« Scene from a freezing cold hotel room | Main | Dollhouse 1.7: Echoes »

GM - we hardly knew ya

Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 at 07:21PM by Registered CommenterC. Brooks Kurtz Bookmark and Share

What happened?

When I was a kid - never a good start to a story, so please bear with me - Chevy was "the heartbeat of America," for Chrissake.  On Wednesday, April Fool's Day, the 1991 Chevy S-10 that sits in my family's driveway will celebrate its 18th birthday. It was my first new car - my second was the Toyota Yaris three-door hatchback I bought last year. My family was firmly middle class, yet after an ill-conceived experiment with a '79 Jeep Cherokee (3 on the floor!) my folks bought me a practical new car.

It was and remains an S-10, one of the most useful cars Chevy ever produced, a maroon and chrome object of practicality that remains the vision of carmakers today, even though the template was laid down two decades ago. The S-10 was so economical, practical and drivable the Chevrolet did what any sensible company drenched in union debt would do: it quit producing the S-10 years ago, replacing it with the Colorado, a vehicle that used the same frame and drivetrain while cost almost twice as much. 

Who can't believe in change like that? The S-10, the one that I used from years 16 to 24, has about 130,000 miles on it. Like a metaphor for GM, the S-10 was so reliable and successful that the company quit making it, having a need to clear room for vehicles like the Pontiac Aztec, arguably the ugliest car ever designed by anyone ... ever.  

The S-10 - my S-10 - does not look as good as it did on 4/1/91 when my parents surprised me with it, but it still runs well and now functions as the ferry that connects my father and his Golden Retriever named Scout to Lake Arbuckle.  I had two accidents in it when I was a teenager, but it never had and still has not had mechanical problems. Since it's the vogue, it should be noted it gets between 20 and 25 on the gas thing. 

The Dear Leader, Constitutionally our Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the, um, Executive Branch, fired the CEO of General Motors Sunday, a company that legendarily was noted (by an executive) as being so important that "what is good for GM is good for the country." Now, it's flipped: what is good for the country is good for GM.  So goes the caveats of bailout money.

The Ford family, which has ruined the already terrible Detroit Lions franchise, should be thanked for avoiding State influence, though the State will no doubt ensure that Ford get its money eventually.  Anyway, The Dear Leader, following in the well-documented, perverted footsteps of former NY-AG Elliot Spitzer, decided he knows better how to run a company than people who have, um, actual experience in business.

So Rick Wagoner, CEO/Cuckold of GM, resigned. I'm not a GM shareholder and would have no problem with Canada annexing Michigan, but still - when did the POTUS get the right to run publicly-held and -traded businesses? I can't wait to see which Dem seat-filler will take Rick's place - there must be some moldy denizen of Clinton Nation that is not dead, jailed or jobless that can pick up the pieces who The Dear Leader has not yet fingered.

I'm sure Mandy Gurnwald, James Carville and Paul Begala would fight to the death to run an company that's already been run into the ground farther into the ground. Apologies, when waxing Clintonian, fingering people probably is not the best way to phrase; ergo, I'm sure there's some human associated with the Clinton farm team who is not dead, jailed or jobless who fetishizes over some taxpayer-funded skull-effery that wants to try their shot at GM.   Wow, this is Change I Too Can Believe In. 

I eagerly anticipate the forced sales of the Chevy Volt upon a change-drunk populace.

Yeah, eagerly. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

This is all pretty unimportant. Who cares if Obama forced out a GM? The government is giving BILLIONS to companies that investors deemed unfit for investment. That is the problem. Why are we subsidizing business models that are likely to fail?

It is this bigger problem that necessitates the problem you have issue with. The government is giving bad businesses money. They have to make sure that the companies appear to have made significant changes before the bailout can be politically viable. The dilemma (I assume) is that you can't blame Obama for the Auto Bailout without clipping Bush in the process unless you focus on the little problems. Let's just meet in the middle and blame the DEM congress. Sound good?

I don't think you can logically make the case that Detroit's problems come exclusively from the financial crisis. Automaking in America has been dieing for a while.

In the end, I blame Obama, Bush and the Dems for ever thinking it would be a good idea to subsidize bad businesses. Not exactly the positive externalities you would hope for. We deserve better.
March 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJames Layton
We do deserve better and we shouldn't subsidize bad business - this is why we have bankruptcy laws. It is, however, quite important when the government forced money on many institutions that did not want it and do not need it - Wells Fargo among them - and are now saying that they can dictate all sorts of things they have no business dictates. And Barack Obama knows as much about what's good for GM as you or I do - which is to say not very much. As a Conservative, I do not like the rapid centralization of many sectors, with agriculture and my profession, insurance, on the table as we speak.
March 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKing Kurtz

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.