Finger-pointing Begins as Senate Nixes Auto Vote

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by kodos78

There's an old saying that goes something like this:

If Democrats are the party of the poor, and the Republicans are the party of the rich -- who wants you poor and who wants you rich?

Think about it. When your political platform consists of helping poor people, you really do not want them to become rich voters. When your political platform involves helping the rich, you do not want to have poor voters.

I do not claim that I agree with the original poster you are responding to. BUT, if you have a bunch of poor out of work UAW workers, do you think they are going to vote for Republicans who threaten to cancel their food stamps and force them to find some sort of work?

That quick statement is inaccurate. Think of this one: Democrats support increased environmental protection. Republicans support reduced environmental protection. Who wants you living in a good environment and who wants you poisoned?

Or how about this: Democrats support abortion. Republicans support the abolition of abortion. Who wants you dead before your birth, and who wants you alive?

Democrats support more aid for single parents. Republicans support reduced aid for single parents. Who wants healthy children, and who wants starving children?

With all due respect, your statement there is a ridiculous oversimplification.

The Democrats are actually in a great position politically here. It's the same positions Republicans have their Christian Evangelical base in. If you throw them under the bus, what are they going to do? Vote Democrat?

Hardly.

I disagree. If the Democrats toss their union supporters under the bus, they're in trouble. Even if those supporters don't vote Republican, you can bet they won't mobilize voters for Democrats like they did before. Obama's "landslide" political victory was 6% of the voters. If any major pillar of the Democrat support base is alienated, whether you like it or not the Republicans will be in control again.

Originally Posted by obriend

I have an 08 T&C, and my friend has an 07 Odyssey. Does the Honda have better materials? Sure, if you want a luxury car. I have two boys, and wanted a minivan, and actually appreciate the "hard" plastic as they climb over and kick everything - it will stand up better over time. And the T&C is MUCH more quiet on the road than the Odyssey (did they use any sound insulation). That's even with the "old" 3.8 L, which has plenty of power when mated with the six-speed auto (22.3 MPG in mixed driving noew at 9000 mi).

And content? My T&C has a backup camerea, satillite radio, harddrive, heated front and middle row seats, integrated sunshades in all three rows (unlike the second row only Honda), leather, dual DVDs - did I miss anything my friend's more expensive Honda has?

All good points. Our Odyssey has many great features, but it is awful for road noise.

On the other hand, I would bet he cross shopped his Odyssey against a previous generation Town & Country - which is a far inferior product to what you own.

[OkemosOracle]

Does anyone else appreciate the exquisite irony in President Bush declaring he has "no appetite" for intervening on behalf of the domestic auto manufacturers? Let's remember that this is the same George Bush who, in the dark days following 9/11, personally asked Rick Wagoner to use GM's considerable economic clout to stimulate the economy, which was stagnating in shock after the attacks. Yes, indeed!!

And to Mr. Wagoner's evelasting shame, he responded by launching the most aggressive incentive programs the industry had theretofore seen, thereby starting GM down that slippery slide toward a bankruptcy that is playing out today. A patriotic beau geste maybe, but none the less foolhardy.

Poor, poor, pitiful Rick! He must have slept through the lecture in Business 101 that tells us, "Never, never, never start a price war unless you are the low-cost producer. If you do, you will get your clock cleaned by the guys who really are low cost!!"

Same goes for the lecture on Negotiating in Business. How could Mr. Wagoner accede to the President's request without at least securing a quid pro quo...some "good will credits" in Washington, if you will, that could be drawn down in dire times like these?

All he has secured so far in exchange for imperiling his company is some White House flippancy about building "relevant cars"!! Rick, how could you be so naieve?

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by OkemosOracle

Does anyone else appreciate the exquisite irony in President Bush declaring he has "no appetite" for intervening on behalf of the domestic auto manufacturers? Let's remember that this is the same George Bush who, in the dark days following 9/11, personally asked Rick Wagoner to use GM's considerable economic clout to stimulate the economy, which was stagnating in shock after the attacks. Yes, indeed!!

And to Mr. Wagoner's evelasting shame, he responded by launching the most aggressive incentive programs the industry had theretofore seen, thereby starting GM down that slippery slide toward a bankruptcy that is playing out today. A patriotic beau geste maybe, but none the less foolhardy.

Poor, poor, pitiful Rick! He must have slept through the lecture in Business 101 that tells us, "Never, never, never start a price war unless you are the low-cost producer. If you do, you will get your clock cleaned by the guys who really are low cost!!"

Same goes for the lecture on Negotiating in Business. How could Mr. Wagoner accede to the President's request without at least securing a quid pro quo...some "good will credits", if you will, that could be drawn down in dire times like these?

All he has secured so far in exchange for imperiling his company is some flippancy about about building "relevant cars"!! Rick, how could you be so naieve?

Good points, but consider that Rick didn't start the sales after September 11, 2001 to help the country. He did it to help GM.

Both Rick Wagoner and President Bush were trying to look like they were doing something helpful for the country while actually just looking to help themselves.

President Bush was just much better at it than Rick Wagoner.

[OkemosOracle]

I only wish Mr. Wagoner were as cunning as you think!

But if you're right, his decision to "help" GM by doing the one thing virtually guaranteed to bring about its financial ruin speaks volumes about why they're jammed up the way they are.

[TriShield]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

I agree that the quality of most domestic cars is equal or better than their foreign competitors, but there are still some glaring deficiencies in certain market segments. I've sat in a new Malabu and I've driven a new G8. You can tell that those are well built cars. The full- size pickups and SUVs are well built as well. Ditto Caddys and Corvettes.

But compare a Honda Odyssey to a Chrysler Town and Country. I own the Odyssey and my parents own the Chrysler. There's no comparison. Quality (and content) in the Honda blows the Chrysler away. Compare the Colorado to the Nissan Frontier. Same story. Compare a Cobalt LS to a Sentra, Corolla, or a Civic. It's just not there, folks.

And it's only the last few years that the quality has gotten anywhere close to competitive. I had a 2001 GMC Sierra for a short while and it was great. However, when I compare the build quality and materials in my 2003 S-10 (designed in 1994) to my buddy's 2002 Tacoma, it makes me want to kick myself for not driving a Tacoma first.

Don't get me started on the automotive abortion that is the Ford Crown Victoria. Ford's problem with that car is that they've cornered the market for police G- rides and don't feel the need improve. They suck.

I used to be one of those unthinking "Buy Uhmerikin" people. Then I drove a 2003 Honda Accord for a few days and was eventually assigned a 2005 Nissan Maxima for my work vehicle. After 8 years of tooling around in marked and unmarked Crown Vics it was as if the scales had fallen from my eyes. The following year, my agency bought Dodge Chargers for unmarked use instead of Hondas or Nissans. They suck as much as, if not more than, the Crown Vics.

When it came time to buy a minivan, we didn't even bother driving any American entries into the segment. It was Honda, Toyota, or Nissan. I'm really hoping GM survives long enough for me to buy a new Camaro once the Odyssey's paid off, but that car will be a weekend toy and mostly a garage queen.

After that, I honestly may never buy another American car again. When it's time to replace the Odyssey, I can guarantee we'll be getting another one. When I get around to replacing my S-10, unless I go temporarily insane and decide that I have to have a full- size truck that gets lousy mileage and is a total pain in the testicals to park at Wal- Mart, I'll probably be getting a Frontier or Tacoma unless GM is able to pull of some kind of miracle with the next generation of Colorado. When it gets time to send my kid to college, she's getting a Civic.

Tragically, there are lots of people out there like me. I really want GM to succeed and consider myself a fan. But they just aren't there for the type of vehicles I need. I don't need a Caddy. I don't want a Corvette. I don't need a full- size SUV. I only want one Camaro. I need a minivan, mid- size pickup, and smaller economy cars for my kids as they leave the nest. GM, Ford, and Chrysler's products in these segments suck compared to their competitors.

Same here.

The only reason I bother with GM is for affordable muscle cars and I really like their rich history (which they completely pissed away) and the muscle car era which defined how great these companies can really be, then it call came crashing down in the 1970s.

I too would like a Camaro, but after my G8 that will probably be my last GM or American car. The fact that it's not really a Pontiac, that it wasn't engineered by GM NA and that it wasn't built by UAW employees are all big pluses in my book. It's the type of car GM should be perfectly capable of churning out here but won't.

GM, Ford and Chrysler have made mediocrity their business and that's still what makes up the vast majority of thier portfolio today. Completely mediocre to terrible cars across all brands.

This turkey is cooked.

[TriShield]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

Dukeboy01,
The Ford Fiesta subcompact car, which gets mileage as good or better than the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, and other subcompacts, comes to the US in 2010.
The Chevy Cruze new GM competitor to the Civic and Corolla comes out in 2010 too, and it will get highway mileage 40 or better. Do a Google search on the car - it looks sweet, the first GM economy car that looks genuinely cool.
GM is working on the Volt for 2010, which will probably be the world's first truly mass production plug-in hybrid that gets 40 miles on battery power alone and then runs very efficiently from an onboard generator.
The Chevy Malibu sedan is winning awards. The competent Ford Fusion is getting an update that looks to put it into seriously competitive territory this coming spring.

The Fiesta will be built in Mexico, likely decontented like every other captive import Ford has tried to sell here and it's profits will be thin to nonexistent. At least it looks nice, what's the excuse for not styling all of Ford's cars that way?

The Cruze is a Daewoo, that alone is enough to keep me miles away from it. It's also a shoddy looking car, far from cool. Hardly the style or product revolution GM really needed in this segment and nothing like the three decent looking concepts they unveiled years ago only to never build them.

The Volt will likely be Lutz's last pet project at GM and his most expensive one ever. It's a car by GM's own admission may not see the light of day becuase of the battery technology it depends on for working as promised doesn't exist and it also won't turn a profit. And it will be $40,000. Most people will pass, so will I. It was a nice shiny thing to dangle at the government to secure "retooling" money though.

The Malibu is yet another overhyped car in a long line of them from GM saying "It won't be long now, we're turning the corner!". For a mainstream car there are hardly any of them anywhere here in the nation's fifth largest city. The ones I do see have rental stickers on the back. And it's just as hard and plasticy inside as any other GM car has been ever. It also looks uncomfortably Asian, not like a proper Malibu and hardly proudly American. I had the misfortune of trying out a Saturn Aura not that long ago thinking it might be good, boy was I wrong. It was thoroughly awful car in every respect. Considering the Malibu is an Aura with a different wrapper I would even test drive one. I already know what it's going to be, a disaster.

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by TriShield

The Malibu is yet another overhyped car in a long line of them from GM saying "It won't be long now, we're turning the corner!". For a mainstream car there are hardly any of them anywhere here in the nation's fifth largest city.

I live in San Francisco, where 90% of the cars on the road are import brands, and I see more Malibus on the road than any other newish american car. (Save the Pontiac Vibe, which is built locally.)

So, it seems like the Malibu is slowly catching on. But a day late and a dollar short -- GM needed this car 10 years ago.

[03xtreme]

hey senate point the finger at yourselves, you made the legislation that is deflating and devaluating america....

fly your jets back to your state now and go hide from the public so we have no idea what you are doing.

ever tried to get ahold of these clowns.... thats A LAUGH.