National Park Service Just Announced: This new national monument--affectionately termed Mt. Buttmore--will be carved out of a granite cliff overlooking the untapped North Slope in Alaska as a tribute to the Obama Administration's routine bowing to Arab and other world leaders. :)

Any bets BO & Co. try to hang the whole Benghazi mess on Petraeus? Where have they pointed fingers to date? And the golden parachute to Princeton is already inflated and ready to fly. If the media were to do their freaking job there would be so many sandbags holding it down it would never get off the launch pad. Moreover, should BO win by hook or crook and you were Patraeus, what would you prefer: another term under a CIC who tells you and your boys to 'stand down' or the freedom of being a prestigious university president with the ability to freely write your memoirs about the biggest scandal in history?

Benghazi is about the way we as a country treat those who put their lives on the line to defend us. We don't leave our own behind. When we have employable assets near by we use them. If not we break our necks to get them there to help. The last thing we do is 'stand down'. That is not who we are. It is not part of our DNA.

Apparently this administration does not share our DNA. There has never been a more Despicable Dereliction of Duty in our history--with the possible exception of the Media's utter complicity in giving the administration a complete pass. Any other administration would have been crucified 3 days into this disaster. Absolutely unconscionable!

BO's Monumental Miscalculation

In a monumental miscalculation BO has INCORRECTLY assumed that the majority of Americans share his values:
1) security over self-determination; 2) equality over opportunity; 3) trendiness over trust; 4) stuff over substance; 5) sarcasm over sincerity; 6) divisiveness over leadership; and 7) globalism over patriotism. Moreover, his record clearly demonstrates his lack of character, conviction and vision.

'We the people' are finally beginning to see him for who he is--and 'we' do not like what we see. This is why momentum has abandoned him. This is why he will be a one-term president.

Conservative Car Guy Vs. Snarky Progressive

I am including all arguments as originally posted on FB for your reading pleasure.  Full Names (other than mine) and their respective links have been removed to protect the guilty. :)

For those who know anything about Iacocca this is pretty significant. “America is in deep trouble,” facing high debts and still suffering “anemic” economic growth. He said “hope and speeches won’t get our people back to work.”

Lee Iacocca endorses MItt Romney as man of experience

www.freep.com

Former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca put out a statement Thursday morning endorsing Republican Mitt Romney, saying the former investment fund head and Massachusetts governor has “dozens of years of experience in the public and private sectors” and a plan that “will enable a stronger America.”

Like ·  · Share

• 
  
• 

  Thank you for posting this. This is all so rich and ironic...and hilarious (no pun intended on the “rich”). The guy who got credit for saving Chrysler in the 80's by arranging a government bailout endorses the candidate who criticized the auto bailout of GM and Chrysler 20 years later. That same candidate got credit for saving the Olympics and Massacheusets health care with a government bailout yet finds the current President's bailout of GM and yet again Chrysler as objectionable. And to add even further irony, some say that Iacocca's purchase of AMC/Renault (George Romney's former company) is what reallyallowed the company to shine in the late 80's and early 90's as AMC owned what eventually became the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
  
  No bigger point to make here. Just find it all...ironic.

  October 21 at 10:39pm · Like
• 

  Rich Petersen Ironic indeed...but no less significant.

  October 21 at 10:57pm via mobile · Like
• 

   I fail to see the significance. Unless you find irony significant. Then sure, very ironic and therefore very significant. I'll let you have the last word before we start chasing each others tails.

  October 21 at 10:59pm · Like
• 

  Bailout with stockholders and investor's losing their money versus organized restructured bankruptcy with debtors losing their money. Not much difference other than the restructuring may have made them stronger with important changes to union work contracts. I'm not half convinced GM is healthy. Without the govenment's purchase orders I'm sure it would fail again if allowed to try and stand on GM's own two feet. I know the green Volt is a failure of castrastrophic proportions. The government ordered thousands to green up the military...Hmmm. I do not remember how Chrysler's "bailout" worked, but I know it is standing on its own. So, something different I assume.

  Monday at 6:51am · Like
• 

  Rich Petersen @Chris Not much difference except the $50 Billion in front money the tax payers had to put up and $45 billion in tax gimmicks BO strapped on the back end...There's a hundred billion reasons why a structured bankruptcy was absolutely the better option--not to mention the restructuring of legacy costs that would have been a forced issue. I agree, GM is far from healthy and we'll never see our $ back.

  Monday at 7:11pm · Like
• 

  Rich Petersen @Walt. All snarkiness aside...Significant: Iacocca
  1) has a history of supporting democrats including Kerry in '04, Bill Richardson in the '08 Primary then BO in '08 general, but with his vast experience believes Romney is a better leader and far more qualified to effectively deal with the big issues at hand;
  2) is sending a strong signal to movers & shakers in business and to disenfranchised dems and independents that Romney offers better economic prospects than BO;
  4) was and is very well thought of by boomers (which make a large % of undecided voters) and commands considerable respect in the business community. You unwisely underestimate the value of his endorsement.
  
  Your supposition that there is equivalence between what Iaoccoca negotiated on behalf of Chrysler in '79 with what BO crammed down for GM/Chrysler just because they both were labeled "bailouts" is factually inaccurate to say the least.
  
  CONGRESS passed the bill 21 December 1979, but with strings attached. They required Chrysler to obtain PRIVATE FINANCING for $1.5 billion (the government was co-signing the note, NOT printing the money) and to obtain another $2 billion in commitments or concessions that were arranged by Chrysler for the financing of its operations. One of those options, of course, was reduce employees wages; in prior discussions, the union had failed to budge, but the contingent guarantee moved the union. Where was that contingent guarantee this time???
  In 1983, Chrysler paid off the loans that had been guaranteed by US taxpayers. The Treasury was also $350 million richer!
  
  Contrast that with BO's tyrannical edict which willy-nilly violated 200+ years of contract law screwing bondholders out of their rightful position and handing GM to the unions who didn't give up diddly squat. This was the biggest act of CORPORATE THEFT in history! And clearly, that's why in an act of self-serving political payback BO threw $50 BILLION at the sinking GM ship to keep it afloat (more than 5X's the total exposure in the '79 Chrysler 'bailout' in real dollars). He knew if they'd gone through a structured bankruptcy out of the shoot (as Romney has correctly explained they should have--that's what the laws are for!) the unions would have had to give up some of their legacy drag on company earnings which is what compromised their long-term viability long before the GFC hit. By all accounts the GFC just accelerated the inevitable for GM.
  
  To prove how disingenuous his actions were, even with $50 in bailout $ GM went through the bankruptcy anyway--but not until after he'd awarded the bondholder's steak to the unions. Unbelievable! But Romney wanted to Bankrupt the auto industry? Give me a freakin' break! Romney was trying to save the tax payers from flushing $50 billion down the crapper and wanted GM to emerge lean, healthy, and able to compete globally. Not in the least bit surprisingly, none of the above have happened under BO's skanky handling of the situation.
  
  And if that's not enough, in addition to more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, BO quietly slipped in a special tax break for them, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits. WTH? 
  
  So in 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to BO. In fact, that’s another BO whopper! GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits–less than nothing.
  Yeah, while you were paying your income taxes last April (which I understand weren't quite enough to make you feel patriotic) the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time...for twenty years!!!
  
  As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors--and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year--this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of us ordinary taxpayers.
  
  GM’s tax break stems from BO's distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses--of which the Old GM had plenty--and other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.
  
  The new GM should not have been able to write off old GM losses discharged in the bankruptcy. But another BO trick was in the cards: issue a series of ‘Notices’ announcing that those provisions of the tax code do not apply here.
  
  You can't make this stuff up...takes CRONYISM to a level heretofore unfathomed!

  Monday at 8:24pm · Like
• 

  Rich, I agree. I believe they should have done a structured bankruptcy. I had no idea about their tax deal though. Seems pretty much unfair to Ford and other competition to say the least. I do know that the Volt is a catrastrophic failure and no one wants it. I'm an Iacocca fan.

  Tuesday at 7:29am · Unlike · 1
• 

  OK Rich, I fold. It's significant. I forgot I was messing with a car guy. Butt kicking accepted.