Call me a skeptic, but as a political science major I learned long ago to measure politicians by what they do, not what they say.
Look, I'm happy that Chrysler has a future of sorts and that thousands of jobs will be saved at least for a while, even if it took big-time meddling from the Obama administration. But I have some questions.
If the president doesn't want to run the auto industry, why does he call it the "Obama Administration Auto Restructuring Initiative?"
Why did the president -- not Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli -- announce that Chrysler was filing for Chapter 11?
Why did the president demonize the lenders who had agreed to take a 40 percent haircut but didn't want to be scalped? Was it because they stuck to their guns for the benefit of their own stakeholders?
Why did the president try to usurp bankruptcy court rules by suggesting that senior secured creditors should be near the back of the payout line instead of in their legal spot up front?
And why is the administration interfering with product development by dictating that the "Chrysler-Fiat Alliance" revolves around producing and selling 40-mile-per-gallon cars that Americans don't want to buy with the price of gasoline at $2 a gallon?
For a guy who claims not to want to run any automakers, the president sure is acting like he's CEO-in-chief.