Powered by TypePad

« Just Shoot Me | Main | The More They Talk The Better We Do »

April 27, 2009



Sue--you beat me to it..We need a reporter with credentials to ask--mustang, send it to Tapper or Drudge or Greta or all of them. I think you have a point. Why else would they need this shot? It makes no sense at all.

Bill in AZ

Heh heh - ROVE! I met this guy, little Pinch Sulzberger. He is a elitist, effete snob on O'Reilly.


Okay, Mustang, I am not larwyn so my emails will probably be ignored, but I have sent them to as many places as I can think of with the exclusive language added.



I was going to ask MayBee to tweet Tapper. They have something going on. ::grin::


Sue and Clarice,

I emailed it to Rush.

In any case, I'll bet the photos and footage vanish in light of the fiasco.


Don't be shy in sending more emails. If they get enough of them, they might notice it.



I'll bet they don't. If it is true, Obama is just brazen enough to think he can do whatever he wants. As long as he shows enough outrage beforehand.


I have raised on two comment boards--AT's and Commentary's--the possibility that this phoro op was for a movie, possibly "red Tail" and some reporters ought to get off their kneews and ask WHAT PHOTO OP?


Well, referring back to the title of TM's post, if Hillary had been in charge, the escorts would have been provided by the descendants of the WACS, or by a BUFF piloted by Kelly Flinn.


As I think of it, how could not a single reporter have asked, "What photo op?" It's preposterous on its face. Of course, it was for some movie or Obama campaign thing or something else not the least bit involving real national interest.


Why else would they need this shot?

I still can't figure out why they kept it secret. The White House has not explained. Does this movie theory have anything to say? Occam's razor and all that.

p.s. Sorry about the double post earlier. Blackberries and Typepad don't mix.


If it was for a movie and you are a New Yorker who was scared, what do you think of this nitwit?


If it was for a movie

Well, at least I know I can count on our vigilant reporters from the NY Times to get immediately to the bottom of it. in bottom of the barrel of ineptitude.

Rick Ballard


It's interesting to consider whether the UAW pensioners would be better off with a PBGC payout than "ownership" of a corpse. If I'm reading this correctly the UAW is trading away 50% of their pension/health coverage - the PBGC payout is generally 75% (IIRC).

The analogy with Airbus is good but GM will fail much faster than Airbus due to the government's inability to "direct" purchases as the EU has done with Airbus. I just don't expect to see TurboZero/UAW Widowmakers flying off the lots any time soon. Not even with Zombiegroup 0%, 240 months to pay financing.


Hey, I sent my tweet on REDTAIL directly to the Mag. Bast.,

Hey, what can I say, I'm in sympathy with the devil!LOL.


Great article; the true story of a certified wall street player and tax cheat. By the way the NYT has his datebook... Whoo boy!


-I doubt Obama will see the 30s in May.-

No, but we might. The 1930's that is.


Hmmm... So, how much presure will be put on the NTSB to make sure the cars made by the US Gov/UAW owned company get good safty ratings or that Fords get bad ones?

This is why government should not own private industries. There is an built in conflict of interest between the regulatory power of the state, and the desire to be competitive in the market.

Charlie (Colorado)

Wonder what the odds of there being some fraud, sooner or later?

Sooner or later: P ≈ 1

Within a month? P ≈ 1

I still can't figure out why they kept it secret.
Speculation: there is a general policy that air force one's movements are not announced beforehand, and since so many positions (like the protocol office) are still unfilled, there were just a few people (maybe even just one) who knew it was just a photo op and not some sort of legitimate air force one business. So the secrecy would have been automatic, and it would have required someone to think through the implications and explicitly cancel that SOP. So, we are back to simple incompetence and/or lack of staff.
bio mom

Gallup at 56%? Hmmmm. How can that be...Washington Post just posted a 69%.. (sarcasm)



Since POTUS was not aboard, no FAA Temporary Flight Restriction was in effect; I know two TFRs were in effect for the President's recent trip to CA for the Leno show appearance.


Reasonable supposition, cathy.
What if they were helping the movie producer and didn't want that known and were too dumb to realize there's be any panic about the planes flying low thru the city? Would they have used the SOP to cover that up?

What photo op requires AF1 followed by two fighter jets to fly low thru NYC except an adventure movie?

If it was for a movie, wouldn't this have involved a specific approval by The Won?


At Chrysler, the UAW is expected to own 51%, and now at GM as well? The very people who got the company into trouble are going to own it?

The is a nightmare right out of Marx and the end of the U.S. auto industry.


"I still can't figure out why they kept it secret."

Because somebody might ask how much the film company paid Obama to use the aircraft.


Bush didn't personally order the "Mission Accomplished" banner but that was stuck on him, therefore, Obama must bear the burden of this error.


"If it was for a movie, wouldn't this have involved a specific approval by The Won?"

And a cameo role with Obama playing the president.


TFRs are usually announced via Notice to Airmen (NOTAMS), with the following interesting possible exceptions:

"(f) A NOTAM issued under this section will be issued at least 30 days in advance of an aerial demonstration or a major sporting event, unless the FAA finds good cause for a shorter period and explains this in the NOTAM.
(g) When warranted, the FAA Administrator may exclude the following flights from the provisions of this section:
(1) Essential military.
(2) Medical and rescue.
(3) Presidential and Vice Presidential.
(4) Visiting heads of state.
(5) Law enforcement and security.
(6) Public health and welfare."


It does not appear that a TFR was established vic. NYC for yesterday's flyby.

Unless POTUS is aboard, the A/C is not "AF1".


I don't think the "Red Tails" movie filming makes sense. It's a WWII movie.


It's a look at the future,MayBee..



The closing credits, look how far we've come, black pilots, black president.


For the eye candy when the credits roll.


Yeah, mustang, my speculation is more along the lines of the short staffing and incompetence at the top. Probably combined with an arrogant attitude of "we don't give a sh!t what your silly protocols are."


What makes more sense than that the plane and chasing fighter planes was for an adventure movie..And why the red tail if it wasn't for this movie?


Drudge his flashing the red...Arlen Specter switching to democrat!!!!!!



Very, very hazardous. Somebody had to ensure safe airspace separation for this mission.

Keeping it a secret in advance was reckless; that's busy airspace.


Cuffy's got a new post up!


Oh, OK. I can see that.

It is a George Lucas film. Maybe this is Kal Penn's first big project.


And why if this were for something else would an Alabama ANG plane be tailing AF1?

Surely that's not the normal escort.


It took him long enough. What a classy guy.


On the CDS coverage of the GM and Chrysler bonds, don't forget that those 2 landed in quite a few ABS and the CDS attached to those and all the parts suppliers-what a mess. At this point, the deal is so bad, I'd be curious if the Treasury and UAW aren't pushing GM and Chrysler into default or partial default based on the ISDA definition of receivership.

At this point, I'd be unsympathetic to anyone holding anything dealing with GM given how bad the mess was before the election.

Sue>Red Tail Project

In the midst of that sea of humanity, about 200 Tuskegee Airmen and their guests sat in quiet dignity to watch something they never thought would happen in their lifetime – a man of African-American descent becoming President of the United States.

There is a scheduled flyover of the Capitol on May 5-6.



That got canxed already, with prejudice, I'm sure.


Not according to Major Garrett. One source says it was axed another says nope, going on as scheduled.


I guess they've already lost the element of surprise!


It should go on now. The ridiculous thing was the effort to keep it a secret before. What's that about?


I thought flyovers were banned now. Oh, Barry, this Presidency thing is so complicated!


They are banned. The same way lobbyists are banned from serving in his administration.

Rick Ballard


I don't see how a pension fund manager holding GM paper covered by a CDS contract can exchange the paper for worthless stock. It seems to me that such an exchange would be grounds for action on the part of pensioners.

By the same token, I believe that the UAW is opening itself to suit by its members for throwing away their money if the value of what they "receive" is less than the value of the payout from the PBGC.

Duct tape is probably the best current investment option. At the rate Team TurboZero is using it, it's going to become the basis for the entire Oconomy.

I'm trying to come up with an effective marketing strategy for the TurboZero/UAW Widowmaker (with Zombiegroup 0% financing). So far all I have is "Buy this or you're going to Camp #5 at Barrow."

Old Lurker

Rich, Rick, and lawyers among us...

How IS this being crammed down outside of BK? Do not the bondholders have a right to that judicial process? If I recall the numbers, the shares/billion being offered the bondholders is decidedly different than the ratio given the UAW and also Treasury. How can that be?

Old Lurker

As to maketing the kiddie cars coming from Gummint Motors in the future, that market will be limited to government/agency buyers alone I suspect. No individual will touch one in the future.


Watching the ten year note and as I remember--Rick B was predicting just over three per cent.
I believe it just reached three.


Hey...take a look at the 2011 "Government Motors"/Chevy Camaro Z-28/SS/NASCAR/"BHO" Editon!

Rumor has it BHO & "Stretch" Pelosi designed it themselves. In Crayon...on the back of a copy of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. 8-Track player, velour-covered seats, and Puka-shell necklaces come standard. The chick in the photo? She was well-paid for the photo op (She actually owns a hot-pink Mustang V-6 most hot chicks).


Kudlow was pushing this article in the NYT's yesterday on his PM show.

Geithner, Member and Overseer of Finance Club
It is a very long article. Apologies if TM has referred to it in a previous thread. I am far behind.


I've got to put the article in my stack, but I think came out in one of these threads a while back that Geither was a member of the "Group of 30" and WaPo had a similiar article co-written by ProPublica (a Soros-Sandler front). Maybe Obama's foreign money backers are unhappy with Geithner's performance so far and are looking to "upgrade"?


Good questions. Unfortunately I've got to run but I'll be back in a bit.

Rick Ballard


I've been following

It's possible that I don't understand the Fed/Treasury shell game but I don't see how Treasury is going to avoid paying a premium to rent money when they are boosting supply such a large amount of new offerings.

Rick Ballard

I've been following John Jansen's blog

I just love this crap Typhuspad software - it's so retro in its dysfunctionality.


Nah- unh... some of us have white Mustang convertibles.

Barbie is the only chick I know with a hot pink one...ladies don't drive Slut-mobiles....


Thank you Rich and Rick.

The bond reporter on CNBC was just speculating on a fifty year bond!


I've been following John Jansen's blog

Yes. Interesting. Harumph... Er... Rick, does this mean I should get my son's student loans into something fixed rate fast?


-How IS this being crammed down outside of BK? Do not the bondholders have a right to that judicial process?-

Um, the large majority of the bondholders are TARP recipients.
Which one wants to force a BK proceeding and find a horse head in his bed?


-If I recall the numbers, the shares/billion being offered the bondholders is decidedly different than the ratio given the UAW and also Treasury. How can that be?-

On top of that fraudulent ratio, the debt held by the bondholders is secured debt while the UAW obligations being used to give them their "share" is unsecured.
This is just an extorted political payoff to the UAW at the expense of the bondholders.
Of course ulitmately it will be at the expense of the taxpayers when the stock issued to the UAW turns into ashes in their mouth and we get to clean up Barry's mess.

Apparently these morons are using some kid's calculator that only goes to ten digits.
Somebody better give them one that displays exponents and an instruction book so they can figure out Mugabenomics is not out of reach.

Rick Ballard


I can't advise anyone as to what to do. I've had money in an index fund for awhile and I sold out today. I think I'll follow Fresh Air's suggestion about CDs and cash for a bit. I keep seeing the "green shoots" for about one or two days and then the bears (or reality) dig them up and eat them.

Where is any growth going to come from if consumers remain on strike? The clueless buffoon in the WH isn't helping and the Fed/Treasury shell game appears to be all about the placement of deck chairs.

I'm generally optimistic but The Dance of the Zombies is getting just a little depressing. Not to mention boring.


the debt held by the bondholders is secured debt while the UAW obligations being used to give them their "share" is unsecured.

Holders of secured debt would remain untouched by this proposal. The holders of unsecured debt are the recipients of this stellar offer. I *think* they would have the same rights as the UAW in a bankruptcy proceeding.

That leaves the question of the Fed's investment. What form did that take? As an unsecured bond, or as preferred stock? If the latter, the Fed's portion would not be worth much in bankruptcy given given the other claims.

Holders of common stock are of course screwed.


Sidwell is where all those Dem pols and do gooders (like Marian Wright Edelman) send their kids after fighting against vouchers and charter schools for other kids.

On a related note, Sidwell Friends v.UK.


-Holders of secured debt would remain untouched by this proposal.-

That's not what this story at CNBC says.

If it's wrong my apologies.

Rick Ballard


Very nice catch on the unsecured angle. That will teach me concerning disbelief that $27 billion of unsecured could be sold to one company.

Rick Ballard

Not "to" - should be "of one company could be sold". Gack.

Old Lurker

"Holders of common stock are of course screwed."


Both the original holders of common stock.

And soon the taxpayer owners of the new common stock.

Like Ignatz said "ashes in the mouth".


It was in today's WSJ, on page 8B IIRC.

I had heard earlier that all of GM's bonds were secured, and that made no sense to me. So I've been keeping an eye on how holders of the various asset classes would fare under Obamanomics.

This proposal looks so skewed as to be ridiculous. Particularly if the Fed's investment currently is as a loan, and probably unsecured.

If that's so, there is no reason for the holders of other unsecured debt to agree to these terms, and hope for the best in bankruptcy. 90% of them have to agree for it to pass.


Now I see the problem.
I was referring to the Chrysler deal (not GM) and my CNBC link was to it. There is a confirming story at the WSJ. Both are referring to about $7B in secured debt held by Chrysler bondholders.


Ah. I've not been following Chrysler, since I figure they are a mortally-wounded water foul. My guess is that Jeep, the pickups and the minivans will be acquired, and the rest will fold.


Here's a story from Forbes on the Chrysler deal.
The UAW gives up $5B in unsecured health care obligations and gets 55% of the (probably worthless) stock.
The bondholders give up $5B in value of secured debt and get less than 10% of the worthless stock.
It is hard for me to believe Jeep and the truck unit of Dodge would sell for less than the $2B the bondholders are accepting, or anything near it.
I can only conclude they are taking a crummy deal contrary to their shareholders interests because as TARP recipients they've got Barry and Timmy's gun to their heads.


You are right: that is a terrible deal. I understand about the pressure they are under, but why not force a bankruptcy? That is, unless they need more cash themselves.

Old Lurker

Exactly my question, DrJ.

Talk about equity. It's one thing to be lumped into a class, say with all the secured bondholders like in the old days. Then the members of the class had basically the same interests. But as you noted, many of the bonds are owned by TARP slaves, and that means they are acting against their original interests under pressure from Treasury...and that seems like a textbook conflict to me.


-You are right: that is a terrible deal.-

The only difference between the GM and Chrysler deals, and it's not insignificant, is the secured/unsecured angle.
And that seems to be more than compensated for by the difference in numbers.
At Chrysler the UAW and bondholders are giving up about the same amount and both are receiving stock, no cash, albeit vastly different amounts of stock.
At GM bondholders are giving up $27B in debt and receiving 10% of the stock, no cash. The UAW is owed $20B and gets half of that in cash and the other $10B is equal to 39% of the company.
No sane bondholder would take either deal unless they were being forced to.


No sane bondholder would take either deal unless they were being forced to.


And want to bet that the Feds sell the UAW another 12% or so of the then-outstanding stock if they renounce their further $10bn to avoid PBGC issues? Then two major US automobile (sic) companies will be controlled by the UAW.

Man am I glad I have a Benz. It'll keep running until gasoline no longer is available. Sadly, that might not be as far off as might be thought.


that seems like a textbook conflict to me.

Me too. It won't be litigated, though. Would a judge too have a conflict, since his ultimate boss is the Prez?

The comments to this entry are closed.