Thursday, May 28, 2009

Are the Chrysler dealership closings tainted by political payback?

Gateway Pundit wants to know. You should, too.

Noteworthy:

Again here is what we know so far--
** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.

** Later it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.

** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.

** Steven Rattner leads The Auto Task Force and is married to the former National Finance Chair of Democratic Party, Maureen White.

** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.

** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.

** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.

** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.

** After closing the 789 dealerships Chrysler announced that they are already looking to open new franchises.

** Chrysler dealership owners donated to Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 76% to 24%.
Very interesting.

If the accusations are true, would anyone really be surprised, given the Obamanation's record so far?
#

32 comments:

  1. No two ways about it, you're a idiot.

    And a tool. Stop parroting the right and think for yourself just once in your life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is the case.
    Nothing is too underhanded for The One and his minions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "No two ways about it, you're a idiot.

    And a tool. Stop parroting the right and think for yourself just once in your life."

    You will notice that the poster doesn't take the time or make the effort to provide any information the counters what's been presented.

    Are we particularly surprised at those little omissions?

    He/she/it's just another anonymous Rocket Scientist running a big mouth fed by a little mind.

    Where DO these clowns come from?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chicago style THUG politics comes to the White House. BB

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You will notice that the poster doesn't take the time or make the effort to provide any information the counters what's been presented."

    Hmmm. I notice that he, in fact, did do so. The word "idiot" in his comment is a link to an examination of the facts that concludes: "There's no conspiracy here, folks -- just some bad math."

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Hmmm. I notice that he, in fact, did do so."

    Yes, I should have said he made a POOR effort and took NO time to counter the information because he simply offered his OPINION, instead of facts.

    Effectively, however, he made no time or effort to support his statement. Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" who are academically and intellectually lazy often generally aren't capable of better. It goes hand in hand with the little mind running the big mouth.

    To be more precise, I should have said he FAILED to counter the information, and to be more precise, I should have used the word "refute", instead of "counter", although two listed synonyms for "counter" are "offset" and "nullify".

    The phrase he linked to did neither of those things to the points listed in my post.

    I have long ago ceased to be surprised at responses like the one in question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is the problem: If you are just determined to hate anything about Obama and start seeing conspiracy theories in everything, it just makes you look like a nut. Pick your spots. I'm sure you'll get some legitimate ones, but otherwise you seem shrill and just full of bile.

    This "Chrysler conspiracy" is really among the silliest. No. 1, it was the Republicans who opposed the auto bailouts. I mean, if they had their way ALL the dealerships might have lost out. The Obama administration, one could argue, saved countless dealerships (whether you agree with that move or not is a separate and legit debate), of which many, many more donated to the GOP than to the Dems.

    You can't have this story both ways, unless of course your only aim is to blame, blame, blame, and the truth just doesn't mean that much to you. And maybe it doesn't, but you could at least admit that.

    Second, it ignores some more comprehensive research (which the story you quote didn't do) that simply indicates that nearly all the car dealers who donated to political campaigns, donated to the GOP. I've heard something like 8-to-1 or higher, depending on how you do the search. So, if you eliminate 25 percent of them, naturally you are going to cut more GOP donors. But you also are going to SAVE many more dealers owned by GOP donors too .
    I mean, the pushers of this story really are looking at a glass 7/8ths full and claiming it's 7/8 empty.

    And finally, there is no evidence I've heard of that indicates that anyone in the Obama administration was in a position to hand-pick which dealers were picked.

    I mean, honestly, it just does not show very well for someone like Brenda to make her "thug" comment based on a totally spurious story or Jaycee to chime in with his "doesn't surprise me" bit. It only shows a predisposition on their parts to gleefully accept any crap that a poor source doles out.

    I mean, aren't they required to Think a little before they react? Group-hate is what mobs do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If you are just determined to hate anything about Obama and start seeing conspiracy theories in everything, it just makes you look like a nut."

    Dash, if it's the truth and you bury your head in the sand while our country crumbles around us, what does that make you??
    How about "willful co-conspirator" or "ignorant sycophant" or "slave to the would-be Messiah?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. C'mon Jaycee, you're smarter than that. I respect differences in opinion. But what I really don't like is bad arguments and it almost hurts me to see people making them.

    What I am saying is pretty simple: this Chrysler story and a few others out there - are nonsense. To blindly align yourself with them will only hurt your credibility.

    That is a problem right now with many folks in the GOP. There is some confusion and some anger, and as an unfortunately result, some of them are shooting wildly at everything that moves whether there is merit or not.

    If you pick stories like this Chrysler one, and say "I believe it!" merely because you don't like the guy, that will not benefit you in the end. I promise you.

    What will benefit you is picking legitimate beefs - not that hard to find, right? - and pressing your case through facts, logic and persuasive argument.

    Name calling (at least he's graduated from Secret Muslim to Messiah, I guess). and goofy conspiracy theories only tend to make your side seem shrill and desperate.

    I'm not saying this with a mean spirit. You just don't want your wagon hitched to some stories, and unless I am completely wrong, this Chrysler story is just flat out one of those.

    It doesn't seem to hold up at all. Can't you see that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dash, please read for comprehension.
    I never once said I believed the conclusion reached in the article.
    I did say, however, that it would not surprise me if it were true. And it wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "he simply offered his OPINION, instead of facts." -- Bubbles

    You may not like what he demonstrated with the facts but his conclusions are quite substantially tethered to the facts -- quite unlike your original post, which is the whole point, the point your blinding allegiance to ideology keeps you from seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And, what Dash Riprock said. Especially the part about credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "You may not like what he demonstrated with the facts but his conclusions are quite substantially tethered to the facts -- quite unlike your original post, which is the whole point, the point your blinding allegiance to ideology keeps you from seeing."

    He presented and demonstrated no facts to support his view.

    But that's not important to your Usual Gang of Idiots, like you and Crash Flipcrock, is it?

    If you Obamanation apologists have any SOLID FACTS that refute the information, NOW would be a good time to present it.

    Meanwhile, here are some MORE facts that you won't be able to refute:

    "Joey Smith and I have now found at least four Democrat-friendly dealer groups, representing 40 (forty) Chrysler dealerships. These four groups will be left with 42 dealerships after the shuffling, while their in-market competition will be wiped out across the board.

    The odds of you losing net dealerships if you are a big Democrat contributor? Looks to be somewhere between slim and none. Taken at face value, it would appear that Democrat contributors and bigwigs were rewarded and their competitors punished."

    But by all means, continue to babble, dribble, drool, and spew to your hearts' content without any facts to back up what you say.

    I know it's not nice for me to pick on people with clearly established learning disabilities, but I'm going to enjoy the smell of burning Libthinker here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good luck jaycee. Bubba's got your back.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "He presented and demonstrated no facts to support his view."

    See? This is where you do your cause and party great harm. An author digs deeper into the facts than a superficial analysis you would prefer and your response is like that of a crazy person: "No! No! No! Those aren't facts!"

    You make it downright scary for people to consider aligning with your view. Demonstrations of delusional thinking do not inspire confidence in the credibility of your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good luck with 6th grade English Class, Dash.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Really? Wow. That's an interesting way to end this exchange. That's an amazingly petty thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Demonstrations of delusional thinking do not inspire confidence in the credibility of your ideas."

    Pay attention, Idiot Children:

    Pushback babble such as you and your partner in slime have provided here, with no factual basis to support what you say, simply digs your hole even deeper.

    Blowing off the facts presented is simply a knee jerk reaction in an attempt to minimalize any damage.

    If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that jaycee and I did not have not said that the assertions made were true, but we DID say we wanted to find out more.

    But you clowns are not interested in finding out the rest of the story. You're too busy making infantile posts in an attempt to distract and cover for the possibility of big time corruptness from the Obamanation.

    Truth is secondary to jerks like you two when it conflicts with your worldview.

    Either provide factual information to support your nonsense, or shut up about this issue.

    Any further babble in these comments that do not contain factual material on this issue will be deleted.

    Roch, I have told you before that your opinion is not wanted here.

    What part of that do you refuse to understand?

    As for the other clown, Splash Liplock, you're not quite up to the task, are you, little buddy?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Was the ethnicity of the dealer a consideration ?

    Minority Dealers protected ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dash said:
    "Really? Wow. That's an interesting way to end this exchange."

    There was nothing else to say.
    You failed to comprehend what I said earlier, and used your misunderstanding to tangentially rocket off into another universe with your twisted logic.
    Then you made an unnecessary and smarmy comment.
    What response did you expect?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good luck Jaycee, Bubba's got your back? What did you think that meant?

    You're the one misunderstanding this time. Bubba had just posted a long message and I was done and ready to sign off and move on. I merely meant something like, "see ya, Bubba's obviously on your side. (And then some)." That's swarmy?

    No. I promise you, I may be many things, we may disagree, and I guess I missed your point (though honestly I think I understood), but here's one thing I won't do: insult you or call you names, especially when using an anonymous tag. That's too cheap and cowardly.

    I thought we had a decent exchange. I was disappointed you'd insult me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. jaycee said:

    "You failed to comprehend what I said earlier, and used your misunderstanding to tangentially rocket off into another universe with your twisted logic.
    Then you made an unnecessary and smarmy comment.
    What response did you expect?"

    Flash said:

    "If you are just determined to hate anything about Obama and start seeing conspiracy theories in everything, it just makes you look like a nut."

    ....and:

    "What I am saying is pretty simple: this Chrysler story and a few others out there - are nonsense. To blindly align yourself with them will only hurt your credibility."

    You ran your mouth, and didn't back it up, providing absolutely nothing to support those opinions.

    Yet you complain because you got no respect?

    Too funny!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Upon further thought, I have a couple final thoughts and then I am announcing my permanent retirement from blogs. This was a first foray, and I can see it just ain't my scene. (Don't applaud too much Bubba). I thought it would be interesting, but I can see it isn't to me. It just seems like you can waste a lot of time and energy, and to what end? I probably should be outside getting some fresh air.)

    First, I do agree that folks ought to be free to investigate the Chrysler story. Of course, they should. I just don't think there's a lot of "there, there" when the day is done for the reasons I mentioned. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. But if I'm right, I am merely saying that the GOP needs to be careful - stories like that can hurt them too if they are wrong -- or can't prove they are right - often enough. That's not so controversial a statement is it?

    Bubba, you keep saying we haven't proved the Dems are innocent. That seems backward to me. My argument would be that you haven't proven guilt. The bloggers pushing this story have cherry-picked some facts and haven't proven a conspiracy. But hey, that's just my opinion. Blow if up if you like.

    Second, my dad would have told me that if someone misunderstands you, then it is likely your fault, not his (or hers) because you didn't make yourself clear and you left open the possibility of being misunderstood. So, Jaycee I thought more about it and I apologize if I sounded swarmy. Didn't mean it and that's not something I would do..

    Finally, Bubba; here's one you didn't think of: Slash Flapjack. Please use it with care.

    See ya! !

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Bubba, you keep saying we haven't proved the Dems are innocent."

    I never accused them of being guilty of anything in this regard. I merely provided facts

    Nor did any of the linked sources accuse anyone of "guilt".

    The facts were provided for the reader's information.

    Automatically, the Obamadroid (over) reaction sprung into action.

    None of the Obamadroid reactors here have even attempted to provide any factual information in rebuttal.

    The original anonymous dweeb linked to an even dweebier poster who picked out random data which established nothing. It went downhill from there.

    Roch contributed his usual anal retentiveness, and you provided your share of non sequitur to round things out.

    It's just more of the usual babble from the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" noise machine, none of which refutes the facts provided.

    I think there's enough information to call for a special prosecutor.

    Is Ken Starr available?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "He/she/it's just another anonymous Rocket Scientist running a big mouth fed by a little mind."

    Hi!

    I would like to know what you think is wrong with Nate Silver's analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  26. None of your links have any whisper of confirmation from someone higher up that anyone in the Cabinet had direct dealing in the closing of individual Chrysler dealerships.

    All they have is what seems to be unfortunate coincidence. When put in context of Nate Silver's percentages from a reasonable sample of car dealers who made political donations, the respective percentages of all Republican donors and all Democratic donors match almost exactly the percentages of closed dealerships.

    One of your 'facts' says that a group of dealerships owned by Democratic donors had all of its dealerships remain open while their competition was closed. If indeed the closings were based roughly on the success of dealerships, perhaps these dealerships were the successful ones. It would make sense that a group of dealerships owned by the same people would have the same business philosophy, and just maybe that business philosophy yielded more success than the local competitions'.

    The blogger that calculates the odds of closure begins his analysis with "all other odds being equal," with no attempt to prove that all other odds were equal, when in fact we can be very sure that they were not.

    This is not a story. This is facts taken grossly out of context and strung together with bad math.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "This is not a story. This is facts taken grossly out of context and strung together with bad math."

    You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

    Nate Silver's conclusion does not establish anything that disproves any other contrary information and conclusion that's been presented.

    Meanwhile, here's a little more to contemplate:

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/shock-dem-dealers-support-chrysler.html

    Pay particular attention to the fact that for ever one Democrat-contributor dealer forced to close, there are ***42*** Republican-contributor dealers that were forced to close.

    What's wrong with that ratio?

    Would you care to make a case that this information is "just circumstance", or "meaningless"?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I refute the points, and you dodge. There's a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I refute the points, and you dodge."

    No, in your usual immature self-delusionary style, you THINK you have refuted the points. From an academic and intellectual standpoint, you have done nothing of the sort.

    Your OPINION does not validate your assertion.

    From you, that's NEVER a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Opinion is all you have in this matter. You have no proof beyond the circumstantial. If my points are so academically and intellectually unworthy, I am sure you would be able to point out specifically how.

    Yet you have not tried.

    Instead, you have taken to personally attacking me, and unprovoked at that. I have only ever tried to be civil in our discussions, though I may have often failed. And if you consider me a fool, you could at least do me the favor of explaining how and the degree to which the various points I make are wrong because just declaring them so wrong doesn't make them.

    Please, in my arguments differentiate the opinions from the fact, the logic and the ideals?

    It should be easy, right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Yet you have not tried."

    (Yawn)

    Your failures should be evident even to you.

    You've got a lot to learn, but I'm not going to play teacher.

    We're done here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'll accept that as "Your points are irrefutable and I am incapable of admitting the possibility that I am wrong."

    I think this blogger said it best:

    "You will notice that the poster doesn't take the time or make the effort to provide any information the counters what's been presented.

    Are we particularly surprised at those little omissions?"

    ReplyDelete