Crossposted from Flopping Aces

A few days ago ABC noted a list of the top 100 political blogs and Flopping Aces made the list. Number 62 to be exact, ahead of some might fine blogs (take it with a grain of salt tho….check it out, Hot Air and Ace of Spades didn’t make the list, wacky). The sad thing is that these blogs are pretty much the only source for information that would dare be critical of Obama seeing as how our msm display a embarrassing amount of bias for him. For example, Evan Thomas of Newsweek calling him some kind of god:

Granted, he is not calling him God but rather, literally, saying that compared to other men he is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Then we have Brian Williams who’s “unprecedented” access to the White House led him to produce an embarrassing lovefest for Obama. It was so bad even Jon Stewart, a man not know for unbiased opinions, had to make fun of it:

Partial transcript via Newsbusters:

• JON STEWART, HOST: This is a huge coup for NBC. When you get this kind of unprecedented access, you can cross-promote.
• BRIAN WILLIAMS: The TV version of the “West Wing” on NBC has only been off the air for three years.
• WILLIAMS TO OBAMA: Have you seen the depictions of you, Fred Armisen, “Saturday Night Live,” what do you think?
• STEWART: And speaking of Chuck, look who’s just stopped by, Zachary Levi star of “Chuck” returning this fall. Mr. President, do you find “NCIS” has become formulaic? One final question: Today, must-see TV is just a suggestion. You have the power to make it Law…and Order.
• STEWART: By the way, the show’s host clearly has the hots for the breakout star.

And then you have Richard Wolffe who worked alongside the Olbermonkey praising every single footstep Obama made while not disclosing to those who employ him and those who use him for information that he was in cohoots with Obama writing a book about him. A book that Obama even suggested the name for:

It was Barack Obama himself who first proposed that Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe make a play to be this generation’s Theodore White—the legendary journalist whose insider account of the 1960 election painted John F. Kennedy in heroic light.

In the 2008 version, Obama provided the insider access. And Wolffe lavishly delivered on the heroic-light end of the bargain.

But the early response to his new book, “Renegade: The Making of a President” has made one thing clear: Wolffe is not living in a Teddy White era of journalism.

Far from vaulting him to the top ranks of the profession — as happened to White and a parade of other reporters with intimate access to winning presidential candidates —Wolffe’s Obama journey ended with him out of mainstream political reporting, making his living as a public relations operative.

And far from being the toast of Newsweek, which once built its franchise around reporters who were close to the powerful, Wolffe now has a frosty relationship with his former employer.

At a book party at Washington’s Café Atlantico Monday night, there were quail eggs and caviar but no Newsweek editors, who declined to speak on-the-record about Wolffe or his book.

Some of his former colleagues grumble privately that the magazine gained little of news value from Wolffe’s access to Obama and his inner circle, and suggest he lost detachment as he became more enraptured by a politician with whom he shares personal and ideological sympathies.

Of course once the book was out he could no longer pretend to be a journalist, but rather a PR man for Obama. He used his access to enrich himself rather then report the facts, ask the tough questions, and criticize the man when it was deserved….and there has been plenty to criticize him for so far.

This is the media that is watching our President folks.

Robert Samuelson see’s it as dangerous:

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.

~~~

The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health-care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That’s well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.

Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they’re neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All “reforms” do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson’s economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s’ “stagflation.” The “war on poverty” failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn’t. The idea of a “critical” Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

~~~

The press has become Obama’s silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.

And while unemployment hits figures haven’t seen since 1982 our media still fawns over Obama’s date night in Paris.

This is our media….

Any wonder the paper news and many of the network news are failing while the alternative media, such as Flopping Aces, is gaining popularity?

Also:

Obama auto woes… SCOTUS halts Chrysler sale to Fiat as Hoyer and Dems push back

The Obama administration has been racing to complete a deal with Fiat SpA purchasing Chrysler, and blowing thru bankruptcy court at breakneck speeds.

On May 2nd, I posted the Chicago style strong arm tactics used on some of the secured investors, represented by Bankruptcy Attorney, Tom Lauria of White & Case. Two days later, I was pondering the possibility of political blackmail… and then, 24 hours later, the client being strong armed silenced Lauria in the press.

All seemed to flow along without major headlines until, late last week, Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved the sale of most of Chrysler’s assets to Italian automaker Fiat SpA, leaving 789 Chrysler dealerships with the “Old Chrysler” in bankruptcy, along with unwanted factories. According to the NY judge, a bankrupt manufacturer didn’t need a dealership network.

“Absent a car manufacturing business, the dealerships would not seem to serve any purpose for the debtor,” Gonzalez said, but added there may be a case for the dealers to pursue damages.

huh? Absent “.. a car manufacturing business..”?? Just what is it Fiat is buying, if not a car manufacturing business?

In response to the judicial blessing, Tom Lauria and three of his state pension and construction funds clients asked SCOTUS to step in, staying execution of the sale to renegotiate the terms that left secured investors at the bottom of the barrel, and elevated the unions and government to the top tier positions. And Lauria and clientele were not alone.

Also filing emergency papers at the high court Sunday were lawyers representing consumer groups and individuals with product-related lawsuits.

An appeals court in New York approved the sale Friday, but gave objectors until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Chrysler LLC wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a group led by Italy’s Fiat Group SpA as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

The emergency requests went first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles such matters from New York. She can act on her own or refer it to the entire court.

The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher’s Retirement Fund and the state’s Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of Chrysler’s unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as the funds.

The funds are also asking SCOTUS to consider the Constitutionality of using the TARP funds, only allowable for financial institutions, to supply Chrysler’s bankruptcy protection financing without Congressional authority.

About bloody time….

Breaking today, the Supreme’s put a stay on the sale’s execution, as the court gathers more data, and schedules a hearing.

In the meantime, all is not smooth in Obama’land Auto Sales. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Daniel Maffei are circulating a letter to the POTUS amongst the left wing party, gathering signatures. But of course, it is tempered by the token “butter up”… but this is a push-back by the Congressional Obama faithful that is hard to ignore.

Dear President Obama:

We are writing to express our concerns about General Motors’ and Chrysler’s decision to close profitable automobile dealerships across the country, and urge you to ask GM and Chrysler to delay final action on proposed closures pending further review of the decision to consolidate dealerships and the process by which Chrysler and GM selected the dealerships to close.

Closing these dealerships will put over 100,000 jobs at risk at a time when our country is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. We also question the criteria being used to determine which dealerships should be closed and the fundamental fairness involved in this effort. It is our view that the market rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers whose poor leadership contributed to their demise. Furthermore, we believe car dealers will be key players in any effort to revive the American auto industry.

We believe the dealerships are one of the auto industry’s key sources of strength and the manufacturers should continue to honor their agreements and contracts. The dealerships, and their more than 1 million employees, form personal relationships with customers that often contribute to brand loyalty and will be key to General Motors’ and Chrysler’s recovery following this economic downturn. While we understand the desire to reduce the number of unprofitable dealerships, no one has yet sufficiently explained the need to close profitable dealerships.

We recognize that efforts by your Auto Task Force prevented the total liquidation of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as their dealership networks. We commend your efforts to help these businesses survive these challenging economic times.

However, we are concerned that manufacturers are closing profitable dealerships to circumvent current contracts which could require expensive buy-outs under normal conditions. We are also concerned about allegations that dealers that have previously stood up for their rights against the manufacturers are being targeted by these closures. We believe that the forced closures of profitable dealerships needs to be scrutinized by the Task Force to prevent additional future financial loses to General Motors and Chrysler and job loses across the United States

We may consider legislative proposals to ensure that dealers and their employees are treated fairly, and we look forward to your timely response.

It was just over a week ago that some internet bloggers saw what they consider a suspicious link between dealerships being closed and political leanings, while the Huffpo crowd argues it’s not surprising that car dealers are “overwhelmingly Republican”.

“It shouldn’t be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote — and donate — Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don’t own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can’t think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while we are still a nation of drivers, we are not a nation of dealers.”

sigh… more “categories” and “classes” for America, thanks to the “tolerant” party.

For now, it’s another hurry up and wait scene. The funds and pensions seek a legitimate restructuring of the Chrysler break up, as well as some answers as to the ability of WH to ignore bankruptcy law, and dictating the terms favorable to the unsecured investors and unions. Additionally, there’s the pesky question as to misuwe of TARP funds by the power grabbing WH and auto czars without Congressional approval… something the Dems tended to ignore in their letter of complaint.

Personally, I’m more interested in the interference in contract law aspect. I have no doubt that an Obama lovin’ Congress would be happy to go back and amend last fall’s TARP rules to grant Obama his additional powers retroactively. But where does the ability of the Executive Branch to usurp Bankruptcy and Contract law come front?

This is one SCOTUS decision I’m anxious to hear.