Ed Driscoll

To Be Fair, Up Until Yesterday, I Wasn't Worried About A Nuclear-Armed Impala

Jennifer Rubin notes the directions that the president’s sabers are and aren’t being rattled:

The president’s get-tough approach with GM and Chrysler is an exercise in decisive “diplomacy.” (Well, it’s bullying, really, but since the government holds the purse strings and the companies and government are phobic about real bankruptcy, here we are.) The current leader of GM cannot remain. He’s an impediment to change. We have to empower new leadership.  It makes no sense to keep doing what we’ve been doing (shoveling money). Fixed deadlines must be imposed, as well as consequences, should auto execs fail to get their act together. So, some mix of regime change, nonnegotiable deadlines, and fearful negative consequences are crafted to put maximum pressure on a recalcitrant actor who hasn’t been amenable to sweet-talking under multiple presidents.

Gosh, perhaps the president could apply that same hard-headed approach to Iran. Really, does it make sense to keep doing what we’ve been doing for years (talking). Isn’t it time for a firm deadline and some consequences? You’d think the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran would require at least the same level of robust action and no-nonsense pressure being applied to a domestic car company.

Meanwhile, AP reports, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has indeed abandoned the term ‘global war on terror.'”

I’m not sure if your average Fortune 500 CEO would agree with that assessment.

Update: “‘Tahleebahn’? ‘Pahkeestahn’? Who talks like this?” The POTUS with the TOTUS, that’s who!