone rather than refusing and fighting, or paying up in the belief that actual protection could come out of it.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 28, 2009 1:28 PM...and it does appear that contradictory evidence is coming out. So the narrative will be "all the right wing wackos jumped the gun and made false accusations." I humbly submit that my point holds: why provide temptation to politicians?
And props to Keith for tying "Spoils" to Marcy. I'm in the middle of a great biography of President Polk and Marcy is the Sec of War (oh, for the days we called things what they were) and I think he comes back as Buchanan's Sec of State.
Posted by: jk at May 28, 2009 1:28 PMMaybe, jk, but in my defense, all I said was, "Obama & Co. couldn't possibly surprise me anymore." They rule like Romulans, trading "honor" and loyalties in back rooms.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 1, 2009 4:38 PM | What do you think? [6]