Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Chryslergate Update: Even stonger ties uncovered between Hillary Clinton and Dealership closings

Late last week, Libertarian Republican, RedState and a number of other Right blogs, hot on the story of the Chrysler Dealership closings, uncovered a direct tie between the Democratic fundraising operation and the Obama Administration's Auto Tax Force. Indeed, the tie is very close. Right bloggers learned that Car Czar Steven Rattner is the husband of former Democratic National Committee Finance Chair Maureen White.

Now, Joshua Painter at RedState reveals that Ms. White was also a Finance Co-Chair for Hillary Clinton for President. In fact, she is still listed in that capacity on the Hillary Campaign '08 website.

The reader may recall that one dealership in the Mid-South with 6 different lots scattered in 5 states (Alabama, Tenn., Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas), is owned by Mack McLarty. Mr. McLarty served as President Clinton's Chief of Staff for 4 years.

Earlier it was learned that all 6 dealerships owned by McLarty have been spared from closure, including two which are in the highly prized Kansas City market.

Yet, there's more...

Josh's boss, Erik Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of RedState discovered another Clinton tie.

It seems that the Clintons have managed to get one of their cronies in a very key position in Obama's Auto Task Force. From Josh at RedState:

May I point out that the expert President Obama has entrusted with the task of overseeing the dismantling of GM for the White House is just 31 years old. He is not a car guy, having never set foot in an automobile factory before being given responsibility for GM. Nor is he a business school graduate. In fact, he’s a law school dropout named Brian Deese (photo). And though he’s not an economist, he was the top economic policy staffer for...

cue the soundtrack from the Bud Light “Real Men of Genius” ads...

the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Just another one of those uncanny coincidences you find when you dig into the dirt from which sprang the federal government’s intrusion into the auto industry.
Additionally, Zero Hedge, a financial investments blog did an in-depth analysis of the numbers, and found:

“noticeable and highly positive correlation between dealer survival and Clinton donors.”
See their report here.

24 comments:

Troy Patterson said...

“noticeable and highly positive correlation between dealer survival and Clinton donors.”

yet not statistically significant...yet again trying to claim something that is not backed up.

Eric Dondero said...

Aha! Fell right into the trap now didn't you Troy.

Actually, the Zero Hedge data grossly underestimated the influence of Clinton donors whose Dealerships were saved from closure. They made a critical error in their data which led to the discrepency.

Doug Ross has the corrected data over at RedState (link in the body of the article.)

What Ross finds is even more startling than what Zero Hedge reported.

Looks like your side is getting hammered from all sides Troy. It's rather amusing watching you George Soros payroll flunkies trying to push back on this story, but finding yourselves smacked down in every attempt you all make.

Witness, it took Daily Kos 5 days and HuffPo 7 days to come up with a response. And when they finally did, it was rather weak, and the Right Bloggers quickly smacked down their incorrect data, as in the story on the Michigan dealerships and minority ownership.

You all are beaten on this.

Why don't you just admit it?

Oh, and as one who is on the inside of this story, knowing all the players investigating this, I can promise you, what has been released so far is just the tip of the iceberg. It's only gonna get worse, much worse for you all in the coming weeks...

Ta-ta!

Eric Dondero said...

Hey Troy, can you explain something? How is it that a law school drop-out, who is Zero experience in the car industry, is appointed as Chief Negotiator in the closures of GM dealerships around the Nation?

Side comment: Do a Google Images photo of this guy. Now, you're talking to a marijuana legalization advocate here, so let the record show, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AGAINST MARIJUANA USERS!!!

But if this guy isn't a total stoner, I don't know who is.

He's Jeff Spigoli reincarnate. And he's in charge of overseeing the closings of hundreds of GM dealerships around the Nation?

Then again, our "President" is a former coke head. So, why should we expect anything different.

Troy Patterson said...

ugh...please.

Doug found the data did not back his claim and upon "deep searching" found one dealership has partners who are democrat. Let me guess when we search other "open" dealerships (which he has yet to do, or release) these wealthy rich business men will be of what political group?

You know why Fox News has yet to touch this either...cause there is nothing there!

Eric Dondero said...

Troy, you're missing a fundamental point. It's not that Obama is targetting these dealerships cause they personally gave contributions to Republicans, maybe in some cases. But it's more a matter of targetting AN ENTIRE RETAIL INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT IS HEAVILY REPUBLICAN/LIBERTARIAN.

Don't you recall Obama attacking Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" in the final days of the campaign?

He knows very well who Rand is and all about those of us who follow her philosophy. This is an attack on Individualism and Entrepreneurship, and Capitalism itself.

Eric Dondero said...

You say Fox News is not covering the story?

Really?

Hannity opened his radio show with it the other day.

And Tom Sullivan of Fox News Radio had yours truly on as a guest on this topic last Wednesday.

Perhaps you should read LR blog a little more closely.

Troy Patterson said...

Fox News is a reference to their news segment and not the station in general. Hannity would cover anything no matter how out there it is.

My main point in this is that this "analysis" has changed several times and can now be seen as data dredging. Remember the original article by Doug was Clinton contributors were also targeted by Obama. Can't wait for the GM version of this game. get your data sets ready and your tin foil hats!

Eric Dondero said...

And from our LIBERTARIAN PERSPECTIVE, this story has never changed.

It's been all about an attack from the Left upon Libertarian values of individualism and capitalism, ever since the beginning.

Troy Patterson said...

Then your just mooching this story for own goals.

If your argument is they shouldn't have bailed out the company and stayed out from the beginning then that is something we can debate and I can actually agree that they should have gone to bancrupcy from the start.

Doug Ross on the other hand has no intrest in this except to find a smoking gun of government influence, which has in my view two outcomes a) no truth b) unprovable

Eric Dondero said...

No Troy, my argument is that Fascist/Communist Obama is attacking the very libertarian/individualist Car Dealership industry precisely because the industry is so independent-minded.

But why should we be surprised? Remember the attacks on the "Virtue of Selfishness" that came from Obama in campaign speeches during the waning days of Campaign '08?

That was a signal that Obama intended not to come against just conservatives, but that his ultimate goal was to destroy libertarians.

bint alshamsa said...

Eric,

"No Troy, my argument is that Fascist/Communist Obama is attacking the very libertarian/individualist Car Dealership industry precisely because the industry is so independent-minded."

That certainly wasn't your argument in the beginning. You're moving the goalposts and you still can't back up any of your claims with facts.

Eric Dondero said...

Hey Troy, yes or no? Do you think that Brian Deese dude looks like a Stoner?

Serious question. Not a joke.

Does he strike you as someone who might have hit the joint just one too many times in his college dorm room?

Troy Patterson said...

HAHAHA...a real correlation study!

http://www.appletreeblog.com/?p=6372

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores.

Liberals are smarter than conservatives!

Eric Dondero said...

Umm, yeah, and your point is Troy?

Guess you were too stupid to pay attention to the title on this blog.

We are PROUD LIBERTARIANS here! NOT CONSERVATIVES!

While we're friends with Conservatives, they are not us, nor are we them.

How did the survey find Libertarians?

Troy Patterson said...

OK...so did you just forget the name of your blog?

libertarianREPUBLICAN

Fiscally CONSERVATIVE, Socially Tolerant, and Strong...

Thanks for the LOL. bint is right this place is great for entertainment.

Rae said...

"Troy Patterson said...

Liberals are smarter than conservatives!"

Troy, the rhetoric coming out of the Democrat party, specifically with regard to economics as well as how this crisis came about, certainly does not bear that statement out. (I'll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with the failure of the free-market, nor will their neo-Keyn madness do anything but exacerbate the crisis.)

And how awesome is this, I ask you?:

Spitting in the eye of mainstream education
Three no-frills charter schools in Oakland mock liberal orthodoxy, teach strictly to the test -- and produce some of the state's top scores.

Troy Patterson said...

You guys are awesome. This is why you lose. If you had just read the article you would have seen it was based on SAT scores, which are considered subjective. Of course if you noted that SAT tests are subjective you may have to admit other tests are subjective and discriminate based on a persons upbringing.


Conservatives wouldn't want to do that.

stefan said...

Troy, I wonder where you would score on the SAT, or then again I do not have to wonder. You automatically assumed the other day when I mentioned homeschooling, which is BTW much cheaper for real poor people, that I myself also underwent homeschooling. LOL
AND YOU WANT TO TELL ME YOU ARE SMARTER THAN ME BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND I AM A CONSERVATIVE-LIBERTARIAN??

You are a real treat.

BTW: I have no problem ripping all your liberal arguments apart one piece at a time, or more simultaneously, whichever you prefer.

stefan said...

Let us consider liberal Geithner's ability to display his liberal "smartness":
"Chinese assets are very safe," Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s.

His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting scepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home".
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSPEK14475620090601

Like the Chinese students, I am also LAUGHING at Geithner and the likes of arrogant Troy Patterson.

Troy Patterson said...

You Stefan are a piece of work. Again you failed to read my response. I said "Your" meaning people forced to take home schooling. I was not referring to you in any way.

I knew you were not "forced" to take home schooling since public education is available and if I thought you had been home schooled it would have been a parental choice.

stefan said...

Troy, I'm a piece of work indeed :-)
Well, I was commenting on your assumption that with no federal department of education only private schools would be an available option. You discounted or ignored the possibility of homeschooling. I must admit I also found the issue of homeschooling a bit 'strange" in the beginning, but studying the issue a bit I could find understanding for it. It would say a certain amount f "regulation" would be necessary, like textbooks and instruction models compatible to public schools, e.g. re. standards. This market solution you have to admit offer especially for poor children, but also for parents not happy with the contents of public schooling a necessary alternative option. it is always possible that a qualified say ex-teacher etc. could offer homeschooling for say a group of neighborhood children, so that there is a good standards and there is some socializing among the children as well.

I know I was unsatisfied with my public school system and contents and way of thinking. it is most important that critical thinking skills are taught, but often it is just a repetition of "facts", that are also selected and eaten up as the whole truth.

Troy Patterson said...

There is nothing wrong with home schooling as it stands now, but if it was your only option then you are leaving every child up to the intelligence of the parent. If your mom and dad prefer drug abuse and alcohol to teaching you then you aren't going to get an education.

bint alshamsa said...

Stefan,

"You automatically assumed the other day when I mentioned homeschooling, which is BTW much cheaper for real poor people"

That's certainly not the case for most Americans. *Maybe* it's true in countries where there are no public schools, but certainly not here.

The church that I used to attend had a lot of homeschooling parents and we used to visit the educational supplies stores together. Lemme tell ya', their costs were a lot higher than mine. While I get my child's textbooks for free, they have to buy both a student set and a teacher's set. Some companies offer a complete set of materials but these can be pricey and are definitely more expensive than free. :)

Because the money that schools receive for each student can be pooled together to purchase materials that would be too expensive for the average parent to afford, homeschooling families are left with the choice of either going without these kinds of educational experiences for their child or paying to join a local homeschooling association. Of course, this does mean relinquishing some control over the child's education which is what many homeschooling families were trying to avoid by leaving the public school system. It also involves transportation costs and those must be covered by the parents as well. When I was going through radiation and recovering from my surgeries, we were really thankful that the school system provided transportation for students so that my partner didn't have to leave me at home to take our daughter back and forth to school. It also saved us a great deal of money that we'd have to otherwise spend on gas getting her back and forth to school across town.

There's also the fact that having a child in public school frees a parent's time during those hours, allowing them to work and earn money. I imagine that might definitely be helpful for someone if they are really poor because it would make them, well, less poor.

I'm really interested in how you concluded that homeschooling is actually the cheaper option.

wv:rankled

The Right Guy said...

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/06/washington-examiner-lott-doubts.html