Be careful with Chrysler closure “hit list” claims
Photoshop credit: George at Elegant Memories
There have been several interesting and informative blog posts published recently on the Chrysler dealership closure “hit list.”
Posts by Joey Smith, Doug Ross, and on Free Republic shed light on the campaign contributions of the targeted dealers — who happen to lean Republican.
Is Obama capable of such Chicagoland thug tactics? Of course he is, and I’ve pointed out many cases of it over the past two years.
But I would caution against getting carried away with “Nixon enemies list” rhetoric until a thorough vetting of the dealers on the list is done — which may take a while, but can definitely be expedited through the same kind of crowd-sourcing that has already taken place.
Fact is: Some of the GOP dealers on the list don’t deserve a whole hell of a lot of sympathy. Or my tax dollars.
Here are two examples from my own cursory review of the Republican donors listed by other bloggers:
Florida GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan is on the list. What no one has mentioned, though, is that he has a record of financial shadiness and his dealerships have been embroiled in fraud lawsuits.
Then there’s Illinois/Missouri car dealer James Auffenberg, Jr., who was recently acquitted by a Virgin Islands jury in a massive tax and wire fraud case — but still may face civil action to collect millions in alleged unpaid taxes.
It’s unpopular to say, but there are probably many dealerships on the list that deserve to be closed down.
One more point about the political correlation: It may just be that more Republican-leaning businessmen than Democrat-leaning ones gravitate toward the car dealership business to begin with, which could explain the apparent disproportionate partisan impact.
In any case, it’s too early to start painting them all as victims of a politically motivated witch hunt.
Keep digging.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Which Chrysler dealerships got shut down? Heavy GOP donors! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Ask Dr. Davermann - Volume 8 - 05/26/09
- Paybacks Are A Bitch « Curtis Lowe
- Bookworm Room » DEALERGATE: Is this the biggest scandal of them all? *UPDATED*
- Tuesday, May 26, 2009: Daily Handpicked Headlines :: Daily Uprising :: Join the Conservative Counter-Revolution!
- Payback Time: Review Finds Closing Chrysler Dealerships Were Republican Donors « Nice Deb
- Did Obama Shut Down Chrysler Dealerships Based on Politics UPDATE: Not so fast | Radio Vice Online
- Michelle Malkin » A look at the protected Chrysler dealerships
- Obama Ignoring the ‘Flawed’ U.S. Constitution: Confiscating Private Property Without Due Process « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
- Dancing with the Dealers 3: Targeting GOP Districts - Josh_Painter’s blog - RedState
- Dancing with the Dealers 3: Targeting GOP Districts - Josh_Painter’s blog - RedState
- Dancing with the Dealers 3: Targeting GOP Districts | Social Debate: Barack and American Politics
- Dancing with the Dealers 3: Targeting GOP Districts | Social Debate: Barack and American Politics
- Michelle Malkin » Dealergate and the MSM
- Gangster Government strikes again | Cold Fury
- Obama ‘Dealergate’ and The MSM | Obama Exposure
- Lowrider « The Wingularity is Near
- Americans Must Keep Asking Questions about Obama – Saul Alinsky – Raum Emanuel – Governor Palin – NPR – Rush Limbaugh – Sean Hannity – Michael Savage – Glenn Beck – Larry Sinclair – Americorps &#
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Chrysler, Subprime crisis
AmSpecBlog
» Presto! Alarmist Emails Not Such a Big Deal
JustOneMinute
» An Inconvenient HackAmerican Thinker
» The Evidence of Climate FraudStop The ACLU
» Is McCain in trouble in Arizona?Riehl World View
» Liz Cheney Attack: Greg Sargent's Dumbest Ever Post?Green Room
» Imagine No al-Qaeda, It’s Easy If He Tries…Stop The ACLU
» Confirmed: global warming is a hoax
Until the entire list can be vetted, and also check on the dealers NOT closed political leanings – I think it’s too early to reach any conclusion on this.
I know my Dodge dealership – which from talking to the owner is as conservative as you can get – is not on the hit list. Then again it is a 5-Star dealer and they sell a huge number of cars and trucks yearly.
Probably so and I know you would agree it’s not the government’s place to decide.
True, Dems are drawn to the 3-speed bicycle business.
I think a clearer indication of whether this is a “hitlist” may come from a vetting of those NOT being closed down…
How many dealers who donate to Obama have any similar “shady dealings” but are avoiding the axe?
It only takes one innocent righty taking the fall in place of one corrupt lefty to confirm the suspicion.
At this point, I’m less interested in any possible connection with the closed dealerships and political leanings than I am in government involvement in this whole thing. I know there is a lawsuit that has been filed, and I’m very interested to see what will come out of that.
Sorry, forgot the link to the article on the lawsuit.
Kingsport urged to rally behind Chrysler dealers
Now THIS is an area where you are going to see some litigation push-back…
and TOTALLY appropriately.
Contracts are either good or they aren’t, and even THE ONE can’t play fast and loose with that.
I don’t get the whole “some deserve to be shut down” meme.
Are we suggesting that THE ONE is doing the work of the angels?
IF they are insolvent, they are exposed to the bankruptcy process.
IF their owners are crooked, they are exposed to both criminal and civil law.
Outside of that, NOBODY gets to decide if they stay open and viable. They have the rights of any American business, and NOBODY should be suggesting otherwise, Michelle.
Ragspierre: Fixed it for ya!
THE ONE
can’tplays fast and loose withthatany and all things that get in his way…with impunity. The courts WILL have something to say about that.
FIFY
OK… in my limited understanding there are TWO types of dealerships…
One, run by the company, on the company dime…
Two, run as a franchise, by dealers, who buy the cars and sell them BUT are not owned, nor funded, by Chrysler…
How does closing ANY of the second type of dealer save Chrysler money?
It would be like McDonald Corporate coming out and just saying you thousands of franchises must close, even though we don’t own you… and you cost us nothing, we are breaking our commitment with you …
The Chrysler bankruptcy has the potential to be a legal disaster for the Obama administration. Three union pension funds in Indiana have filed a lawsuit.
Whoda thunk it. The evil investors Obama refers to are union pension funds.
Ragspierre: The only rights American businesses enjoy are the ones allowed by O and his gang.
Like the Ethiopian can’t change his skin, nor the leaopard his spots, the Chicago thug will strong-arm those who stand in the way of the ‘change’ he would bring to this country…
And millions of other ordinary Americans that THE ONE is willing to wipe out.
They will have their day in court.
Disregard the illegal closing of dealerships being done by the ODopey One, even if found to be non-political why slam the door on these folks and bankrupt them…where’s the “fairness” and “justice” ODopey always talks about(lyin’ ba$tard, course we knew that)…given less than a month to unload 3 or 4 million in inventory and parts. Why not have the approved dealerships absorb the inventories of those booted. They still have to sell cars and parts, so what’s with that? Maybe I’m missing something.
It’s all a plan of the lefties, led by Soros. Fiat is also trying to acquire the international GM. Do these UAW workers really think Fiat is going to be paying $70,000 per yr per employee to build vehicles.
All you UAW workers watch your backs here they come for you. Sorry, to say, i have no sympathy for you, you dug your own grave, years ago.
Factory to dealer incentives and warrantable repairs off hand… I’m sure there’s more tax write-offs from non-franchise dealerships also. Probably a half-dozen others I can’t think of off the top of my head.
Not saying I in any way condone the policy, but there is money to be “saved” by forcing customers to seek “in-house” vendors.
RagsP: Only if O can’t skew the SCOTUS in time — he got a start today by nominating someone who thinks she will reach a better conclusion than a white man merely because she is a woman and a Latino.
No doubt Chrysler will be looking for the most liberal court they can for a favorable ruling, like every other unconstitutional law being broke by libs. They bought ‘em and they want their pay backs and NOW!
So you’re suggesting that we allow Obama to keep shoveling bottomless amounts in federal bailout money to keep the whole failing enterprise afloat? Chrysler is not like any other American business. They’ve been bailed out twice — in the 1980s and over the last year — to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.
If you are sick of the “Too Big to Fail” rationale for bailouts, then you better be willing to see corporate moochers crumble when the props are pulled out under them.
This post makes a simple point: If you are going to assert that some of these dealers were targeted for political reasons — and I made it perfectly clear that I believe this certainly could be the case — you better have solid evidence.
The Auffenburg family has a number of dealerships in Illinois and Missouri. More than one is on the list.
The thing to watch is who their dealerships are given to after the reorg. I’d say if they are trying to cut costs, they shouldn’t be handing any new one’s out until they return to profitability on their own steam.
I have no kick with that assertion…in fact I think it may be weak to think of these as political hits.
My point is that most dealerships are small to medium independent businesses, who have taken no benefit from federal bailouts.
THE ONE has no right, under law, to mess with them, or interfere with contracts between them and the automakers.
I felt that you included a strong current of “some of these guys are bad, so it serves them right”. To which I strongly disagree.
There are LOTS of mechanisms already existent to deal with any bad-doers, and THE ONE isn’t one.
I think it all has to do with franchises taking sales away from corporate dealers and competing in the territory.
If true, that would invoke anti-trust law.
No, actually, more like one-speed retro beach-cruisers – since they like having their leaders make the tough choices this eliminates the need to choose which gear to use. The older dems prefer adult tricycles with handlebar baskets : )
For PR purposes, Chrysler/Fiat would have been better off closing company owned dealerships and getting out of that business all together. Would have saved them a ton of bad publicity. Ford some years back tried bringing back a large number of dealerships under the corporate belt. Believe that failed miserably…because, independent dealerships work harder and buyers like to know who they’re dealing with.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but privately owned dealers aren’t being shut down, they’re losing their ability to buy and sell Chrysler products. If the dealer sells other brands, they’re free to continuue selling the other brands. The Chrysler dealer in my area sells Saab, Volvo and Cadillac along with Dodge. They aren’t being shut down, just losing their franchise.
Not really… this would only invoke anti-trust if Chrysler was the only company making cars. Or, a-la Microsoft and Intel, at least provided the vast super majority of cars in a given market. Wal-Mart, for example, are all corporate owned (no franchises at all). But they hold no illegal monopoly on selling discount housewares.
Maybe he could get a job in Obama’s cabinet.
Probably true, but some of them like the “mystery” of the other two gears. “What could they be for? Were they added to Mayan bicycles by ETs?”
BTW, the handlebar baskets are suspiciously large enough for a package of Depends.
I respect MM’s point of the thread and like roads, discussions take turns but I believe the above quotes are important because they bring us to something bigger and more basic.
This all should never have happened in the first place. MM’s above post is a by-product of this travesty.
Wrong. This is something I know about.
Research it if you wish. You will find that both state and federal laws prohibit anti-competitive moves. Sometimes the cases brought are just dumb, because lots of lawyers don’t have a clue about economics. But they are brought all the time.
Shucks, I was getting ready to buy a new Viper, and now you tell me I will only be able to get one from Soro’s Motors. There go my dreams of cruising the beltway, with the top down and my jihadi chic keffiyeh flapping in the wind. Oh well, we are all going to die in 2012 anyway.
I do so love a wacky conspiracy.
Ah, you are speaking of the university indoctrinated of them. Most would have their heads explode trying to decide what to do with the extra gears if they could even figure out that they were extra gears.
The baskets also works well for transporting their annual supply of groceries as allowed by TEH ONE’s economic plan.
Waste of time.
The data is being worked even as we speak.
I picked up two pdf files from the bankruptcy court filings.
One is the list of dealers to be closed and the other is the list of dealers which are to remain operational.
Both are needed to determine relative statistics once ALL the dealers are looked at.
There may be an anti Dem bias in car dealer over say CAFE standards for example.
Only a comparison of both classes of dealers will tell the full story.
I have both pdf files converted to text form now and am currently editing out stuff like the page headers.
Once that is done the files will be edited into comma delimited format for import to excel.
After that a quick first rough cut will look at only which dealers donated to Obama in the election ,not their total donation history.
Statistics to be developed
Number of dealers in class
Count of dealers who donated to him
Percentage of donors
Total donations
Average donation per donor
That suit was already dismissed, because the judge said that Indiana failed to prove that it had standing.
That’s just round one.
‘Bambi gets an F- for this fiasco. It’s been so poorly handled I don’t care if they tried giving the cars away, who’d want them? The lawsuits will just keep coming…eventually, they’ll get their day in court. The little guy that hangs around for meals at my house just bought a new Sable. Holds 3 golfbags, shoes and a cooler or two. Priorities!
A distinction without a difference. the laws you refer to are not “anti-trust” laws. Believe me, I’ve already researched it and this is a subject I know quite well. No company has ever been successfully sued or prosecuted under anti-trust SOLELY because it moved away from franchises to a wholely-corporate-owned model. Breach of contract? Sure. But not anti-trust. The point was that the hypothetical was inapplicable to this situation. There’s a whole HOST of illegalities to criticize here (like imminent domain), but anti-trust isn’t one of them.
Which falls in line with the whole point of this article… let’s not get carried away with “hitlist” conspiracy theories before fire melts steel for the first time in history.
In matters of business, government should be a watchdog and never a participant. Even when they try to be fair, the public will see conspiracy. And when they act corruptly, the only recourse is the same government that has become corrupt.
One of the biggest reasons the hypothetical falls apart is because Chrysler is NOT moving away from a franchise model, at least not entirely… in fact some of the frachises are being revoked – only to be re-awarded to others as gifts!
That’s a whole OTHER kind of wrong!
.
That is the key to my post. I’ll see you in court.
An across-the-board move to company-owned retailers would, of course, not evoke anti-trust (anti-competitive) law. That isn’t what we have, though, is it?
I have posted this once before regarding a dealership in Portland, Timberline Dodge. They are the latter type of dealership and being closed down after 85 years and a great sales record. Lars Larson is really going to bat for this dealer. They are a heavy advertiser on Portland’s right-leaning talk radio station and a big supporter of Lars. So in this case, it’s suspicious that this dealership is being closed down over others in this town.
As I said, a distinction without a difference… I don’t think we’re entirely disagreeing. I agree there would be no anti-trust case here because there doesn’t seem to be any basis to the “key” someone else posted, nullifying the “if”.
But that is not the only reason there’s no case. The problem with your “key” is that it’s only stating a motivation for the actions. My point was that the real-world actions themselves in this case (only alluded to by the “key”) simply don’t violate anti-trust, so the motive is not even relevent.
An Example:
If I only eat half my sandwich, and someone speculates that “it all has to do with making kids starve to death in China” … you’re more than entitled to the opinion that IF the speculation were true “THEN it would invoke anti-murder laws” (or at least conspiracy to commit). Except that my actions didn’t constitute murder, no matter what my true motives might have been, so the IF-THEN formulation was STILL specious.
I’m not entirely sure what point you were trying to make with the last bit. An across the board move to wash my family’s cars doesn’t evoke anti-trust either … is that not what we have here if I let my wife wash her own? lol
I doubt either of us is billing for this, so I won’t press the point any further. =) There’s a whole lot of illegal in this mess, so much so that it would seem NOT violating anti-trust must have been an oversight. The night is still young, so to speak.
Do you realize what that means? It means that they are stuck with their inventory that they haven’t sold once the revokation goes into effect. That means bankruptcy for them. They must buy their inventory from Chrysler. Chrysler is not taking any inventory back from them. In short, it means financial ruin for most, if not all, of these dealers who lose their franchises.
“… just losing their franchises” is a really big deal.
Here’s a good article about what it really means to lose your franchise:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/letter_from_a_dodge_dealer.html
You are mistaken in every particular.
When did you last try a case in anti-trust law to a verdict, or a settlement?
I bet mine were more recent.
Let’s see…..a POTUS who is the product of the most corrupt political machine in the nation…… a possible hit list against those dealers percieved as being the “enemy?
NAW! Just a coinkydink. LOL!
At least in some cases they’re transferring the inventories to other dealers not on the list. They’re taking huge hits, but not 100%.
Roger Hedgecock claimed awhile ago that all of the dealers on closure list were Republican campaign contributors – then made the point that they were the second biggest contributors as a group behind the financial industry. Looks like the Dems are trying to nationalize everybody who contributes to the wrong side. It’ll be interesting to say the least to see who gets rewarded with these franchises. Confiscation of property to reward loyal supporters in contravention of the Constitution and a multitude of other laws, typical for this administration.
I am, alas, unconvinced by vague brevity.
Yet I am also unconvinced of a need to turn a simple misunderstanding into a measuring contest.
I was sincere when I said I wouldn’t push the issue any further.
Can’t we just agree that this ain’t an anti-trust case (yet) and leave it at that?
Agree to a tautology? Sure.
I knew there was a reason why I didn’t jump on the political meme. While the Not-So-Big Three finally joined the UAW in supporting Dems more heavily than Pubbies last year, I found that the auto industry as a whole still overwhelmingly supported Pubbies.
On a related note, Judge Thomas Griesa rejected the claims of three Indiana funds that the US Treasury had no legal authority to provide the funds for Chrysler’s sale to the US and Canadian governments, UAW and Fiat.
*It is certainly a gigantic cluster indeed, but chances are that in 18 months there will be zero Chrysler dealers; When exiting contrived Chapter 11, Chrysler will continue to bleed money, Fiat will lose interest in ownership and bail, and the public will be more emphatic about not throwing more money down this rat hole; And in the end, Ron Middlefinger and the UAW will walk away with any value left through liquidation to prop up members’ health and pension plans on top of funds that they have already squirreled away.
IF…and that’s a big IF…the Reuter’s story is accurate, the Indiana group was not denied standing. It seems more a question of a district court deferring to a bankruptcy court, which is pretty common. It also seems a question of “ripeness” to some degree (which does have connections to standing), since nothing has happened that the Indiana group is upset about.
More as the situation develops…
In my view, Obozo sacrificed Main Street to save the UAW. The problem with this is the GIANT mess this leaves behind: Unemployment, loss of real estate and sales taxes, and the blight brought on by closed dealerships.
Because of the unneccesary Government intervention, Obama may have created a new class of Republican, the disaffected “Main Street” Republican. If he would have let regular Bankruptcy procedures take effect, he would not have been held to blame. By his actions to shelter the UAW from harm, which probably may not work in the end, he will be blamed for the aftermath.
It’s not you, it’s me. Kant we all just get along? =)
I’ll defer to the lawyer on the explanation. It seems that the question of whether the government has the authority to assist financially in Chapter 11 proceedings was already ruled upon by the bankruptcy court.
That is bad news, because the New York Times is reporting that the expected GM Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings will cost us taxpayers between $70 billion and $90 billion.
Legally, both auto-makers are looking at a very tangled skein. The litigation will continue for years, and will involve LOTS of people and entities.
Practically, I don’t see how anyone is likely to buy any of their products, except, of course, the governments. I know I never will.
They would have done far better to have taken their medicine and declared bankruptcy months ago.
What a tragedy.
Jim Hoft comes through with the first bit of evidence linking the saving of all an entity’s dealerships to Democratic donations.
I’m not getting what shutting down franchises has to do with the “bailouts”. That is an entirely different issue.
If Chrysler went through a normal bankruptcy it’s quite possible they could survive (along with the dealers). But this bankruptcy has clearly been corrupted by Obama and his pay for play car czar, with winners and losers hand picked by them instead of by the courts.