It will be interesting to see which GM dealerships get the ax if and when that comes about.
Seems awfully strange that only one dealer that gave to the Obama campaign got the ax when so many were closed, some that were evidently doing fairly well in sales volume. If the same thing happens if and when GM dealerships are closed, will that be evidence of payback by the Obama administration? Elections do have consequences but should that include losing one's business simply because you supported the side that lost the election?
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): So what's the partisan split among the dealers who were kept around?
It seems telling that the propganda site you're quoting from doesn't seem to bother with that rather pertinent detail.
So what's left is not as important as what's lost? Even if the split of what's left were 50-50 why should a dealership that is doing well in sales volume, which should be the major factor they looked at, be closed when other less lucrative dealerships in the same are are left open?
"I am the author of the Chrysler Report document on Scribd (additional research online at Scribd). I searched through the FEC campaign information on opensecrets.org to find the contributions made by the closing dealerships.
The data includes all donations made by the dealership owners from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 Election cycles.
I have not analyzed the data from the dealerships that will remain open, but I have looked at all the dealers in the Little Rock, Las Vegas, and Joplin, Missouri areas. It appears that the dealers that are closing in these areas have not donated money to Democrats while the ones that remain open have donated to Democrats in the past.""
Little Rock, Las Vegas, and Joplin, Missouri areas. Mostly republican areas to begin with? so of course the odds are that dealers in those areas are most likely to donate Republican anyways.
Its like going to Arizona and be surprised that there cactus.
Mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6353 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (3 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 2): dealership that is doing well in sales volume, which should be the major factor they looked at, be closed when other less lucrative dealerships in the same are are left open?
Mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9184 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (3 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 3143 times:
It doesn't make sense for GM or Chrysler to cut dealers as they cost the company, nothing to run. They don't affect their bottom line at all, except in sales. If they have more sales, of course that affects the bottom line, but since the operation and physical plant of the dealership is owned by the dealer and the costs of that are borne by him, then it has no affect on the corporation's bottom line. I could see if a dealership went out of business, voluntarily. That would make sense, but to have the manufacturer close you down doesn't make sense at all.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): Sales volume means nothing is if it not profitable to Chrysler.
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 4): "Lucrative" does not equal "Volume"
If they are producing volume above the break even line, even if not selling each car for sticker, then they are making profit. A sales manager that lets cars go for less than what was paid for them is not going to last long at any dealership. The old sales line "we lose money on every car but make it up in volume" is just a gimmick. Secondly, If they are not doing volume but yet are selling every new car they do sell at or near gross then there is no way they are not lucrative to Chrysler. They may not be lucrative to themselves (dealership) but that difference can be made up in a variety of ways.
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): This is kinda discussed here already
Yes I saw that but since that thread title is no where near the subject matter of this one I felt it would have been out of place there.
Mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6353 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 3115 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 6): If they are producing volume above the break even line, even if not selling each car for sticker, then they are making profit. A sales manager that lets cars go for less than what was paid for them is not going to last long at any dealership. The old sales line "we lose money on every car but make it up in volume" is just a gimmick. Secondly, If they are not doing volume but yet are selling every new car they do sell at or near gross then there is no way they are not lucrative to Chrysler. They may not be lucrative to themselves (dealership) but that difference can be made up in a variety of ways.
That's a LOT of "ifs"..
To be through and not be categorized as an alarmist - go thru the list of closed dealerships and clear up each and everyone of those "ifs"
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7766 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 3115 times:
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 3): Little Rock, Las Vegas, and Joplin, Missouri areas. Mostly republican areas to begin with? so of course the odds are that dealers in those areas are most likely to donate Republican anyways.
Little Rock and the surrounding area voted for Obama. Same with Las Vegas (joke's on them, eh?). Joplin MO was Republican.
While Joplin is not a big town, Little Rock and Vegas are decent cities and would have numerous dealers to draw statistics from.
I would not be surprised that some political payback is in play. The Obama adminitration has shown that they don't mind fighting dirty against those they consider political enemies - see what they did to AIG execs and to the chairman of Chrysler, among others.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
Quoting DXing (Thread starter): Seems awfully strange that only one dealer that gave to the Obama campaign got the ax when so many were closed, some that were evidently doing fairly well in sales volume. If the same thing happens if and when GM dealerships are closed, will that be evidence of payback by the Obama administration? Elections do have consequences but should that include losing one's business simply because you supported the side that lost the election?
Has anyone analyzed how much the remaining ones gave to Republicans? Until I see that I don't buy this at all. Most businesses tend to give more to Republicans because they are more pro-business. I would think a much higher percentage of Chrysler dealers would have given to Republicans.
As for the ones being closed having good sales volume, it all depends on how they're getting that volume. If there are two dealerships close together they are competing and driving down the price. Shutting down one of these high volume dealerships will help the other one make more profit.
Quoting Mayor (Reply 5): It doesn't make sense for GM or Chrysler to cut dealers as they cost the company, nothing to run. They don't affect their bottom line at all, except in sales. If they have more sales, of course that affects the bottom line, but since the operation and physical plant of the dealership is owned by the dealer and the costs of that are borne by him, then it has no affect on the corporation's bottom line. I could see if a dealership went out of business, voluntarily. That would make sense, but to have the manufacturer close you down doesn't make sense at all.
This is a flawed argument for two reasons. First, the dealers do cost the company money. There is a ton of infrastructure required to handle all the dealers. Advertising costs money too, and the dealers aren't paying for a lot of the advertising you see. Second, if there are too many dealerships they have to compete with each other and drive down the profit. This doesn't necessarily hurt the profit, but it does make the cars that are sold closer to sticker price have a higher resale value. If a Honda Odyssey sells for $1000 off sticker and a Chrysler T&C sells for $6000 off sticker the T&C destroys its future resale value. The reason Hondas sell better than Chryslers is because they are worth more a few years down the line.
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 9): Has anyone analyzed how much the remaining ones gave to Republicans?
Again, even if it is a 70-30 split it doesn't make sense that of the 789 dealerships closed only one being closed gave to the Obama campaign. That is still way out of the 70-30 bracket given that Chrysler had 3181 total dealerships before the cuts. GM wants to cut 3600 dealerships so it will be interesting to see the breakdown when that happens.
Quoting Max550 (Reply 9): As for the ones being closed having good sales volume, it all depends on how they're getting that volume. If there are two dealerships close together they are competing and driving down the price.
It was up to Chrysler to not allow those dealerships to be so close to begin with. As long as the dealers are fulfilling their quotas for the month, closing them makes no sense. Chrysler sells cars to the dealerships which in turn sell to the public. Chrysler is going to get the money, minus incentives, that it takes to produce that car from the dealership. It is up to the dealership to sell the auto at a profit to them (the dealership). If a dealer can't make it's quota, then and only then should they be on the chopping block since they would be in violation of their dealership contract with Chrysler.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 3069 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 10): It was up to Chrysler to not allow those dealerships to be so close to begin with.
In '99 they sold 2.638 million vehicles, in '08 they sold 1.453 million vehicles. The dealerships may not have been close enough to each other to compete 10 years ago, but when the sales drop 45% in 10 years you have to make some changes. It doesn't make sense to keep all the infrastructure in place when you have 1/2 as many sales as you used to.
Quoting DXing (Reply 10): As long as the dealers are fulfilling their quotas for the month, closing them makes no sense.
That's the problem. To make the quotas they are selling them for thousands of dollars off the sticker price. While it doesn't directly cut Chrysler's profit it does drop the resale value of the whole line of vehicles.
Planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (3 years 12 months ago) and read 3032 times:
As many of the dealerships to be closed are in rural areas, which certainly trend more towards the GOP, why is it surprising that the dealerships involved here probably give more money to Republican causes?
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 12 months ago) and read 3032 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 11): It doesn't make sense to keep all the infrastructure in place when you have 1/2 as many sales as you used to.
It doesn't make sense to get rid of that infrastructure either. If it were just Chrysler having a problem it might but since all makes are having the same problems, some more some less, it makes even less business sense to make it more difficult for people to get to your brand by having to pass just that many more competitors to do so.
Quoting Max550 (Reply 11): That's the problem. To make the quotas they are selling them for thousands of dollars off the sticker price. While it doesn't directly cut Chrysler's profit it does drop the resale value of the whole line of vehicles.
Brand loyalty does not run that deep and resale value is almost always at the bottom of a car buyers choice. It's akin to an airline saying that they are going to fly less routes to become more profitable without looking at what routes they are cutting.
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 12 months ago) and read 3000 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 13): It doesn't make sense to get rid of that infrastructure either. If it were just Chrysler having a problem it might but since all makes are having the same problems, some more some less, it makes even less business sense to make it more difficult for people to get to your brand by having to pass just that many more competitors to do so.
But all makes don't have the problem of having too many dealerships. In 2008 Chrysler sold 303 vehicles per dealership, Toyota sold 1,292 and Honda sold 1,030. Toyota has about 1,200 dealerships, Chrysler has 3,300. Chrysler clearly has excess capacity that they can cut out.
Quoting DXing (Reply 13): Brand loyalty does not run that deep and resale value is almost always at the bottom of a car buyers choice. It's akin to an airline saying that they are going to fly less routes to become more profitable without looking at what routes they are cutting.
I'm not sure I'm following you on this one, brand loyalty is huge, over 50% of each carmakers sales are from people who previously owned one of their cars, it runs much deeper than most other products. Resale value is also one of the major things people look at before buying a car. I'm sure it is taken into account much more than the distance to the dealership.
As for the airline analogy, I'm not sure what you're referring to, brand loyalty and resale value or are you suggesting that Chrysler is just randomly cutting dealerships thinking they will make a profit by doing that?
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2967 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 14): But all makes don't have the problem of having too many dealerships. In 2008 Chrysler sold 303 vehicles per dealership, Toyota sold 1,292 and Honda sold 1,030. Toyota has about 1,200 dealerships, Chrysler has 3,300. Chrysler clearly has excess capacity that they can cut out.
Which only equates to less money made at the dealership level, not at the manufactuer level. I am not in a position to reference but what sort of fleet sales does Toyata have versus Chrysler? How many Toyota dealerships are co-located with another dealership such as you see with Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep? There is much more that goes into the make up of those dealerships other than just the numerical amount of them.
Quoting Max550 (Reply 14): I'm not sure I'm following you on this one, brand loyalty is huge, over 50% of each carmakers sales are from people who previously owned one of their cars, it runs much deeper than most other products.
If you wipe out the local dealer and person has to drive farther to get the same product, you are automatically giving a huge edge to those dealerships that are located closer to that person. Brand loyalty works if you have the same dealers located within the same distance, then it comes down to price. All bets are off if you close the closer dealership and force that person to drive farther. I would disagree about resale value. Most people look at the monthly payment and make their decision. Resale value does not come into play since that is usually several years down the line.
Cutting dealerships is not going to sell more cars/increase profits just like cutting routes is not necessarily going to increase profits.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4630 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
Quoting Mayor (Reply 5): It doesn't make sense for GM or Chrysler to cut dealers as they cost the company, nothing to run. They don't affect their bottom line at all, except in sales. If they have more sales, of course that affects the bottom line, but since the operation and physical plant of the dealership is owned by the dealer and the costs of that are borne by him, then it has no affect on the corporation's bottom line. I could see if a dealership went out of business, voluntarily. That would make sense, but to have the manufacturer close you down doesn't make sense at all.
I don't know the entire story here but the big problem is a diverse network and competition among dealers themselves which drives prices down.
Basically Chrysler has a right to size their network to whatever size they deem appropriate.
I do know that I don't believe in the "vast left wing conspiracy" any more than I believed it when Clinton espoused the notion of a right wing one.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): Now I've heard it all. Do conservatives know no shame?
Riduculous.
DX, I really think this is a stretch, and not worthy of you. You have made a lot of valid and interesting observations in the past, and often well worth the read, however this really sounds like a "Loose Change" or "Moon Landings" theory.
DXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2904 times:
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 18): DX, I really think this is a stretch, and not worthy of you. You have made a lot of valid and interesting observations in the past, and often well worth the read, however this really sounds like a "Loose Change" or "Moon Landings" theory.
I guess the question remains, whose in charge of Chrysler right now? Who is picking what dealerships survive and which don't? In a few weeks GM will perhaps be 70% owned by the government, 20% by the Union. GM has already announced plans to cut dealerships. If the same scenario is played out again what will your position be then? Hard to ignore some profitable dealerships at Chrysler being closed while other ones not as well off are left alone. What reasoning could there be for that?
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12331 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2902 times:
New Jersey and Michigan, which both went for Obama, had a higher than average rates by states of Chrysler Co. dealerships noticed for closure.
I have observed from dealerships noticed for closure in my area (Northern New Jersey) a number of factors that seem to be much more important than who the owners voted for.
-Only sold one brand (Dodge, Chrysler or Jeep)
-Not on major retailer and other car dealer highways or roads or were 'in town' sites.
-Wouldn't modernize to the new appearance and signage requirements while a close by dealer did.
-Selling too few cars. One Dodge dealer in Kearny, NJ that was noticed of closure was only selling 50 new cars a year, in an urban area, small lot, old, tiny building, small shop.
-Sold more of competiting brand cars in the same or adjacent dealership site
-Too close to another high volume and profitable dealership.
-Dealerships that looked like the younger generation of ownership were not interested in going into the business.
-Were too easy about seeking warranty claims for their customers.
-Bad service from the showroom to the shop.
-Too small to stock requied range of parts needed to reduce service delays or having to go to a close by same co dealer.
-Wouldn't spend enough of their money in advertising (most ads are co-paid by the major car co's)
-Too many complaints from customers as to bad service, racial or gender discrimation, rip-offs as to deals (high dealership fees = profit gotchas).
-Couldn't or wouldn't do the financial deals (no money down! $100 Month! $1000 for any klunker trade in) competitors would.
-Loss of capitalization and access to money from banks. Since September, many dealerships lost the ability to borrow due to the tighter makets, lack of capital to put up to borrow.
-Wouldn't take cars, perhaps more than they could sell for a profit, being forced on them to keep the production lines up.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4630 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2895 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 19): I guess the question remains, whose in charge of Chrysler right now? Who is picking what dealerships survive and which don't? In a few weeks GM will perhaps be 70% owned by the government, 20% by the Union. GM has already announced plans to cut dealerships. If the same scenario is played out again what will your position be then? Hard to ignore some profitable dealerships at Chrysler being closed while other ones not as well off are left alone. What reasoning could there be for that?
I would hazard to guess that based on the "patriot" aspect and how imports have infiltrated (or not) the interior of the country (the "red" part) there is likely a preponderance of "GOP" dealerships there and so a likelihood that more "GOP" dealerships would be closed down.
Now here's the question to you. Are you suggesting that the government or the courts ought to interfere and force the companies to show party preference and balance when closing dealerships? Kinda like race quota's. I am against anything like this.
As to who is in charge, the management is in charge. And the board is in charge of the management. Would you want it any other way?
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
FreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 804 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): Now I've heard it all. Do conservatives know no shame?
Riduculous.
Sorry, but this isn't moonbat territory. This story seems to be gaining legs.
"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."
He added the government task force, which he criticized for
having no members with retail experience was, in effect,
attacking U.S. entrepreneurs."
Likewise, a big Dem donor group was allowed to keep ALL of its dealerships open after talks with the Obama task force. It's competition was quickly given the pink slip.
This story may definitely have some legs...way too many "coincidences" here. Of course, Falcon and co are eager to write the story off for obvious reasons. He couldn't possibly imagine this President doing such a thing.
The question is: why would it surprise you if this President DID do such a thing? He's a Chicago politician after all, where this is quite common. He bought his house from a man (Tony Rezko) in a crooked land deal that was quite obviously an example of political quid pro quo. Rezko is even in jail now for other reasons. His Senate seat was subsequently put up for sail in more political quid pro quo, leading to the impeachment of the Governor of Illinois. His Chief of Staff is another Chicago politician who once sent a dead fish to a political opponent's house. So is such political corruption beyond this President? Of course not.
Are politics at work here? Hard to tell so far, but it's certainly going to be looked into further. No doubt the mainstream media will ignore it but this is stirring up quite a hornet's nest in new media sources rather than the "mainstream" media. Which is why Falcon and some are so quick to dismiss it methinks.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16814 posts, RR: 57 Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2888 times:
""Our position is that the market can't support the number of
dealers that are out there," said spokeswoman Carrie McElwee.
"This has been our plan for more than 10 years to combine
Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep under one roof."
The decision about cutting dealers took into consideration
factors like location, customer satisfaction, and sales
potential, she said. Nearly half of the terminated dealers also
carry non-Chrysler brands, and most rely on used vehicles for
the bulk of their sales"
Sorry, but I think you guys are trying to make a story where there isn't one.
25 Dreadnought: It reminds me of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Stalin was so loved by the population, that when people saw all the injustices, farms being made into
26 FreequentFlier: Don't like blogs? Try that notoriously right-wing news feed known as Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...ndRetailNews/idUSN26327319200905
27 Yellowstone: You're referencing two different stories. One claimed that dealerships that donated to Obama were being protected from closure - that was the one fro
28 FreequentFlier: Why would it be? You'd have to be a liberal to believe otherwise. People work based on not only their absolute dollars but their marginal dollars. If
29 Asuflyer05: I'd be interested in which points had multiple brands, were new image stores, their respective market share, etc than whether they donated to the Demo
30 Ken777: The combined list of dealers cut is financially able to provide legal representation in court to present their case. There are issues that I feel need
31 Yellowstone: There's this old adage, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Claiming that there is any sort of large scale abstention from the US
32 DocLightning: " target=_blank>http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...90526 Please list a single line in that article that supports the initial accusation that the
33 Baroque: So I am able to work out from all this that Obama's best way forward would be to allow a few more large corporations to go bankrupt so he can selectiv
34 DXing: If it were the companies doing the closing but right now they are completely beholden to the administrations automotive task force. Everything they h
35 Mt99: Maybe you can use the same "rock-solid" words you have used before "Perhaps, but there definitely seems to be an appearance of impropriety here. So f
36 RFields5421: While this thread seems to be largely the same old practice of each side picking unrelated quotes and electronic sound bites - the basic point of the
37 DXing: Even at 80/20 the numbers are still skewed. According to the original article 1 dealership on the list contributed to the Obama camapaign, the rest d
38 Klaus: In the complete absence of a comparative investigation of the retained dealerships your claim is simply wrong. Such a conclusion cannot be made on th
39 DXing: What dealerships are left is irrevelant. They will still be open and doing business. The ones closed will not. BTW where is the faulty basis so far?
40 TransIsland: Why do you keep making up numbers? For all we know there may have only been a single dealership in the country donating to the Obama campaign... mayb
41 Klaus: Quite to the contrary – to the question whether there was partisan bias involved it is the essential question! If the partisan split among the reta
42 Falstaff: Car dealers are business people. Business people tend to lean Republican. So I would be willing to bet that a majority of car dealers in the US lean
43 DXing: Ok, so now we know your personal opinion. So you would be satisfied if we counted all the donations made by all the car dealers and then see what the
44 Mt99: How can you prove that? How can you personally say "Dealer A" is more profitable than "Dealer B" Are you privy to that information?
45 DXing: Baseless? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has
46 Dtwclipper: Yes, from your own article: "A more likely explanation is simply the fact that more Chrysler dealers in general are likely to be Republican contribut
47 Falstaff: No. I don't buy into the conspiracy thing either. Too many people would have to involved for that kind of thing to work. Plus you would have to throw
48 Dtwclipper: By the way DX, do we know the political affiliation of the remaining dealers?
49 Klaus: No, It is just evident that the claim you've made above is mathematically invalid. The information provided (of course assuming it is actually accura
50 DXing: If just as good as anyone elses WAG. Why? The automotive task force is made up of Obama supporters is it not? According to the numbers, if we are too
51 TransIsland: That alone is something I would like to see independently double-checked. Given the low voter turnout in the U.S. in general, I find it hard to belie
52 Falstaff: Also some of those 789 dealers should have been closed anyway. The dealers that were closed in my area were VERY close to another dealer and did not
53 LTBEWR: The lack of transparancy as to how Chrysler (and GM as well) in how they decided which dealerships were given notices of termination of their contract
54 2707200X: No it's a story by the Washington Examiner which is the same as the WT but smaller in distribution, practically every dealership in Chrysler who has d
55 Falstaff: By one rightest organization.... We righties don't all hold meetings and come up with stuff together. If he was only a Dodge dealer and not full line
56 FreequentFlier: I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to be "haunted" by.. The "appearance of impropriety" is an often used expression for a political situation whi
57 FreequentFlier: By the way, if there is nothing to this story, I will be the first to say so, so long as I am able to post here. I've seen evidence to suggest there i
58 Yellowstone: FF - a few problems with your claims. The 75/25 split you suggest is countered by other sources that put the ratio of GOP/Dem donations at roughly 90/
59 DocLightning: Well, I give up. I've looked everywhere. I've checked CNN, NYTimes, Fox News, Wall Street Journal (the latter two hardly being bastions of liberal tho
60 Klaus: You have produced none so far. Sorry, but that is a claim you can't make any more – you should have thought about that before posting completely un
61 DXing: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-playing-politics-chrysler-dealer/ There's even a White House rebuttal in there. Yet how many times have we be
62 Max550: Did you read the link you provided? Fox News did a random sample of 50 dealerships that are closing and 50 that are remaining open. 12% of the ones c
63 Dtwclipper: ." It's an article about the conservative blogers who started this, no more facts, nothing new to substantiate the charges.
64 DXing: It wasn't provided as a source to back up the allegation. Regardless a sample of 50 dealers being closed is a 5% sample. It will still be interesting
65 Dtwclipper: So, the allegations are false? Will you let this one rest now?
66 Max550: But if 6 of 50 gave to Republicans and 4 of 50 gave to Democrats it completely destroys the original argument that 1 in 789 dealers that are closing
67 Seb146: Since I own a Chrysler, let me throw in my own observation: I go to my local Chrysler dealership for everything. Oil changes, thermostat, steering pro
68 TransIsland: Time to close the thread, me thinks, as clearly, if even FOX denies it, these allegations are nonsense. 1. The auto task force pushed for closures, *
69 Mt99: e] It would be nice to see a retraction from the original poster.
70 Dtwclipper: Better yet, the OP should send a donation to the Pelosi re-election committee
72 Mt99: I bet he does retract. He if he wants to be believed in the future. If he retracts it will show that his is really impartial and is due some respect.
73 DocLightning: I want to hear it from Freequent and DXing. But we won't.
74 Mt99: I hope we do. They are both intelligent people. What this does highlight though - is the tailspin that the GOP/conservatives/opposition are in. A gro
75 Mayor: Well, this isn't just my argument. It's the argument of several Congressman from Ohio and Michigan that were on C-Span the other night. BTW, even tho
76 DXing: 1. Without further investigation you won't. 2. Fox does not deny it, they simply say that their "A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the da
77 FreequentFlier: What's to retract? I said there are conservative bloggers and mathematicians going through records right now and trying to construct various odds of
78 DocLightning: Told you, Mt99! Neither of these two will ever type or utter the words "I made a mistake." The White House and Chrysler have both stated that the WH
79 FreequentFlier: *slaps forehead* The White House denied it? OMG! Yowza! Case closed. Nothing to see here. These are not the droids you're looking for. Because if the
80 DocLightning: At no point does that article raise any issue about the partisan nature of the dealerships to be closed. I call on you to show some decency, humility
81 FreequentFlier: And Doc, I'll happily acknowledge if there's "no there there". But you are conveniently ignoring my other question: why in the hell is the federal gov
82 DocLightning: I am ignoring it because it is off-topic.
83 FreequentFlier: I have already acknowledged to you that I've seen evidence to suggest there is no scandal and some evidence to suggest there is corruption at work. S
84 Aaron747: Tabloids tend to have more resources and budget than your average big city newspaper these days. Their sales are certainly better. My, how the times
85 Dtwclipper: On the list of dealers staying open are donors to McGavick, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the National Republican Congressiona
86 FreequentFlier: Dtw, these are good sources and so Doc, AS I SAID I WOULD, I don't believe the story has legs due to the skewed political orientation of dealers. How
87 Dtwclipper: Thank you! Perhaps you'll be proven right and we'll all have to eat crow! Now, let's talk about gay marriage!
88 FreequentFlier: For the record, two members of the Senate (one Republican, one Democrat) have inquired about this topic and have asked for further investigation. http
89 DocLightning: Never said that. If I did, quote it. I call corruption when I see it. I don't see it. Yes, and I have also heard that they are off-topic, too. It was
90 Yellowstone: The article you quote makes absolutely no mention of politically-motivated dealer closure accusations. The Senators are responding to criticism that
91 FreequentFlier: I am assuming that there is no major form of political influence here until I see evidence otherwise (I will continue to look at evidence both for an
92 DocLightning: I think he wants to see it put to rest.
93 FreequentFlier: Yes, no kidding. And why do you think they would be investigating that? You think Claire McCaskill wants to learn about Dodge sales vs dealer lot acr
94 Klaus: When such claims were as baseless as the one in the opening post they have been routinely torn to shreds. When their claims were verifiable and had m
96 Baroque: My goodness, you actually get to give out the pencils next week, but only to half the class it seems. What an amazing thread. Aside from this nonsens
97 DXing: Well said. Well when we have some facts then maybe we can all make up our minds. Until then statements like this are calls to broom the potential pro
98 Dtwclipper: And each story is discrediting the bloger who started it! You call us "koolaide drinkers" but it seems that you folks on the far right are drinking o
99 Mayor: I'm wondering if maybe FIAT might change this decision and not close as many dealerships, although, I would think they were in on or privy to, the ori
100 LTBEWR: Perhaps what should happen is a series of Congressional hearings of Chrysler and a few dealerships with disclosure of documents by Chrysler's decision
101 DocLightning: From this thread, it's pretty obvious yours is made up. I told you we wouldn't see a retraction Mt99. I know them too well.
102 DXing: Each story raises questions which is as it should be. Yet some, who were vociferous in calling for investigations, still are for that matter, on the
103 Klaus: That's the whole point: You haven't provided any information about the normal reference. And given that it would have been very easy to verify once o
104 DXing: There is no "normal" reference point in this area. Never before have so many dealers been closed. You ignore Chrysler officials having said publicly
105 Dtwclipper: NO, where are you getting that from. Even your beloved FOX has discredited a single bloger. Don't you think that if there was a kernel of truth to th
106 D L X: Quick question: to those who think that GOP dealers were targetted (though that appears to be largely discredited) because more dealers that gave to R
107 TransIsland: Ehrrm... still one. ... and found 8% to be Democrat-supporters. 8% of 50 is 4. This means that the 795-1 claim is baseless. Are you really this bad a
108 DXing: They didn't discredit anyone since they only sampled a random 5%. Was he all over the John Edwards story? Your words. We have two samples. One is 795
109 Dtwclipper: And then some! I don't want to call the Enquierer real journalism, but at least the story wasn't being promoted by a lone right wing bloger. But that
110 DXing: O'Reilly wasn't on board with that story any sooner than the rest. I'm happy to see what an investigation brings to the fore, but for some here, the
111 Max550: Yes they did. They found 4 dealers out of 50 gave to Democrats. The original story was that 1 out of 789 gave to Democrats. I would have to say they
112 Yellowstone: Once again, it's not 795-1! Even if the 1 is right, which it probably isn't, that 795 includes all the dealers who didn't donate to anyone. The small
113 Max550: Exactly. If you go by the original story "Every one of them had donated almost exclusively to Republican candidates." Every one of them? According to
114 DXing: It always helps if you take the entire quote in context. Such reports led Ross to investigate whether there were any political motivations behind the
115 Klaus: The completely unprofessional and laughably false conclusions from your quoted blog being a shining example of that? Well, I hope you can afford the
116 Max550: I think that's how he twisted it into the truth. He only surveyed people who owned 2 or more dealerships that were closing. I'd be interested to see
117 Baroque: And you missed asking what "Every one of them had donated almost exclusively to Republican candidates." could possibly mean. This thread performs the
118 Max550: DXing: Where did you get the 789 number? Did you take the original story and assume he was talking about all dealerships or did you pick that up from
119 Max550: I really have no life. I did my own research, the same as the original story. Here is what I found. 36 people own one or more dealerships which is bei
120 DXing: Chrysler is closing 789 dealerships. Of those 789 as you point out... Nowhere in the thread that I know of did I say that the other 789 all gave to a
121 Max550: Right, but you posted the link in the first thread, which made no mention of the 789 dealerships, and the research they did only pertained to 36 peop
122 Max550: I just went through everything in that link. Keep in mind that Chrysler wanted to close the dealers that only have one or 2 lines rather than the one
123 Seb146: I think this is what happened to "my" Chrysler dealer. As stated in my previous post, I had been taking my beloved PT Cruiser to the Chrysler dealer
124 Max550: Clearly it is, they're getting more and more desperate. They obviously didn't check the facts on this one. At least they seem to have stopped talking
125 DXing: No, actually some us of have a life and do other things besides post. 789= the total number of dealerships being closed. It does not differentiate be
127 Seb146: I would like to see their sales numbers along side the numbers of those that donated to GOP candidates or the GOP itself. Again: Why keep a poorly pe
128 Max550: Must be nice, I need to get one of those No it didn't. If you refer back to the original link they looked at those dealers whose name appeared more t
129 TransIsland: Yes. In the (your) title of this thread: "GOP Dealerships Targeted?"
130 DXing: Which are of no concern since they remain open. Again, how many dealerships are being closed? Not how many people own how many dealerships but in tot
131 Dtwclipper: , Again, this is conjecture, you have no evidence that GOP Donors are being targeted. DX, let me ask you this, you started this thread on 5.27, don't
132 Max550: The link was provided to back up the claim that 80% of those remaining open were full-line dealers. I'm not arguing that 789 dealers were closed, I'm
133 DXing: As Max550 states: Which means the ratio is still 5-1 at this point. Do you think that is an adequate average? As to Fox, how do you know they aren't
134 Max550: The 5-1 ratio would be pretty telling, since 538.com put the percentage of dealerships that are Republican at 92%. I really don't care what the ratio
135 TransIsland: You now make the mistake of throwing ALL Republicans into the one pot, but excluding all the non-Obama-supporting Democrats. If you compared Republic
136 DXing: Because they are not President of the United States. President Obama is. I seriously doubt he is going to punish those within his party lest he tempt
137 Yellowstone: So you're basically admitting that the link in the OP did a half-assed job of his research. Thanks!
138 Max550: It goes beyond that, that's why it's been bothering me so much. It was clearly written in a way that was very vague about what actual numbers they co
139 DXing: When the police charge somone with a crime, do you think that is the end of the investigation? And exactly where is the GOP leadership tied up in thi
141 LMP737: Looking up contributions by an indivdual is rather easy. In the link bellow is the list of contribtions made by Jim Click and family. They own dealer
142 Baroque: Well actually it is an adverb. But leave that aside, the presence of almost in the phrase makes it close to meaningless as I pointed out what seems l
143 Yellowstone: Of course it isn't. But cops don't start reporting what they find until they have at least some idea of what's going on. What this guy did would be l
144 Max550: I took it to mean that every one of the dealers gave almost exclusively to Republican candidates. Meaning that all of the dealers who donated to cand
145 DXing: Maybe you need to go back and read the links in that original post. Bundling anyone? It does when someone writes what they are speaking. I don't know
146 Baroque: Well I suppose if writing what you are speaking automatically makes sense then it is pointless to argue that "Every one of them had donated almost ex
147 Yellowstone: I think the analogy breaks down when posting wild speculation to a blog is equated to reporting to the proper authorities. And there's nothing wrong
148 Max550: And while we're doing that we can investigate why GM, under the Gov't, will be closing Pontiac dealers. That will cut out a full 1/3 of GM's minority
149 Baroque: Indeed and you can bank on support from Aus where the dastardly deed on Pontiac pulls a fair bit of the rug from under Holden. So there is another mi
150 MD11Engineer: Well, I just had a look at the flyers published by our two biggest political parties for the upcoming county council elections next sunday. Besides of
151 DXing: I think it breaks down when you start using descriptive words like "wild" without first assessing the facts. Hmmm...1/3rd is still less than half.
152 LMP737: Just type in someones name. http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php Or you could go to the FEC site. http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml
153 Max550: What does half have to do with anything? Obama clearly wants to get rid of dealerships owned by minorities, so of the seven brands he chose Pontiac s
154 DXing: Hummer, sold and dealerships will remain. Saturn, prospective buyers-13, dealership closings uncertain. Pontiac, closing, so 1/3 is your magic number
155 Baroque: Just a question, are not some of those arguing that GOP dealers are unfairly targetted the same as argued that simple bankruptcy was the best solution
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20850 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
