Euphemisms 101

So, just how was the Chrysler bankruptcy cram-down affected in such a “smooth and fast” manner? Well, according to this cheery New York Times Op/Ed piece titled “So Far So Good”, it was “because the government held its hand all the way” but also that

“Even then it took a sympathetic bankruptcy judge to convince a group of recalcitrant lenders that it was in their best interest to drop their opposition.”

The article is a tad murky as towards whom the judge was being sympathetic, because it sure as hell wasn’t the non-TARP bondholder dissidents.

And it certainly wasn’t the judge who did any “convincing”. He denied the non-TARP hold outs their constitutional right to due process and just compensation in the name of political expediency, forcing them to take far less on the dollar than other debt-holders in back of them in line which paved the way for the Administration to give a sweetheart deal to the unions.

No - the “convincing” part was done by the Administration who publicly shamed the dissident bondholders who also received death threats and claimed they were threatened privately with character assassination by the Administration’s head of the Auto Task Force, Steve Rattner.

The lack of coverage and lack of incredulity in the coverage of the Chrysler cram-down would be shocking if it all did not seem so typical.

But when this gross and unseemly abuse of government power gets reported on at all, rather than describing it in more accurate terms as the Feds performing acts of intimacy upon the bondholders that are still illegal in most southern states, it is otherwise depicted by Big Media as merely, “makin’ sweet, sweet love”.