Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Ratt Attack

rat Just as the 2008 Marketer of the Year was trying to salvage himself and his pathetic scam of a political party from their gargantuan “hope and change” election fraud of 2008, I came across the new book by his erstwhile “car czar,” the Wall Street racketeer, Steven Rattner.  Rattner, who bribed a New York State pension manager to dump investment capital/workers’ retirement savings into Rattner’s hedge fund, the Quadrangle Group, is married to none other than the former chief money-bagger of the Dimbot-cratic Party.

Rattner’s new book recounts his brief tenure as the government’s overseer of General Motors, one of the overclass money-sucking entities Obummer so eagerly and lavishly bailed out in 2009.

Rattner reveals two things that shed floodlight on who Obummer really is.

First, this, which betrays exactly how conventional BO has always been:

The week after his 2008 election, in Chicago, at President Barack Obama’s first substantive sit-down with his economic advisers, it was conceded that no situation on the economic front appeared thornier than the one I had been recruited to manage.

Amid the steepest economic slide since the 1930s, President Change thought not of the workers, but of the corporations, in other words.

Even more telling is this piece of self-pitying advice from Rattner to his intended audience:

Being vetted can be a full-time job. I had begun talking to my attorneys in mid-December, in part to ascertain whether public office was feasible for me. Every senior appointee has to complete two massive documents: the SF-86, an impossibly tedious security-clearance statement that requires listing—just for example—every foreign trip an applicant has taken in the previous seven years, and the SF-278, which involves the disclosure of every financial interest and obligation. Like most recent administrations, this one had added its own questions, derived from past debacles, such as Zoë Baird’s failure to become Bill Clinton’s attorney general after neglecting to pay the so-called nanny tax. I can’t count the hours I spent complying, but I do know that the honor of working for the federal government cost me more than $400,000 in legal fees.

This remains the kind of person becomes a “czar,” regardless of (D) or (R) affiliation.

What percentage of the U.S. population finds it burdensome to list their investment holdings and recent overseas travels?  To recall whether they paid FICA on their nannies?  Needs to start with their attorney when asked to join the White House staff? Lives in a 25-room Manhattan apartment, wherein occur soirees “supporting candidates who are more conservative and pro-business than the incumbents”?

The kind that Obama likes and hires, that’s who.

And, by the way, take a look at this Rattner character’s bio and book.  He’s as arrogant as the day is long.  And what did he ever do or invent to award himself his own massive ego?  He buddied up to his owner/publisher when he was a “journalist” at The New York Times, then parlayed the friendship into a Wall Street sinecure and eventually his own hedge fund, wherein he operated via naked graft.  In other words, he’s a simple social climber and thief who’s never done anything for anybody but himself.

Personally, I wouldn’t let him in my front door.

Such is “democracy” in America, meanwhile. As Chomsky always says, we have one party, the Business Party, which, for marketing purposes, happens to maintain two quasi-factional wings.

Share Button

Posted by Michael Dawson | Filed in Assholes, Bad Products, Political Marketing


3 Responses to “Ratt Attack”

  1. September 22nd, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Luis said:

    How do the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party reconcile Obama’s record of hiring and promoting these thugs? It’d make for an interesting study in what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance”.

  2. September 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Michael Dawson said:

    The rank and file have no clue. All they know is the TV ads, and maybe the evening news. The mainstream media here, being 100 percent corporate, would literally never report the relevant facts. Among other things, they would risk losing advertising (or sponsors for so-called NPR, including the advertising by which politicians acquire their offices.

  3. September 24th, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Poor Richard said:

    Anything but a general strike/boycott of the main$tream economy is nothing but pointless whining

    Poor Richard’s Almanack 2010



Please leave a Comment