OBAMA, CHRYSLER, & THE UAW--A MARRIAGE MADE IN A BACK ROOM

The United Auto Workers Union sent an interesting letter to its members explaining the results of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

The letter should also be interesting to those of us who foot the bill. Remember, too, that the GUARANTEED BONDHOLDERS (in Delaware where Chrysler is headquartered, bankruptcy law dictates that bondholders receive their money first) investers representing pension funds, etc.--received less than $.25 on their dollar.

The union said that under the plan, they saved the hourly wage, the pension plan, and the health benefits members enjoyed. Unexplained but mentioned in the letter was that they had agreed to a way to slow foreign competition. The letter listed China (huh?) and other countries--like Japan, I guess.

Yesterday the press did report that the UAW did make MAJOR concessions: they gave up two paid holidays, one being the Monday after Easter. They will no longer be paid for unused vacation time; THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO USE ALL THEIR VACATION. Boo Hoo. They agreed not to strike until 2015.

Why would they strike? They own a huge share of the company and would be striking against themselves. Picture negotiations. The negotiators come with two hats and change them each time they leap across the table to participate, sometimes as an owner, sometimes as a union worker. Negotiations could be very tiring and only fit for the athletically strong.

It's nice to know how well the union has been paid by the Obama administration for its support and how in-the-pocket union members are for the next presidential election. They more than balance out the screwed over bond holders whose guaranteed bonds really were TOXIC PAPER.

politics politicians opinion commentary Obama Chrysler UAW "auto+industry" auto "auto+bailout" bailout bankruptcy "auto+reorganization" nationalization bondholders Delaware "bankruptcy+law" vacation health "health+benefits" Easter holidays strike "Not+with+a+Whimper" marriage pension
Technorati Tags:
politics politicians opinion commentary Obama Chrysler UAW "auto+industry" auto "auto+bailout" bailout bankruptcy "auto+reorganization" nationalization bondholders Delaware "bankruptcy+law" vacation health "health+benefits" Easter holidays strike "Not+with+a+Whimper" marriage pension
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

THE WHITE HOUSE'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE--FROM OBAMA WHAT YOU HEAR IS NOT WHAT YOU GET

Isn't it a pity that the official White House website, a site activated at 12:01 PM on January 20th, already breaks President Obama's first proclamation "A National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation." There are several instances of Bush bashing, but the statements on Hurricane Katrina are the most egregious. Knock Mr. Bush and pat yourself on the back seemed to be the real order of the day.

“President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.”

“President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina….”

Reconciliation????? Renewal?????? As President Bush said to the well-wishers upon his return to Texas, he returned with the same values he left with, and he could look himself in the mirror. One minute after taking office, President Obama ought to be ashamed.

Obama elections inauguration Bush Washington politics opinion "White+House" "White+House+website" Bush-bashing Texas proclamations renewal Katrina Senate

WILL BUSH-BASHING REMAIN OUR PRESS' NATIONAL PASTTIME?

Even as Barak Obama and his slobbering fans prepare for his coronation, the Bush haters cannot let up one iota. I expect to see Chris Matthews begin to shake—this time from Bush-withdrawal syndrome rather than from arousal caused by Barak Obama. Earlier this week, the Bushes were slammed for spending money (from a private fund set up for that purpose) on new State china. The economy is bad, so this cost is extravagant. Did I hear anything about toning down the inauguration because of its extravagance?

This morning I watched sections of CBS’s Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood. One segment dealt with inauguration speeches. Presidents from George Washington forward were mentioned for their good or bad speeches, their brief or lengthy speeches, their memorable or forgotten lines or for any other number of reasons. Neither picture nor mention was made of George W. Bush. Another segment dealt with how presidents age in office as they deal with the stress. Guess who was omitted. To CBS, President George W. Bush doesn’t exist, and the sooner CBS can deny his contributions in any way, the better.

The press has been having at blast at delivering parting shots. George W. Bush cannot even say that there are things he would have done differently without getting slammed! His farewell address was torn apart by these ravenous dogs. Editorial pages are filled with opinions on President Bush's "failed" presidency. He's been called the worst president in history.

Called the messiah by at least one famous idiot, Barak Obama, I suppose, will never take a wrong turn leading us out of the wilderness. He’s not the Moses some have compared him too; he's better. Moses made mistakes and never got to the Promised Land. Nor is Obama the Lincoln he compares himself to. Lincoln's focus was on preserving the Union; Obama’s is to alter it.

Sunday Morning even tossed some comments about the transition team President Bush organized to make sure Obama does not come into the White House as he did. Remember? He came into a White House trashed by the departing Administration. Not only did Clinton and Hilary take “souvenirs” but also their staffs wrecked computers and removed the letter w from keyboards, carved messages into the desks, and left graffiti. Taxpayers paid for the damages, and the departing First Couple got a pass.

President Bush made sure that President-elect Obama was fully briefed on what is going on around the world. His staff was given “worse case scenarios” and went through the procedures, etc. that would be followed in a variety of situations. Even as Mr. Obama talks about dismantling much of our intelligent gathering possibilities, President Bush leaves him a country that has not been attacked since the horrific events of 9/11. President Bush should be applauded and recognized for his actions. Let’s pray Obama continues to safeguard us.

While members of the media continue to deride President Bush, partly I fear to give our new President a cushy landing, I’m wondering when the honeymoon will end. Will it be when the truth about some of his appointees becomes more apparent? (Treasury Secretary Geithner’s failure to pay $34,000 in taxes is, in Obama’s words an “innocent mistake.” Attorney General Erik Holder’s supporting pardons for FALN terrorists and financial swindler Marc Rich doesn’t seem to bother him either.) Will it be when so many of his unkept and always unkeepable promises dash the hope of those who voted for him? Will it be when the country wakes up to the biggest pork barrel (nicknamed the stimulus package) ever rolled out of Congress without any Republican input but pushed by Pelosi, supported by Reid and branded ok by Obama? Is the press just too stupid to get it and the American public too mesmerized to demand it?

I’ll be glad when I no longer get anti-Bush “jokes” in my email. I will not miss the constant unfair criticism and disrespect. I will love not having Americans go abroad to knock my president or my country. I also wish Obama to succeed in keeping America safe and great. I want him treated with the respect the office deserves. I have my fingers crossed, but honestly, I don’t have much hope.

politics politicians opinion "political+opinion" election 2008 inauguration Obama Bush presidents "Bush-bashing"

JUDGING DEMOCRATS: ONE MORE BLUNDER AS BILL RICHARDSON TRIPS UP AND OUT

The news about Bill Richardson's withdrawal as the Secretary of Transportation calls for some serious thinking about how to judge Democrats.

1. Remember the transistion from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The Clintons themselves ransacked the White House taking with them everything they wanted that wasn't nailed down. Their staff wrecked the computers, stealing the W keys, and carving obsene messages in the desks. The offices were a mess and had to be redone--AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, created a Transition Coordinating Committee. Security Clearance was started months ago so that key positions could be filled ASAP. Remember that as late as 9/11, some Bush appointees had not been cleared. Apparently President Bush will conclude his terms as President with the respect the office deserves. Character counts when we judge a person.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

2. Barak Obama, haunted, if only by saavy voters, by his associations, continues to be shielded by the media as his appointees and past label him a political opportunist. Fighting his lack of experience, he choses Bill Richardson as Transportation Secretary. Here's a double whammy: experience and Hispanic. BUT Richardson is embroiled in a Federal investigation of his own, and the press has once again chosen sides.

There is no widespread reporting that the company that donated $100,000 normally donated to Republicans so was less likely to suddenly shift to donate to Bill Richardson-affiliated organizations. Nor are there reports that the multi-million state contracts went to this company--Los Angeles based. I'm sure the taxpayers of New Mexico are pleased with that.

3. Perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky because more important than this Federal Investigation is that Richardson was in the running for President. Once again a politician has publicly proven that personal gain is far more important than public good.

4. Harry Reid, our leading Senator, doesn't like the smell of tourists in the summer. He represents us smelling, nosy, folk!

5. Harry Reid, our leading Senator, publicly states that the Senate can seat (or not seat) anyone it chooses for no stated reason even if the person meets the Constitutional requirements. How's that for Chutzpah! We'll see how he reacts to Roland Burris.
politics commentary Demorcrats Bush Obama Clinton transition "political+appointee" Richardson Reid Burris Senate Congress government president

PUNISH LIEBERMAN?--ANOTHER NEGATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS

There’s no doubt that the Democrats think they know what’s best for us. Joe Lieberman’s constituents returned him to the Senate despite efforts by the Democrats to block this Dem-turned-Independent from gaining re-election, the Dems want to punish Lieberman for voicing his honest opinion and supporting McCain. This is also despite the fact that Lieberman remains a registered Democrat and primarily aligns himself with the Democratic Party. But Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., doesn’t think that’s enough. He doesn’t want Lieberman “rewarded” for his defection even though Lieberman already holds the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He was good enough before the election but somehow falls short now? Apparently the continued abandonment of the idea of merit remains for the Democrats.

One would think that the members of Congress have no responsibility to act according to the wishes of the voters who put them there. It’s about them and not about us, or in this case at the very least about the voters who returned Lieberman to the Senate. The Democratic leadership apparently feels nothing about their rights, wishes, or representation. It’s about consolidating Democratic power so theirs is the only voice heard. That’s pretty scary.

Ironically the only argument I’ve heard against punishing Senator Lieberman is that it goes against Obama’s pledge of bi-partisanship and therefore might alienate some of his supporters and that might cause Lieberman to bolt and join the Republicans. The latter argument is so in line with the Democrats because they don’t seem to work on principle. Lieberman is simply not in step with many of the Republican views; they’re accusing him of doing what they do—compromise principles in order to get ahead. That’s pretty scary.

The Republicans, of course, would welcome Joe Lieberman to the GOP caucus. It’s in a shambles and lacks direction. Someone who can actually take a stand and articulate it well would be welcome addition. They certainly did not have that in John McCain.

If he plays his cards right, Joe Lieberman can wield a lot of power and influence in the new administration. As both sides vie for his vote, he may be able to make political deals to do some real good. Wouldn’t that be a nice result for Congress for a change?

Lieberman Congress election politics opinion "political+opinion" Obama Democrats Republicans Senate Leahy Vermont McCain "Homeland+Security" "Not+With+A+Whimper" "a-big-bang"

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

With the election over, we will have a new President in Jan., and he has already given pause to think. I’m not going to spend the next four years berating him idiotically as many of my friends berated President Bush. Imagine saying, “He’s stupid. Anyone can fly one of those jets with all the gizmos in it.” Anyway, I’m not going to throw hissy fits and sit and glare whenever Obama’s name is mentioned. But I am going to continue to think, to listen to different sources and different points of view and not, as another friend does, check in on The Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for her facts. I wish the new President the best of luck in keeping our country on course. He is, after all, my president too. I’m not offering up any of the deranged, irrational hatred I’ve heard for the last eight years.

But here are some issues that are troublesome:

1. After making a statement that “there can only be one president,” Barak Obama found a way not to weigh in on some matters but then threateningly posed that if Congress doesn’t act “in this lame duck session” on another stimulus package, he will immediately after the inauguration. Additionally he will now offer HIS OWN weekly address via radio and internet until the inauguration. One president? I thought that was George W. Bush.

2. At his first news conference, no reporter from FOX or any of the papers that endorsed John McCain were called upon for a question. Is this more of the vindictive behavior that had reporters thrown off his campaign plane in favor of reporters from Essence? I will keep a close eye on the “Fairness Doctrine” debates.

3. How will the auto industry be handled? Pelosi has said that there will be limits on “executive pay,” but it is the backbreaking unions who also must give up something to keep the industry going. Will the Dems challenge the unions that support them? How can the money keep the auto industry afloat if there is no restructuring of management AND if the money offered is earmarked for smaller, more efficient cars in an industry that is not tooled to build them?

4. How will our military be treated? Barney Frank & Co. has already promised a 25% cut in military spending. Do we want our military in the shape it was at the beginning of the Iraq War—under-supplied, and under-protected? I certainly do not!

5. The economic crisis is huge. How could it not be? The Dems tossed aside every economic rule to make sure people who cannot afford homes got them. Then they watched with feigned surprise as those very people could not pay their mortgages and the snowball became an avalanche. I want to keep a close eye on my taxes!

That certainly is enough to keep me busy, but there were many more campaign promises our “country’s savior” made. It will be interesting, and probably very painful to watch. I am thinking of adding another bumper sticker to my car. The first one says, Mark Twain for President “It’s better to be popular than right.” My new one should succinctly read, “What did you expect?”

Obama president election Bush January "Huffington+Post" "Daily+Kos" "lame+duck" FOX McCain Congress Pelosi "Fairness+Doctrine" "auto+industry" bailout military soldiers Democrats "Barney+Frank" budget mortgages taxes "bumper+stickers" "Mark+Twain"

ALL THE NEWS (THEY DECIDE) THAT'S FIT TO PRINT

If you watch TV news, you may have missed this horrendous event. On Wed., Sept., 18, there was an attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen that left 16 people dead including a newlywed from New York there for an arranged wedding.

This is the same Yemen where 17 American sailors lost their lives in the Oct. 12, 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

The AP reported that the militants who launched this latest attack in Yemen are linked to al-Qaida, BUT most news outlets, if they ran the story at all, gave it a necessary inclusion and then let it drop. No follow up. Not even extensive "human interest" coverage of the American woman killed in the bombing. No further discussion of the role of al-Qaida.

We don’t hear much about the war on terror in the news these days. We still hear each time an armed services member dies, but thankfully those numbers are substanially diminishing as the Iraqis take over security their country. We are almost never reminded of that change in military. It's better for the liberals to focus on loss of life and imply it is for a non-cause.

Nor are we reminded that almost all of Congress’ “benchmarks” for Iraq have been achieved. We’re led to believe, through lies of omission, that the War in Iraq continues as it was and that the Iraqi government and people are incapable of governing themselves. There are people out there who want us to become familiar with the word "quagmire" despite its inappropriateness.

How many of you know that Kuwait is no considered a combat zone and those military personnel there can wear civilian clothing and no longer carry weapons?

There is a motive behind this blatant withholding of news. It is the presidential elections. A biased and liberal media wants Americans believing the worst as the presidential election approaches. It keeps us ignorant of the truth. It marginalizes Obama’s steadfast refusal to admit that he was wrong in many of his votes concerning the war despite his agreement that the surge worked “beyond our wildest dreams,” a statement I disagree with as Petraeus & Co. certainly aimed for the results the surge achieved. The withholding of war allows McCain’s steadfast understanding and support of our efforts to fade into the background.

You might say today's top story is the economic picture, and you may have a point, but when the news is full of Caylee Anthony’s disappearance, O.J. Simpson’s trial, Lindsay Lohan's political views while ignoring the fact that Dem. Mark Foley will not be prosecuted for sending sexual emails to teenagers or that Dem. Charles Rangel is still Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while he doesn’t file taxes, etc., you’ve got to wonder. Could it be that we’re expected to think that corruption only exists on the other side of the aisle? Let’s compare Larry Craig’s (R) wide stance advances to Mark Foley’s (D) coming on to teenage boys.

It’s getting more and more difficult to vote intelligently because of the news “filters” we have. As my magnetized NOBAMA and McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT bumper stickers were stolen off my car, I’ve replaced them with one I bought at the Mark Twain home in Hartford, CT. Twain said it all! The bumper sticker proclaims: MARK TWAIN FOR PRESIDENT (with picture of Twain): IT’S BETTER TO BE POPULAR THAN RIGHT.

al-qaida politics politicians Iraq Yemen Kuwait military war surge news commentary opinion "U.S.+Embassy" bombing suicide sailors "New+York" Americans Obama McCain AP "news+service" congress benchmarks Rangel Foley Craig sex taxes "House+Ways+and+Means" committees "combat+zones" Petraeus Democrats Republicans "Mark+Twain" quotes CT

OBAMA IS A BOTTLE OF SODA POP

Obama is like an ice cold bottle of soda pop on a hot summer day. He glistens in the heat. The glass is wet and your mouth longs for the cool refreshing taste of something bubbling with carbonation, something to tickle your dry tongue, your parched throat, something to break through the thirst you’re experiencing even as perspiration beads on your face.

Go for it! It looks sooooo good. Drink! But consider what's really happening:

You’ve loaded up on sugar—a temporary fix that does nothing healthful for your body. It is empty calories. Worthless.

If you’re a sipper, the fizz dissipates rapidly and you’re left with the real thing—an absolutely flat taste that goes nowhere. It has no life of its own. No energy; no nothing.

If you’re a gulper, the good feeling climaxes quickly and leaves you dissatisfied and full of gas.

In a little while, no matter how you approach it, you’re as thirsty as you were before. You may be closer to tooth decay or weight gain. A sugar high is simply not worth the trouble.

Maybe this analogy doesn’t quite work because there’s one big difference between Barak Obama as president and carbonated, flavored sugar water. You can dump the soda; you’re stuck with Obama for four years!

Obama politics commentary elections Democrats president candidates "soda+pop"