Just to add to Mark Steyn’s post over in the Corner, today’s WSJ has a good oped on why the only way to save GM is through Chapter 11. This excerpt in particular puts GM’s sales advantage over Toyota in perspective:

Consider the costs of tackling GM’s problems with some kind of bailout plan. After 42 years of eroding U.S. market share (from 53% to 20%) and countless announcements of “change,” GM still has eight U.S. brands (Cadillac, Saab, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Chevrolet and Hummer). As for its more successful competitors, Toyota (19% market share) has three, and Honda (11%) has two.
GM has about 7,000 dealers. Toyota has fewer than 1,500. Honda has about 1,000. These fewer and larger dealers are better able to advertise, stock and service the cars they sell. GM knows it needs fewer brands and dealers, but the dealers are protected from termination by state laws. This makes eliminating them and the brands they sell very expensive. It would cost GM billions of dollars and many years to reduce the number of dealers it has to a number near Toyota’s.

Also note, as the Dems try to force the Big Three to make more hybrids in exchange for taxpayer money, Toyota is delaying its plans to open a Prius plant in Mississippi.

Great news. We’re going to have a taxpayer-owned auto industry that makes taxpayer-financed hybrids which will have to be sold to taxpayers at a discount because the demand for such cars is, at present, wishful thinking.