Did Chrysler play politics with dealer closings?

[MaggieMae]

If these closings are politically motivated, how can ANY American condone such an abuse?

Anyone in here willing to support such a thing?

Why would they be "politically motivated" NOW? Obama has already won. Why on earth would he seek "revenge" against businesses that didn't donate to his campaign? Sorry, guys, but this is unadulterated horseshit, from every conceivable angle.

I don't see it that away. I pissed off a Dem leader once. He went after me and my family for years.

Sure, like anyone should believe you.

 

[MaggieMae]

If these closings are politically motivated, how can ANY American condone such an abuse?

Anyone in here willing to support such a thing?

Why would they be "politically motivated" NOW? Obama has already won. Why on earth would he seek "revenge" against businesses that didn't donate to his campaign? Sorry, guys, but this is unadulterated horseshit, from every conceivable angle.

Are you dishonest or naive?

I downgraded that from stupid.

Just answer the questions. You might sound smarter yourself.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

You can't be so fucking stupid to think there was NO, NO NO, political consideration whatsoever to which dealers closed.

 

[MaggieMae]

They should be targeted for shutters for political reasons, instead of being prosecuted if any laws were broken?

You're going on record as approving of this?

I'm going on the record as saying no such thing happened. Okay?

No surprise there cupcake!

Somebody's got to keep you guys honest!

 

[Annie]

No, babe, it's the way they do it in Chicago, and that's who Barack Obama is.

Who says what they donated was illegal? Democrats "bundle", too.

This is not about who deserves to stay in business, it's about who paid Barack Obama cash on the barrellhead.

It is very much "The Chicago Way", have to agree with you there. Also this seems to have mixed messages, about exactly who decided which dealers would close:

Plan to ax dealers not Chrysler's decision -lawyer | Industries | Consumer Goods & Retail | Reuters

Plan to ax dealers not Chrysler's decision -lawyer
Tue May 26, 2009 4:00pm EDT
* Lawyer says plan to cut dealers not Chrysler's decision
* Dealers call termination plan 'unconstitutional'
By Nick Zieminski

NEW YORK, May 26 (Reuters) - A lawyer for Chrysler dealers
facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy
reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives
do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail
outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates,
who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed
Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the
impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom
of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It
really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous
pressure from the President's automotive task force."

...

A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a
quarter of the dealers was "not coming from the task force."

...

Chrysler wants fewer but bigger dealers in central locations
near highways that would carry Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep vehicles
under one roof, Engel added, but the decision about who survives
was "random" and set a precedent of government interference in
free markets....

So if there was indeed some great conspiracy, why did this lawyer sit on his ass and not investigate WHY there was a "random" closure? Most lawyers are extremely supicious of any activity that doesn't make sense, so he had a great opportunity to expose the potential corruption and probably stall the whole deal. Why is it a couple of lone bloggers and not a whole investigative team--after the fact?

Oh, the dealers are suing for theft basically. James Taranto has also picked the story up, but does agree that more will need to be done to investigate. If it holds up, there will be big problems here:

Best of the Web Today: Beat the Dealer - WSJ.com

When people talk about the problems that have driven Chrysler to bankruptcy and General Motors to the brink thereof, they usually have in mind the companies' excessive commitments to those who build their cars: the high wages, lavish benefits and irrational work rules written into union contracts. A less-discussed problem is the companies' relationship with those who sell their cars. A 2006 Forbes article gave an outline:

General Motors still has 7,100 dealerships (some with multiple franchises, for example, Buick-Pontiac-GMC). That count is down from 8,434 ten years ago. Ford Motor has 4,400 dealers and Chrysler Group 3,900.
Contrast Toyota, with 1,215 franchises. These sell an average 1,613 new vehicles a year apiece. Chevrolet has 4,111 franchises selling an average 643 vehicles. Ford showrooms sell 696, and Dodge stores (Chrysler's largest division) sell only 408. The situation is disastrous for the smaller brands: Buick franchises sell only 102 new cars a year, Jeep franchises 170.
Manufacturers can only watch as their dealers carve one another up by advertising giveaway prices. Worse, at least for the manufacturer, is that a lot of these dealers own competing franchises. A Buick dealer, that is, may also have a Toyota dealership down the road. Naturally, they shift their best salespeople and capital to the most profitable brands, leaving their Buick or Ford store looking shabby and staffed by inept or green sales agents.
Why don't the weak dealers just fold on their own? Two reasons. They can still make money on service and on selling used cars. And the dealership provides jobs for the owner's friends and relatives.​

Car makers, however, have little ability to rationalize their dealer networks, because dealers have substantial political clout, which translates into laws protecting them. "Under state franchise laws car companies must show good cause to terminate a dealer's franchise agreement," Forbes notes. Since the dealers are constituents of the officials who make these decisions while the car makers are not, the bias in favor of the former is systematic.

Closing down dealers thus requires a big outlay of cash that produces dividends only in the long run:

It cost GM $583 million to compensate its 699 Oldsmobile dealers after it decided in 2000 to phase out the brand. That's $840,000 per. . . .
When a company loses a dealer, its overhead costs stay the same and--at least in the short term--it loses a few hundred car sales. "There's no immediate payback," says Joe W. Eberhardt, Chrysler Group's senior vice president for sales and marketing.​

Things are different now, at least for Chrysler, which is now in bankruptcy court. As a May 4 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, the Obama administration "is hoping the judge will do little more than rubber stamp the restructuring deal it has worked out among the Treasury, the United Auto Workers and the Italian car maker, Fiat." As part of the restructuring, the Detroit Free Press reports, has sent termination notices to 789 of its dealers:

Dealers no longer have protection from state franchise laws because Chrysler is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but they can contest the process by which Chrysler chose the survivors, said Scott Silverman, a Boston attorney representing four terminated Chrysler dealers in Massachusetts.
"What dealers need to do is look at the criteria Chrysler said it used and look at how you performed on those metrics," said Silverman. Those criteria included sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.​

But what if one of the criteria is partisan politics? Blogger Doug Ross raises that possibility:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.
To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.
However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process. . . .
I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
It must be emphasized that Ross's evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. It does not appear that anyone has yet conducted a complete analysis of Chrysler dealers' political contributions. Ross's post, published Monday, contains nine updates with supporting material from news sources and blog posts, but the whole thing ends up being rather disjoined and hard to digest.​

This situation certainly bears watching. If Ross's suspicion is unwarranted, we're sure Obama's many online defenders will be along soon with data to debunk it. If he's right, though, it could complicate the bankruptcy proceedings by giving the jilted dealers a basis on which to challenge their termination. It would also demonstrate that political intervention in private business is an invitation for the most brazen sort of corruption.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can't be so fucking stupid to think there was NO, NO NO, political consideration whatsoever to which dealers closed.

I have no idea, and neither do you. If and when I see some solid evidence, then let the discussions begin.

 

[WillowTree]

You can't be so fucking stupid to think there was NO, NO NO, political consideration whatsoever to which dealers closed.

I have no idea, and neither do you. If and when I see some solid evidence, then let the discussions begin.

you can sit down and wait,, we've already started the discussion..

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Halliburton bad, Chrysler good.

 

[WillowTree]

Halliburton bad, Chrysler good.

librals are just too damned bossy,, saying when we can and cannot have a discussion..

 

[Sinatra]

It is very much "The Chicago Way", have to agree with you there. Also this seems to have mixed messages, about exactly who decided which dealers would close:

Plan to ax dealers not Chrysler's decision -lawyer | Industries | Consumer Goods & Retail | Reuters

So if there was indeed some great conspiracy, why did this lawyer sit on his ass and not investigate WHY there was a "random" closure? Most lawyers are extremely supicious of any activity that doesn't make sense, so he had a great opportunity to expose the potential corruption and probably stall the whole deal. Why is it a couple of lone bloggers and not a whole investigative team--after the fact?

Oh, the dealers are suing for theft basically. James Taranto has also picked the story up, but does agree that more will need to be done to investigate. If it holds up, there will be big problems here:

Best of the Web Today: Beat the Dealer - WSJ.com

When people talk about the problems that have driven Chrysler to bankruptcy and General Motors to the brink thereof, they usually have in mind the companies' excessive commitments to those who build their cars: the high wages, lavish benefits and irrational work rules written into union contracts. A less-discussed problem is the companies' relationship with those who sell their cars. A 2006 Forbes article gave an outline:

General Motors still has 7,100 dealerships (some with multiple franchises, for example, Buick-Pontiac-GMC). That count is down from 8,434 ten years ago. Ford Motor has 4,400 dealers and Chrysler Group 3,900.
Contrast Toyota, with 1,215 franchises. These sell an average 1,613 new vehicles a year apiece. Chevrolet has 4,111 franchises selling an average 643 vehicles. Ford showrooms sell 696, and Dodge stores (Chrysler's largest division) sell only 408. The situation is disastrous for the smaller brands: Buick franchises sell only 102 new cars a year, Jeep franchises 170.
Manufacturers can only watch as their dealers carve one another up by advertising giveaway prices. Worse, at least for the manufacturer, is that a lot of these dealers own competing franchises. A Buick dealer, that is, may also have a Toyota dealership down the road. Naturally, they shift their best salespeople and capital to the most profitable brands, leaving their Buick or Ford store looking shabby and staffed by inept or green sales agents.
Why don't the weak dealers just fold on their own? Two reasons. They can still make money on service and on selling used cars. And the dealership provides jobs for the owner's friends and relatives.​

Car makers, however, have little ability to rationalize their dealer networks, because dealers have substantial political clout, which translates into laws protecting them. "Under state franchise laws car companies must show good cause to terminate a dealer's franchise agreement," Forbes notes. Since the dealers are constituents of the officials who make these decisions while the car makers are not, the bias in favor of the former is systematic.

Closing down dealers thus requires a big outlay of cash that produces dividends only in the long run:

It cost GM $583 million to compensate its 699 Oldsmobile dealers after it decided in 2000 to phase out the brand. That's $840,000 per. . . .
When a company loses a dealer, its overhead costs stay the same and--at least in the short term--it loses a few hundred car sales. "There's no immediate payback," says Joe W. Eberhardt, Chrysler Group's senior vice president for sales and marketing.​

Things are different now, at least for Chrysler, which is now in bankruptcy court. As a May 4 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, the Obama administration "is hoping the judge will do little more than rubber stamp the restructuring deal it has worked out among the Treasury, the United Auto Workers and the Italian car maker, Fiat." As part of the restructuring, the Detroit Free Press reports, has sent termination notices to 789 of its dealers:

Dealers no longer have protection from state franchise laws because Chrysler is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but they can contest the process by which Chrysler chose the survivors, said Scott Silverman, a Boston attorney representing four terminated Chrysler dealers in Massachusetts.
"What dealers need to do is look at the criteria Chrysler said it used and look at how you performed on those metrics," said Silverman. Those criteria included sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.​

But what if one of the criteria is partisan politics? Blogger Doug Ross raises that possibility:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.
To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.
However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process. . . .
I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
It must be emphasized that Ross's evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. It does not appear that anyone has yet conducted a complete analysis of Chrysler dealers' political contributions. Ross's post, published Monday, contains nine updates with supporting material from news sources and blog posts, but the whole thing ends up being rather disjoined and hard to digest.​

This situation certainly bears watching. If Ross's suspicion is unwarranted, we're sure Obama's many online defenders will be along soon with data to debunk it. If he's right, though, it could complicate the bankruptcy proceedings by giving the jilted dealers a basis on which to challenge their termination. It would also demonstrate that political intervention in private business is an invitation for the most brazen sort of corruption.

If the WSJ is looking into this - there is clearly some smoke.

Remains to be seen if we will discover the fire.

If proven that the dealership eliminations were in fact very hardball politics against those who did not support Obama Inc., what are the chances some shmuck in Obama's auto restructuring commission will fall on the sword and say they were behind it and the president knew nothing - ala the New York flyover fiasco?

Even if that is the ruse they attempt, there is a better than fair chance this thing will become huge, and find itself backfiring at Obama himself. Even many Democrats would not stand for this kind of thing. (Or at least I hope not!)

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Oh, hell, there are several layers of bullshit between this and Obama. He'll have another Latino gardener to blame it on and fire, like the Air Force One thingy.

And, of course, everyone knows the WSJ is part of the Right Wing Cabal.

 

[RodISHI]

Why would they be "politically motivated" NOW? Obama has already won. Why on earth would he seek "revenge" against businesses that didn't donate to his campaign? Sorry, guys, but this is unadulterated horseshit, from every conceivable angle.

I don't see it that away. I pissed off a Dem leader once. He went after me and my family for years.

Sure, like anyone should believe you.

I'm sure you wouldn't MaggieMae. Your head is stuck to far up in that donkey's ass to see clearly.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Wouldn't it have been neat if just ONE dealer who was a big Obama donor got closed down?




But, none did. In fact, one was massively helped, most all his competition was closed down!





Can you not smell that rot?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Yes, let's close down only the non-donor dealers, because the drive-bys are too lazy and loyal to report it, and even if one does, old Maggie and her kind are too brainwashed to believe it.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, let's close down only the non-donor dealers, because the drive-bys are too lazy and loyal to report it, and even if one does, old Maggie and her kind are too brainwashed to believe it.

Very similar to the brainless defense of Dodd when he lied about the AIG bonus legislation. Dodd then comes out and admits it, and those who defended him simply move as if nothing at all had actually happened - including their own complicity in defending Dodd's self-admitted lies...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yes, let's close down only the non-donor dealers, because the drive-bys are too lazy and loyal to report it, and even if one does, old Maggie and her kind are too brainwashed to believe it.

Very similar to the brainless defense of Dodd when he lied about the AIG bonus legislation. Dodd then comes out and admits it, and those who defended him simply move as if nothing at all had actually happened - including their own complicity in defending Dodd's self-admitted lies...

Yup, one even got a thread named after him for it.... And of course still goes on undaunted, insisting Fox lied, not Dodd, and clearly has got to be the happiest sumbitch on the planet -- if ignorance truly IS bliss!

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

GE: Profile for GEN ELECTRIC CO - Yahoo! Finance GENERAL ELECTRIC KEY EXECUTIVES Dollar amounts are as of 31-Dec-08 and compensation values are for the last fiscal year ending on that date. "Pay" is salary, bonuses, etc. "Exercised" is the value of options exercised during Mr. Jeffrey R. Immelt , 53 Exec. Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer and Member of Public Responsibilities Committee / salary, bonuses $ 3.30M / Exercised $ 596.00K Mr. Michael A. Neal , 55 Vice Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer of GE Capital and Pres of GE Capital / salary, bonuses $ 7.48M / Exercised $ 238.00K Mr. Keith S. Sherin , 50 Chief Financial Officer, Vice Chairman and Sr. VP / salary, bonuses $ 6.61M / Exercised $ 46.00K Mr. John G. Rice , 52 Vice Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer of GE Technology Infrastructure and Pres of GE Technology Infrastructure / salary, bonuses $ 9.97M / Exercised $ 280.00K Mr. Brackett B. Denniston III, 61 Sr. VP, Sec. and Gen. Counsel / salary, bonuses $ 7.05M / Exercised $ 120.00K

 

[Nik]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)

But keep up with the conspiracy theories. Its fun to watch you all run around and freak out about imaginary shit.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Good to know next time some left wing flapper gives us a history lesson/finger wagging about Halluburton or Blackwater.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)

But keep up with the conspiracy theories. Its fun to watch you all run around and freak out about imaginary shit.

Fuzzy, careless and sloppy math doesn't help your case. Did you really read what you linked?