“That Camaro with the America eagle flag, that helps tell the story,” said President Obama on Tuesday as he used the Washington, D.C., auto show as a political prop to tout his UAW bailout and bash Mitt Romney for “willing to let this industry die.”
The Camaro tells the story, alright — but not as Obama spins it.
The so-called America Pride Camaro SS — adorned with the stars and stripes and images of America history — is a testimony to America’s enduring love for muscle cars, the very cars Obama is trying to extinguish with his 52- mpg-by-2025 regulations.
The Camaro SS is powered by a gas-guzzling, ground-shaking, 6-liter V-8 pumping out 400 horsepower. The Camaro has been a huge hit for Government Motors, selling 88,000 models in 2011 — or about 80,000 more than the plug-in Chevy Volt that the president has declared the automotive future.
Indeed, the Volt’s presence in the lineup of cars that Detroit brought out specially for the president was an embarrassing reminder that GM was saved — not by the hybrids that Obama has mandated that they build — but by profit-making SUVs and large sedans. Obama himself sat in Chevrolet Silverado, Dodge Ram 1500 pickup, and a Jeep Grand Cherokee that have been $5,000-per-copy profit engines for the auto industry in a year in which SUVs gained a majority share of the market.
The Jeep was particularly rich, as it has single-handedly saved the bailed-out Chrysler Corp., which Obama had targeted for moral guidance in building tiny Eurocars. But while the Fiat 500 tanked in its first year on the market, the Grand Cherokee became a top-ten bestseller, spurring three-shift production at its Detroit assembly plant.
Obama’s flirtation with the muscle cars was also a reminder that the hypocrite-in-chief himself once drove a muscle car — the Chrysler 300C Hemi. That fact was exposed after Candidate Obama lambasted Detroit automakers for not building more gas-sippers; humiliated, Obama quickly sold his Hemi for a politically correct hybrid.
Such ironies, however, were lost on Obama’s press tail, which wagged happily at The One’s political shots.
“Obama is making the recovery of the U.S. auto industry a major part of his re-election,” salivated USA Today, “Obama just happened to visit the Washington Auto Show the same day as the Republican primary in Florida, where Romney is a big favorite to beat Newt Gingrich. (Obama) added, ‘it’s good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die.’”
That statement is flat-out untrue. But the fact-checking watchdogs failed to bark.
In fact, Romney opposed Obama’s version of auto bankruptcy, but did not rule out providing government support — so-called debtor-in-possession financing — while the companies worked out their business plans in regular bankruptcy. The result would likely have been a more competitive industry. But Obama, determined to stroke his union paymasters, rigged the playing field for the UAW.
Such distinctions are ignored by the liberal press, allowing Obama to poison the political waters with demagoguery. As usual, it will be up to Romney to get his message through the press filter.
A good place to start might be sitting in a Grand Cherokee at the Washington Auto Show.
And remember, it was the auto companies whose CEO's gave to Mitt Romney in 2008 that were seized by Obama, and handed over to his cronies. On January 9, 2008, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli and his wife gave $2,300 each to Mitt Romney's campaign. On February 6, 2007, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner gave $2,100 to the aforementioned Presidential campaign. (Source: OpenSecrets.org) Ford's Alan Mulally was found to not having contributed to any GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, and every Democrat candidate bought a Ford Escape Hybrid (a late 90's Mazda 626 wagon) for their campaign.
And Ford had a huge benefit off the Chrysler seizure; it was the Ford/Fiat joint venture, the Ford Ka and Fiat 500, that Obama wanted here. While Ford said they would not bring the Ka here, their partners at Fiat brought the 500 here as part of Obama's request, and that means Ford benefits from the Ka/500 being here. All they need is to call Fiat, bring the Ka's nose and tail here, and they have themselves the opportunity to build the Ka at the Fiat plant here, just like they have in Eastern Europe.
Obama reminded me of Hugo Chávez in the auto industry in that those seized were those who gave to his opponents. He did this out of the playbook of Communists.
The next generation family car will carry only a 2-litre 4-cylinder engine, and things we know we could do before regulators put down fuel economy standards are no longer possible. That's the pleasure police there in a nutshell.
That something is popular does not make it good. People sometimes want things that are bad for themselves and for society as a whole: methamphetamine is a "big hit with the American people" too. Today there are 1.4million meth users in the US -- about six times the number of people who bought a Camaro in 1967. Does Demand have the final say in all things? I wanted a muscle car when I was a teenager. Now that I'm the parent of a teenager, I made sure the car he drives is a safe one, not a speedster. I smoked marijuana in college. When my older son was in college, I told him to go easy on the pot or not to smoke it at all. As people grow older and more mature, they learn from their mistakes, learn from their excesses; they come to realize that the good things are always going to be the fun things. The wise man walks a middle path. We The People must make the planet a greener place with cleaner air for future generations, and if that goal requires us to drive a different kind of car, one that burns less gasoline, we should understand that we may need to play with different toys. We may have to get our driving kicks from a continuously variable transmission, or learn to love the near-silent hum of an electric motor more than the growl of a gas-guzzler. With freedom comes responsibility.
That something is popular does not make it good. People sometimes want things that are bad for themselves and for society as a whole: methamphetamine is a "big hit with the American people" too. Today there are 1.4million meth users in the US -- about six times the number of people who bought a Camaro in 1967. Does Demand have the final say in all things? I wanted a muscle car when I was a teenager. Now that I'm the parent of a teenager, I made sure the car he drives is a safe one, not a speedster. I smoked marijuana in college. When my older son was in college, I told him to go easy on the pot or not to smoke it at all. As people grow older and more mature, they learn from their mistakes, learn from their excesses; they come to realize that the good things are always going to be the fun things. The wise man walks a middle path. We The People must make the planet a greener place with cleaner air for future generations, and if that goal requires us to drive a different kind of car, one that burns less gasoline, we should understand that we may need to play with different toys. We may have to get our driving kicks from a continuously variable transmission, or learn to love the near-silent hum of an electric motor more than the growl of a gas-guzzler. With freedom comes responsibility.
Perhaps. But you really say nothing. I love all things in nature also.
The point is whether the soft hum of an electric engine should be mandated by O and his green clad troops or whether Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public should be allowed to waste their own hard-earned money on a wastefully fun ride that safely returns them home.
Having complained about fact-checking, I'm afriad this piece does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Romney penned an op-ed in the New York Times in 2008 called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Whether that was his title or that of some left-wing subeditor I don't know, but if it was the latter then he should have sued.
In the first paragraph he said that Obama's bailout would doom the US auto industry. I'm not sure that prediction has come to pass. More damagingly, Romney suggested that the federal government should spend $20 billion a year on researching "new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like" to benefit the auto industry...not a million miles away from Obama's position.
Romney advocated for bankruptcy. Yes, and that is stated in the article.
Romney did not believe O's version of "bankruptcy" would fly. And it is the traditional American vehicles that are proving successful to the industry - not the impractical, highly overpriced green cars that O wanted to shove down everyone's throat. This is stated, also, in the article.
The point of the article is that O is a hypocrite.
It's amazing how many people who troll here suffer from reading comprehension disorders. I wonder if Obamacare covers that.
And don't forget Ford, who refused the bailout and has consistently shown double the profits that GMC and Chrysler have earned -- a fact that the MSM has conveniently left out when proclaiming the bailout's "tremendous success."
Good point.
I was recently in the market for a small car and narrowed the choices between the Cruze and the new Focus. I bought the Focus, not just because it's a better car, but also because they took no government money.
Obama is right. The GM bailout was such a success it took a tsunami to knock Toyota out and put GM back on top! Not to mention the bond holders that were screwed (can anyone say pensions), the Union that was given partial ownership and the Chinese who now own 25% of GM. The same Chinese that want the technoligy of the Volt so they can knock it off in China. Oh yeah, the government also can't get rid of the remaining stock they hold.
They wonder why people are holding onto their money and not investing.
Americans love big powerful cars-it represents our country-big, strong and powerful. After January it will soon again be big, strong and powerful. We have to elect democrats every once in a while so we will remember why we dislike them.
Interesting to note that Fist, the Italian co. who now runs Chrysler, is using the Cherokee platform and marketing it as a re-skinned Maserati 4x4.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting to note that the Grand Cherokee is built on the Mercedes M-Class platform...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd remember, it was the auto companies whose CEO's gave to Mitt Romney in 2008 that were seized by Obama, and handed over to his cronies. On January 9, 2008, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli and his wife gave $2,300 each to Mitt Romney's campaign. On February 6, 2007, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner gave $2,100 to the aforementioned Presidential campaign. (Source: OpenSecrets.org) Ford's Alan Mulally was found to not having contributed to any GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, and every Democrat candidate bought a Ford Escape Hybrid (a late 90's Mazda 626 wagon) for their campaign.
And Ford had a huge benefit off the Chrysler seizure; it was the Ford/Fiat joint venture, the Ford Ka and Fiat 500, that Obama wanted here. While Ford said they would not bring the Ka here, their partners at Fiat brought the 500 here as part of Obama's request, and that means Ford benefits from the Ka/500 being here. All they need is to call Fiat, bring the Ka's nose and tail here, and they have themselves the opportunity to build the Ka at the Fiat plant here, just like they have in Eastern Europe.
Obama reminded me of Hugo Chávez in the auto industry in that those seized were those who gave to his opponents. He did this out of the playbook of Communists.
The next generation family car will carry only a 2-litre 4-cylinder engine, and things we know we could do before regulators put down fuel economy standards are no longer possible. That's the pleasure police there in a nutshell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat something is popular does not make it good. People sometimes want things that are bad for themselves and for society as a whole: methamphetamine is a "big hit with the American people" too. Today there are 1.4million meth users in the US -- about six times the number of people who bought a Camaro in 1967. Does Demand have the final say in all things? I wanted a muscle car when I was a teenager. Now that I'm the parent of a teenager, I made sure the car he drives is a safe one, not a speedster. I smoked marijuana in college. When my older son was in college, I told him to go easy on the pot or not to smoke it at all. As people grow older and more mature, they learn from their mistakes, learn from their excesses; they come to realize that the good things are always going to be the fun things. The wise man walks a middle path. We The People must make the planet a greener place with cleaner air for future generations, and if that goal requires us to drive a different kind of car, one that burns less gasoline, we should understand that we may need to play with different toys. We may have to get our driving kicks from a continuously variable transmission, or learn to love the near-silent hum of an electric motor more than the growl of a gas-guzzler. With freedom comes responsibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat something is popular does not make it good. People sometimes want things that are bad for themselves and for society as a whole: methamphetamine is a "big hit with the American people" too. Today there are 1.4million meth users in the US -- about six times the number of people who bought a Camaro in 1967. Does Demand have the final say in all things? I wanted a muscle car when I was a teenager. Now that I'm the parent of a teenager, I made sure the car he drives is a safe one, not a speedster. I smoked marijuana in college. When my older son was in college, I told him to go easy on the pot or not to smoke it at all. As people grow older and more mature, they learn from their mistakes, learn from their excesses; they come to realize that the good things are always going to be the fun things. The wise man walks a middle path. We The People must make the planet a greener place with cleaner air for future generations, and if that goal requires us to drive a different kind of car, one that burns less gasoline, we should understand that we may need to play with different toys. We may have to get our driving kicks from a continuously variable transmission, or learn to love the near-silent hum of an electric motor more than the growl of a gas-guzzler. With freedom comes responsibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps. But you really say nothing. I love all things in nature also.
The point is whether the soft hum of an electric engine should be mandated by O and his green clad troops or whether Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public should be allowed to waste their own hard-earned money on a wastefully fun ride that safely returns them home.
I suppose it's just a conflict of visions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou want a greener planet and cleaner air? CO2 is good for that. More CO2 means more robust plant growth, which helps clean the air too.
Carbon is not a pollutant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving complained about fact-checking, I'm afriad this piece does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Romney penned an op-ed in the New York Times in 2008 called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Whether that was his title or that of some left-wing subeditor I don't know, but if it was the latter then he should have sued.
In the first paragraph he said that Obama's bailout would doom the US auto industry. I'm not sure that prediction has come to pass. More damagingly, Romney suggested that the federal government should spend $20 billion a year on researching "new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like" to benefit the auto industry...not a million miles away from Obama's position.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd where are the factual errors?
Romney advocated for bankruptcy. Yes, and that is stated in the article.
Romney did not believe O's version of "bankruptcy" would fly. And it is the traditional American vehicles that are proving successful to the industry - not the impractical, highly overpriced green cars that O wanted to shove down everyone's throat. This is stated, also, in the article.
The point of the article is that O is a hypocrite.
It's amazing how many people who troll here suffer from reading comprehension disorders. I wonder if Obamacare covers that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenext for camarade obozzo, mandatory use of bicycles as they are widely use all over the red china!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd don't forget Ford, who refused the bailout and has consistently shown double the profits that GMC and Chrysler have earned -- a fact that the MSM has conveniently left out when proclaiming the bailout's "tremendous success."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was recently in the market for a small car and narrowed the choices between the Cruze and the new Focus. I bought the Focus, not just because it's a better car, but also because they took no government money.
I hate the Dolt!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is right. The GM bailout was such a success it took a tsunami to knock Toyota out and put GM back on top! Not to mention the bond holders that were screwed (can anyone say pensions), the Union that was given partial ownership and the Chinese who now own 25% of GM. The same Chinese that want the technoligy of the Volt so they can knock it off in China. Oh yeah, the government also can't get rid of the remaining stock they hold.
They wonder why people are holding onto their money and not investing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can paint all the Bald Eagles and american flags on it you want...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...they're still made in Canada :)
Americans love big powerful cars-it represents our country-big, strong and powerful. After January it will soon again be big, strong and powerful. We have to elect democrats every once in a while so we will remember why we dislike them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse